Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

There we go again,.. The fine cedar temples and vast libraries of the West coast indians were all destroyed by the money hungry Europeans. So many operas and morality plays of their strong and dynamic culture were lost.
You might make a claim that a culture was destroyed in South America, but here, wandering and nomadic tribes were displaced and a society was created.
If you're against that, you always have the option of going back to the trees.

   

Anyone want to try answering my question?

Some on this thread have implicitly agreed with Bruce Allen, yet disagree with DangerMouse. As far as I can see their views are fundamentally similar.

   

[font=Comic Sans MS] Thank You! My point is partially that too often people think that history started as soon as the first boat people from Europe got here! That's not the case. There were rich aboriginal cultures in place here and still are! I saw the most interesting experience in my post-secondary days...there was a multi-cultural festival...all the other cultures had unique dances languages etc yet the caucasian canadians and americans were sitting there wondering what the heck to do? Were the suppose to sing "Take me Out To The Ballgame" in Mickey Mouse costumes? Which is why I started the "Oh Canada Our Home and Native Land" thread to hear some responses. Many people make fun of the natives like the guy who already made a comment about teepees but yet it is their own unique culture something that those "who laugh" do not have. As for the guy who called me a coward, well think about it boy, aboriginal people make up approximatelt 4% of overall Canadian population, so roughly several million versus a couple of million natives. Then pile up your lying media, right wing-nuts, the people who beat up indians for their cheap little thrills, native women going missing on HWY 16 in central BC! So my question WDHIII, who are the real cowards here? [/font]

   

DM are you taking anything for the ad nauseam you have ?

   

if you don't like what bruce allen said, don't listen.

free speech is still alive here in canada if you hadn't noticed! {for now}

   

With comments like these............


"Shut up and fit in!"

"Hit it!"

"We don't need you here"

"You have another place to go: It's called home!"


.......it's pretty easy to see Allen's xenophobia. While I don't think this is enough to warrant his removal from the airwaves, he certainly deserves all the public censure he gets from this.

   

What public censure is that. There's you shaking your head with a superior tsk, tsk, and that little troll guy saying whatever it is he's saying (I can't figure it out).

How is that public censure? I'd love to take a tour in the left wing brain sometime and discover how it is they can consider themselves the majority on any issue irregardless of all evidence to the contrary.

If you're talking about real world "public censure", it's a non-issue. It doesn't exist. If I hadn't heard about it here I wouldn't even know about it. There a few radicals complaining to a radio station. So what. Like they've never experienced that before.

As far as Allen's opinion piece goes. He makes his point with hyperbole, but it's a valid point. Immigrating to a country and expecting that country to change it's laws and culture to accommodate your own religious, or cultural eccentricities is not reasonable. You have the option of choosing not to come.

   

Easy, boy. I'll amend my comment to say that he deserves all the public censure he gets from this, however little that may be. Happy now?



Then why didn't he simply say it like that, without the inflammatory language?

It's how he made his point that provides us with the subtext: An unwarranted, generalised fear and loathing of immigrants.


PS "Irregardless" isn't a word.

   

Yes that's acceptable. Now let's work on the next one.



What exactly do you mean by inflammatory language. In the sense that it might incite a a physical reaction it's only inflammatory if you don't agree with what he's saying. In that sense any remark someone somewhere might not agree with is inflammatory, and maybe it is, but what I believe you're suggesting is an added context of it being unwarranted.

A guest arrives at your home. He's critical. For good manners sake you tolerate it. The bad behavior continues, and moves to the point where he's expecting you to make changes to accommodate his beliefs. At a certain point you say "well, if you don't like it here you're free to leave. In fact, you know how I live. Why did you come in the first place". In that case who's being inflammatory?

Allen's comments were fair editorial comment, in reaction to behavior we should be concerned about. I agreed with the guy. I didn't feel inflamed. All I felt was "Right on. It's about time somebody said it. He has a legitimate beef". There was nothing unwarranted. It was a response to unacceptable behavior.

Nor was it generalized (spelt with a Z by the way). He was talking about specific behaviors he no longer felt should be tolerated.

There was no loathing of immigrants. There was an impatience with bad behavior.

   

Hopefully you'll learn that it is possible to make a point that someone disagrees with without using inflammatory language. How strange that you would believe otherwise.

This is inflammatory language - and needlessly so:

"Shut up and fit in!"

"Hit it!"

"We don't need you here"

"You have another place to go: It's called home!"

Would Allen have been able to make his point without using such words? Of course. But instead he chose to pander to his audience's xenophobia - "Shut up and fit in" alone makes that perfectly clear.

And, of course, in the Canadian experience this attitude is wholly unwarranted.




An extremely shabby analogy. If the best you have are little bits of folk wisdom like this, you'll not be getting very far.

Each year we take in hundreds of thousands of newcomers, and they aren't "guests". They're here to stay, and on balance they have an overwhelmingly positive impact on Canada. And this is regardless of the hue and cry of those fearful bigots in our midst, fueled as they are in their hysteria by listening to commentary such as Bruce Allen's.





Given how his words appealed to emotion rather than intellect, and how they none-too-subtly conveyed the message that immigration is a problem, it cannot reasonably be said that Allen was being fair. The fact that you agree with him doesn't alter that - but does speak volumes about you.

I will agree, however, that many people have these attitudes only to conceal them when out and about in public. That doesn't mean that those attitudes are right, though.




Yes, he did briefly mention specific behaviours, but, once again, his inflammatory language ensured that a good portion of his audience would lose sight of any nuances and respond on an emotional level rather than a rational one.

Allen was irresponsible, stupid and unfair to the vast majority of immigrants to Canada, and his words will only have the effect of exacerbating already-widespread prejudices against them.

All for the sake of ratings, no doubt.




PS Nice try, but "generalised" is just fine. Are you one of JJ's American buddies?

   

Good idea. Let's discuss words, because your argument seems to rely on the complexities of their usage, and goes back to what we were discussing earlier. The mindset that considers one's interpretation automatically correct, and therefore the majority.

Curiously enough your belief generalise is the accepted Canadian spelling is not universally accepted.

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues ... erican.htm

Personally I don't care if it's one or the other. My purpose in the nitpick is to show you your belief in the correctness of something does not make it correct for all people.

With irregardless, for example, yes it's a double negative, but it's also become standardized through colloquial speech, and as such many who are not yourself could make what would appear to be a legitimate argument it is acceptable speech in a forum such as this one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Here's a warning so you have a chance to loosen your metaphorical ass a little. I also use words like "ain't", and "dis" when the situation warrants it.

So moving on to "inflammatory". It's the same thing. You see it as such. I don't. One might see Allen's whole shtick in every broadcast as inflammatory. I say, no. That's his shtick, and as such it neutralizes the effect of any particular broadcast being inflammatory in itself. It's more a case of that's what Allen does so it becomes just another broadcast. If you choose to see this particular one as inflammatory, that's your thing. Also there's a difference between action and reaction.

The purpose in the presented analogy was to show you the difference between action, and reaction.

The way you use the word inflammatory suggests an unwarranted, action initiated out of the blue with the soul purpose of inflaming listeners. Yes Allen's shtick is to be confrontational, but it's not an action, it's a reaction to what he sees as bad behavior. You can't inflame something that's already flaming.

I don't see that broadcast as inflammatory, so much as an inflamed reaction to bad behavior. His style of speech is an expression of this reaction. It is not an act designed to inflame others to bad behavior of their own.

Here's what I'm saying. You personally seeing Allen's style as inflammatory doesn't make it so for those of us who don't. If we'd like to see his broadcast as righteous indignation in reaction to an inflammatory situation we're free to do so. It's not inflammatory to us, because we're not inflamed by it. We were already pissed off.

What I object to in the way you use the word inflammatory, is it assumes, because you were inflamed we all were.

   

News came down that VANOC won't be dropping Allen so the enemies of free speech will have to try again.

   

[font=Comic Sans MS] I guess that won't change his "Old school miserable old fart big yap!" Maybe he should go drink more vodka.... [/font]

   

They say there is a shortage of booze in BC, I wonder why ?

   

DM's mom is pregnant again?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next