Canadian Entertainment, Music and Catch All II

[MolsonExport]

Conservatives love to point out that Trump/Poilievre, etc. "live rent free" (I loathe that expression) in the minds of those on the centre/left, but man, I think they not only pay the rent for Trudeau, they bribe him to take up residence.

[Acajack]

I have been a staunch defender of the CBC (and Radio-Canada) since my teen years and while some here think otherwise, I don't identify as a "conservative" like Elly does and won't be voting for the CPC in 2025.

That said I definitely sense some bias in the CBC and it has been growing in recent years. Not so much in terms of political parties (the Buffy Ste-Marie story isn't directly damaging to the Liberals, though perhaps it is to some of the ideology they defend) but definitely there are some ideological slants they seem to prefer over others.

Anything that some of us would call "woke" generally gets favourable or sympathetic treatment, and stuff that runs against those tenets is not typically portrayed in a positive light.

Admittedly you get this more in longer, talk-oriented programming on the CBC as opposed to newscasts, though the selection of what is covered by the news and what isn't, and what gets top billing and what gets a passing mention also tends to reflect this penchant.

With respect to the Buffy Ste-Marie story it's hard to see where it fits in to all of this, as on the one hand it has brought down one of the progressive movement's earliest and biggest shining lights, whereas on the other it is ironically very consistent with wokism's fondness for witch hunts, ideological and ethno-racial "purity" (masked as authenticity) and cancel culture.

[isaidso]

I used to be a strong backer of the CBC as well but stopped watching 8-9 years ago. Actually, I tuned out 95% of mainstream media around the same time. It became too focused on the US, UK, monarchy, and celebrity. There's a whole big world out there beyond that narrow focus so I eventually got fed up and turned it off.

It takes far more effort on my part, but I stay informed about the world by doing my own digging online and talking to people from around the world. I'll never go back to being a sheep consuming what ever mainstream media shove in front of me. I have a laptop and mouse and can sort out what's what myself.

Buffy Ste Marie. I have nothing against her but have ZERO interest in what she said, what she didn't say, or what colour coat she's wearing today. CBC and mainstream media. I don't care about what they have to say either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Wait, so it's all just speculation about hypotheticals rather than a critique of the actual coverage?

But yes, I can imagine what would happen if the shoe were reversed in many cases. Like if Pierre had intentionally appoint an equal number of male and female MPs to cabinet and 4 women left. Conservatives would have claimed it was just what happens when you try to appease the woke left by appointing people who aren't qualified. We know this because many did claim that the government appointed people who weren't qualified, assuming that's an inevitable result of equal representation. And if Pierre was found to have worn black face they would have whole heartedly defended him by pointing out it was a long time ago and it wasn't an important issue.

And as a Black person I was frustrated by the dialogue surrounding the blackface incident with people claiming Trudeau was given a special pass because of favouritism or some such. In reality, people like me didn't think it was that important because Trudeau was otherwise fairly strong on social issues so there was no indication it was due to actual racism rather than just poor judgement. But for someone with a different track record, that might not have been so clear. Let's say we place everyone on a scale of say, 1-100, with 1 being the most racist person possible who commits hate crimes, has a swastika tattoo, etc, while a 100 is the most perfectly anti-racist person possible. Under say, 30 points would be low enough to be a problem and over 70 would be exceptionally good. Most people would fall somewhere in between.

When you first meet someone before you know anything about them, you default them to a 50. Neither racist nor anti-racist. Then as you learn more about them that knowledge might position them differently. Discovering they did blackface in their younger years would make for a big deduction of say 25 points. So someone who was previously a 75 would drop to a 50. Not much of an issue. But someone who was already a 50 would drop to a 25. A bit of a problem. But in both cases the people are being treated equally. They were assigned their prior point position based on the same criteria which, for a politicians often means points are added or deducted based on their policies and public statements, while the same number of points were deducted for the transgression. The fact that the final total is different is not any form of inconsistency or unfairness and it makes a lot of sense that one would be scrutinized more closely than the other. But a big part of the problem is that some people aren't capable of such nuance.

With all due respect I do think that political leanings and even personal affinities (does someone rub us the right or wrong way?) play a huge role in how much slack we're willing to cut to people.

Just thinking about Jacques Parizeau (not sure what your views on him are) but he had a pretty exemplary record and was even married to a concentration camp survivor for 35 years who was the mother of his children, and he refers - totally accurately, in fact - to "money and (some) ethnic voting" once and he's tarred and feathered as a horrible racist, fascist and even a Nazi.

[MolsonExport]

Whatever his get-out-of-jail-card (married to a Holocaust survivor), Parizeau was out of line in the manner that he singled out ethnic people (and/or those with money, but that is not what provoked the negative reaction). He even admitted this years later, saying that his remarks "were most unfortunate and meriting the disapproval that they received". Singling out an ethnic group or groups as a scapegoat for electoral failure is irresponsible, especially when emotions are running high. It also has the effect of implying (which was the point) that these "ethnic" people are thwarting the will of "Nous"--i.e., the Quebecois de souche--and that by extension, are less "Quebeckers" than "Nous".

I don't think Parizeau is any more racist than Trudeau or for that matter Poilievre (which is to say, none of them are racist), but he used his bully pulpit to incite anger towards ethnic minorities. There were incidents of very foul language and vitriol received by some ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the referendum result. Parizeau should have known better. It was, and quite rightly so, a smear on an otherwise impressive professional career.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Whatever his get-out-of-jail-card (married to a Holocaust survivor), Parizeau was out of line in the manner that he singled out ethnic people (and/or those with money, but that is not what provoked the negative reaction). He even admitted this years later, saying that his remarks "were most unfortunate and meriting the disapproval that they received". Singling out an ethnic group or groups as a scapegoat for electoral failure is irresponsible, especially when emotions are running high. It also has the effect of implying (which was the point) that these "ethnic" people are thwarting the will of "Nous"--i.e., the Quebecois de souche--and that by extension, are less "Quebeckers" than "Nous".

I don't think Parizeau is any more racist than Trudeau or for that matter Poilievre (which is to say, none of them are racist), but he used his bully pulpit to incite anger towards ethnic minorities. There were incidents of very foul language and vitriol received by some ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the referendum result. Parizeau should have known better. It was, and quite rightly so, a smear on an otherwise impressive professional career.

Mostly agree, with the caveat that Parizeau only re-stated what members of a whole bunch of communities had already said themselves, ie "all Jews must vote Non!", "all Italians must vote Non!", "all Greeks must vote Non!", etc.

About this historical moment, he also later said this:

«Je n'ai mis personne en prison et on m'a traité de fasciste et d'intolérant. C'est ça l'image. Pierre Trudeau a fait mettre 500 personnes en prison et c'est un grand démocrate. Je ne veux plus jouer ce jeu-là!»

Just noticed BTW that today is the 28th anniversary of that speech.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

With all due respect I do think that political leanings and even personal affinities (does someone rub us the right or wrong way?) play a huge role in how much slack we're willing to cut to people.

People tend to have a political affinity for people who do/say more things they approve of compared to people they disagree with. If say, someone cares about the rights and respectful treatment of a particular minority group then they're likely to affiliate with politicians and parties they feel are best in that regard. And if they feel a politician or party is best in that regard based on their prior track record then yes they'll give the person/party more leeway because of that history. But the fact that the politician/party garnered the person's trust and support to begin with tends to be because of things the person/party said and did. Obviously there are people who vote a certain way solely out of tradition or that's how their friends and family vote, but I'd be surprised if that's a very big percentage.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

People tend to have a political affinity for people who do/say more things they approve of compared to people they disagree with. If say, someone cares about the rights and respectful treatment of a particular minority group then they're likely to affiliate with politicians and parties they feel are best in that regard. And if they feel a politician or party is best in that regard based on their prior track record then yes they'll give the person/party more leeway because of that history. But the fact that the politician/party garnered the person's trust and support to begin with tends to be because of things the person/party said and did. Obviously there are people who vote a certain way solely out of tradition or that's how their friends and family vote, but I'd be surprised if that's a very big percentage.

Agreed, though none of this precludes cutting people more or less slack for the exact same "sins" depending on whether someone is or isn't from the same ideological or political family.

For an example from the relationships world, think of the newlywed still madly in love with her hubby who thinks it's cute how he leaves his dirty underwear in a ball on the floor of the bathroom, versus the frustrated middle-aged wife who thinks her husband of 25 years is the worst asshole in the world for doing the exact same thing. (Actually the exact same person is capable of having the same reaction vis-à-vis the same husband at different stages of her life.)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Agreed, though none of this precludes cutting people more or less slack for the exact same "sins" depending on whether someone is or isn't from the same ideological or political family.

For an example from the relationships world, think of the newlywed still madly in love with her hubby who thinks it's cute how he leaves his dirty underwear in a ball on the floor of the bathroom, versus the frustrated middle-aged wife who thinks her husband of 25 years is the worst asshole in the world for doing the exact same thing. (Actually the exact same person is capable of having the same reaction vis-à-vis the same husband at different stages of her life.)

To be clear, I'm not saying such a thing isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't think it's a factor in this case.

Also I'm not sure your example is the best one for what you're describing. In the case of newlyweds vs a long married couple, yes the wife will be more annoyed once she's been subjected to years of annoying bahaviour. But that is based on things the husband has actually done over the years affecting how she reacts to him and that dynamic would be consistent with any other partner she had. If the new spouse had done annoying things around her for 25 years she would be equally annoyed with him so there's nothing really inconsistent about her reaction. A better example would be something like, a person treating two of their partners differently when the two partners' track records of current and past behaviours were exactly same because one partner was taller or better looking than the other, or a different race etc. So she was just showing favouritism toward one based on things the partner had no control over.

[Acajack]

The Buffy kerfuffle is a pretty good example of what I'm saying.

People who would normally be all reverential and hold all things specifically and uniquely Indigenous as sacrosanct are all pissed at the CBC for going after Buffy.

Why is that? Because they like Buffy and what she stands or stood for.

It doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that it's her that's involved.

Now, people should know that I am of the view that culture is mostly acquired as opposed to innate. So I happen to believe that people like Buffy should be able to become full-fledged members of an Indigenous nation.

Heck, I even think that there maybe should have been a way for someone as passionate as Rachel Dolezal to be considered a full-fledged member of the African-American community. (Minus all the fraud and deceit of course - actually, it wouldn't have been necessary in that case.)

But our times don't allow for such things.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

To be clear, I'm not saying such a thing isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't think it's a factor in this case.

Also I'm not sure your example is the best one for what you're describing. In the case of newlyweds vs a long married couple, yes the wife will be more annoyed once she's been subjected to years of annoying bahaviour. But that is based on things the husband has actually done over the years affecting how she reacts to him and that dynamic would be consistent with any other partner she had. If the new spouse had done annoying things around her for 25 years she would be equally annoyed with him so there's nothing really inconsistent about her reaction. A better example would be something like, a person treating two of their partners differently when the two partners' track records of current and past behaviours were exactly same because one partner was taller or better looking than the other, or a different race etc. So she was just showing favouritism toward one based on things the partner had no control over.

I know you're not saying this directly but I don't see how anyone honest could claim that under a scenario where the Justin Trudeau Blackface thingy never happened but all of the rest of our political history remained the same, that if the exact same photos of Pierre Poilievre came out and that the same explanations were given, that millions of people who gave Trudeau a break on that one would be going apeshit on Poilievre, and we'd be hearing about it every single day until 2025.

And under the rules of political engagement, they'd be perfectly correct and justified to do so. I just find it dishonest that people claim they wouldn't.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Buffy kerfuffle is a pretty good example of what I'm saying.

People who would normally be all reverential and hold all things specifically and uniquely Indigenous as sacrosanct are all pissed at the CBC for going after Buffy.

Why is that? Because they like Buffy and what she stands or stood for.

It doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that it's her that's involved.

Now, people should know that I am of the view that culture is mostly acquired as opposed to innate. So I happen to believe that people like Buffy should be able to become full-fledged members of an Indigenous nation.

Heck, I even think that there maybe should have been a way for someone as passionate as Rachel Dolezal to be considered a full-fledged member of the African-American community. (Minus all the fraud and deceit of course - actually, it wouldn't have been necessary in that case.)

But our times don't allow for such things.

I'm not sure the two bolded lines really work together. They like her and what she stands for, but that isn't because of anything she said or did? How can someone stand for something without doing anything?

That's the whole problem with these discussions. The idea that every event should be taken in complete isolation without considering the person's track record or other behaviour makes no sense. It's like if a court refused to consider prior offenses during sentencing, Or the police refusing to consider prior warnings when deciding if they should issue a ticket. I can't comment specifically on the Buffy stuff since I don't know any of the details but in general the "every incident in isolation" doctrine as being a path to fairness doesn't make sense.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure the two bolded lines really work together. They like her and what she stands for, but that isn't because of anything she said or did? How can someone stand for something without doing anything?

That's the whole problem with these discussions. The idea that every event should be taken in complete isolation without considering the person's track record or other behaviour makes no sense. It's like if a court refused to consider prior offenses during sentencing, Or the police refusing to consider prior warnings when deciding if they should issue a ticket. I can't comment specifically on the Buffy stuff since I don't know any of the details but in general the "every incident in isolation" doctrine as being a path to fairness doesn't make sense.

Apologies if you don't have all the info but it seems fairly clear.

A - Buffy Ste-Marie was an advocate for Indigenous rights and culture for 60 years, bringing the "cause" to millions of people who otherwise would have remained ignorant of all that.

B - Buffy Ste-Marie, it appears, also lied about her Indigenous origins and weaved a complex web of deceit with more and more contradictions that eventually caught up with her. She also intimidated (often viciously) people who threated to expose her.

Her supporters are quite adamant that B should be overlooked and not even discussed, because of A.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Isn't Norm MacDonald more of a Québec City guy? At least officially?

He spent his early life in Quebec. From Wikipedia: He attended Quebec High School before his family moved to Ottawa, Ontario. In Ottawa, Macdonald attended Gloucester High School. He claimed to have dropped out at sixteen, but may in fact have graduated two years early. He studied mathematics and philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa before dropping out. Macdonald was later also briefly enrolled in Algonquin College's programs for journalism and broadcasting-television, following his elder brother Neil Macdonald's footsteps. He worked a variety of manual labor jobs in between periods of school and before starting in comedy.

Macdonald's first performances in comedy were at stand-up clubs in Ottawa, regularly appearing on amateur nights at Yuk Yuk's in 1985.

The infamous Cosby/Ottawa story

• Video Link

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Apologies if you don't have all the info but it seems fairly clear.

A - Buffy Ste-Marie was an advocate for Indigenous rights and culture for 60 years, bringing the "cause" to millions of people who otherwise would have remained ignorant of all that.

B - Buffy Ste-Marie, it appears, also lied about her Indigenous origins and weaved a complex web of deceit with more and more contradictions that eventually caught up with her. She also intimidated (often viciously) people who threated to expose her.

Her supporters are quite adamant that B should be overlooked and not even discussed, because of A.

I think you're right in most cases where people say something is good if one person does it and bad when another person does it. Especially if they only think something is good or bad based on whether or not they like a person. I was referring to cases like the JT blackface where everyone agreed it was bad but opinions differed on how bad it was with people like me not being as worried since they didn't believe it indicated that he was racist while others pretending to be outraged out of political expediency. A case like that is context sensitive since it isn't as much about the actual act as it is what it says about the person committing it. There is a long history of racist people conducting minstrel shows by donning costumes w/ blackface to mock and denigrate black people. It unfortunately still occasionally happens and is still a sore point. So when someone does it nowadays, it can mean one of four things (from least worst to worst).

1) They were unaware of that history and just wanted to make a convincing costume that looked like a POC character (ignorance)
2) They were aware of the history but didn't care about it or how their actions would be perceived (racial insensitivity)
3) They were aware of that history and intentionally wanted to do it to be provocative and edgy (more severe racial insensitivity)
4) They were racist and wanted to continue the tradition of mocking Black people. (Racism).

The context is necessary to inform which interpretation is most suitable with people's reactions being increasingly worse the further down the list one goes.

Based on your description of the Buffy stuff, there could also be room for interpretation. Behaviour B could be be due to,

1) A greedy, selfish person who doesn't care about indigenous people but who wanted to promote or indulge themselves by fabricating a connection to the indigenous community
2) A person who genuinely cared about indigenous people and perhaps once believed she was one. Then reacted poorly to the discovery she wasn't, going too far to avoid embarrassment.

The two interpretations would warrant different reactions, and context A would help to inform which interpretation is best. But neither would be good or acceptable. The general public is certainly capable of such things, but fortunately I don't think there's a problem with the CBC in that regard.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by elly63

Just came across this, he really has the soul of a comedian much like another Ottawa guy. RIP

I'm not sure what to think now

• Video Link

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

2) A person who genuinely cared about indigenous people and perhaps once believed she was one. Then reacted poorly to the discovery she wasn't, going too far to avoid embarrassment.

Setting aside the specifics of this case it's too bad that inter-cultural appreciation has become a bit of a minefield. There is nothing wrong with a white person earnestly loving African American culture per se.

I don't think it actually is cultural membership or genetic background that creates the toxic environment, it's the social status and privilege. Typically status for a few chosen people, although Indian status and band membership cause wider dynamics. Nobody cares if a random person fakes being Italian in Canada because there is no consequence.

The JT approach of doing things like picking cabinet members based on group membership, aside from adding constraints and making it harder to find specialists (while dooming bad picks to subpar performance in some cases), will tend to create a toxic environment where people have to focus on and police race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc. In that world there's an incentive to find group memberships and strip competitors of group memberships. I don't think he is racist but I wonder if he has a weird relationship to this stuff as a very privileged person who engaged in what at the time was some cringey behaviour.

[elly63]

Not sure if I posted this before, Norm's homage to Wayne and Shuster. Interesting to see SNL's Lorne Michaels as the last guest. He was Frank Shuster's son-in-law.

You can hear Johnny and Frank in the background

• Video Link

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think you're right in most cases where people say something is good if one person does it and bad when another person does it. Especially if they only think something is good or bad based on whether or not they like a person. I was referring to cases like the JT blackface where everyone agreed it was bad but opinions differed on how bad it was with people like me not being as worried since they didn't believe it indicated that he was racist while others pretending to be outraged out of political expediency. A case like that is context sensitive since it isn't as much about the actual act as it is what it says about the person committing it. There is a long history of racist people conducting minstrel shows by donning costumes w/ blackface to mock and denigrate black people. It unfortunately still occasionally happens and is still a sore point. So when someone does it nowadays, it can mean one of four things (from least worst to worst).

1) They were unaware of that history and just wanted to make a convincing costume that looked like a POC character (ignorance)
2) They were aware of the history but didn't care about it or how their actions would be perceived (racial insensitivity)
3) They were aware of that history and intentionally wanted to do it to be provocative and edgy (more severe racial insensitivity)
4) They were racist and wanted to continue the tradition of mocking Black people. (Racism).

The context is necessary to inform which interpretation is most suitable with people's reactions being increasingly worse the further down the list one goes.
.

Being an extremely close contemporary of Justin Trudeau (we're very close in age) and like him having grown up mostly in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle with a foot in both francophone and anglophone Canada, I've always said I can't believe that an explanation for the blackface incidents (at least three of them) was innocent ignorance.

There isn't anyone like Justin and I who wouldn't have known and that rules out (1) for me. (In one photo he also has a banana stuck down the front of his pants. He needed a place to store fruit while keeping his hands free?)

In his case it's likely a (2) or a (3). Unlikely to be (4) though.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Mostly agree, with the caveat that Parizeau only re-stated what members of a whole bunch of communities had already said themselves, ie "all Jews must vote Non!", "all Italians must vote Non!", "all Greeks must vote Non!", etc.

About this historical moment, he also later said this:

«Je n'ai mis personne en prison et on m'a traité de fasciste et d'intolérant. C'est ça l'image. Pierre Trudeau a fait mettre 500 personnes en prison et c'est un grand démocrate. Je ne veux plus jouer ce jeu-là!»

Just noticed BTW that today is the 28th anniversary of that speech.

ok, maybe but the October Crisis and other terrorist incidents perpetuated by the FLQ was an entirely different manner. Pierre Laporte and James Cross were kidnapped, and the former was murdered. The Montreal Stock Exchange was bombed, and so too was a Canadian Army recruiting centre. There were over 160 violent incidents, and a total of eight people were killed (with many more injured).