The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I agree. The U.S. is an easier example because the dysfunctions are laid bare so much more. You hear people saying there is no systemic racism because MLK and others fought to get rid of it, and now legally no black person can be denied their rights, jobs, opportunities etc. I think there's an important difference between systemic and systematic though. Systematic racism in the sense of Jim Crow laws may be lone gone, but underlying dysfunctions within the system (systemic) undoubtedly still exist. I'm thinking of things like the fact that black people have traditionally been denied the two greatest wealth-building/social mobility tools in American society, that being access to credit and home equity appreciation. Middle-class black families in Detroit who work at the same auto plant and earn the same income as their white coworkers, but whose homes have gained almost no value or potentially even lost it because they're located in black neighbourhoods. I'm not talking about the bombed-out inner city even. Somewhere like this that looks like it could be middle class neighbourhood in Hamilton where homes go for $400,000, but instead they're worth $150,000 and have appreciated like 20% since the owner bought it decades ago:




You could say that they have the freedom to move wherever they like, but people don't like to feel like outsiders and have familial and cultural roots in certain places. I would argue that a black person's wealth lagging behind their peers solely because they want to live in the community where they grew up, where their friends and family are, could be a victim of systemic racism. There's no sinister plot at the highest levels of government to keep these asset price and their owner's depressed, it's just a symptom of dysfunction in the system that disproportionately effects people of a certain group.

I should've typed this out about First Nations in Canada but I was browsing house prices across Detroit and this was the first thing that came to mind.

One could argue that these people are trying to have it both ways though.

Let's stick to whites for the sake of this example.

Imagine Industrial Chicago (or Detroit, or Hamilton) a century ago. Imagine everyone's white.

A bunch of those white people are Polish immigrants. They like to live among themselves. So there's a Polish neighborhood, where all the signs are in Polish, the grocery stores only bother selling Polish food and ingredients, the only churches are RC with services unilingually in Polish, the only language you ever hear on the streets is Polish, etc.

They enjoy that. But then, people who don't speak Polish and/or wouldn't feel comfortable living in a semi-alien environment are not really interested in renting or buying property in that particular neighborhood, not when there are so many more typical Anglo-American flavored neighborhoods available in various areas of the city.

In a normal open-to-all neighborhood, whenever a property comes up for sale, the pool of potential buyers for it is the entirety of Chicago.

In the Polish neighborhood, whenever a property is for sale, the pool of potential buyers is Chicago's fluent-in-Polish ethnic Poles - a much smaller pool.

So property values are markedly lower.

So the Polish-speaking ethnic Poles, who enjoy their "Little Warsaw" neighborhood in Chicago, are at the same time complaining that the property values in it aren't anywhere near as high as they are in some other comparable neighborhoods.

Now, in this example, what would you recommend exactly? And in which proportions do you assign blame?

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I see your point but there is absolutely NO analogy to be made between long-established African-Americans and black people who live in areas of Toronto like Jane-Finch. People in Jane-Finch overwhelmingly have roots in Canada only going back barely half a century or less (often far less) and as such actually have more in common in terms of "newness" and having a clean slate in their new home with those successful recent black immigrants you're talking about in the U.S.

We can have a discussion as to why things don't always turn out so well for people in Jane-Finch or Malvern, but any idea that it's because they have long-term intergenerational historical "ties" (read = baggage) with Canada would be inaccurate.

In Ottawa there is a unfortunately decent-sized dempographic of black youth that is troubled on a number of levels, and their origins in the country/city only go back to the first part of the 1990s for the most part.

I just used Jane and Finch as an economically depressed area that everyone would recognize by name. There isnt really an analogy for the African American experience among black people in Canada. The better example is an indigenous person living with no economic potential on a reservation, but long-standing cultural or family pressure keeping them there.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

One could argue that these people are trying to have it both ways though.

Let's stick to whites for the sake of this example.

Imagine Industrial Chicago (or Detroit, or Hamilton) a century ago. Imagine everyone's white.

A bunch of those white people are Polish immigrants. They like to live among themselves. So there's a Polish neighborhood, where all the signs are in Polish, the grocery stores only bother selling Polish food and ingredients, the only churches are RC with services unilingually in Polish, the only language you ever hear on the streets is Polish, etc.

They enjoy that. But then, people who don't speak Polish and/or wouldn't feel comfortable living in a semi-alien environment are not interested in renting or buying property in that particular neighborhood.

In a normal open-to-all neighborhood, whenever a property comes up for sale, the pool of potential buyers for it is the entirety of Chicago.

In the Polish neighborhood, whenever a property is for sale, the pool of potential buyers is Chicago's fluent-in-Polish ethnic Poles - a much smaller pool.

So property values are markedly lower.

So the Polish-speaking ethnic Poles, who enjoy their "Little Warsaw" neighborhood in Chicago, are at the same time complaining that the property values in it aren't anywhere near as high as they are in some other comparable neighborhoods.

Now, in this example, what would you recommend exactly? And in which proportions do you assign blame?

While things are obviously not that hermetic, you just described the Gatineau housing market vs. the Ottawa housing market in a nutshell.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

You could say that they have the freedom to move wherever they like, but people don't like to feel like outsiders and have familial and cultural roots in certain places. I would argue that a black person's wealth lagging behind their peers solely because they want to live in the community where they grew up, where their friends and family are, could be a victim of systemic racism. There's no sinister plot at the highest levels of government to keep these asset price and their owner's depressed, it's just a symptom of dysfunction in the system that disproportionately effects people of a certain group.

But the only way that would change is if other people suddenly found those neighbourhoods desirable and began to bid on properties, driving up prices. But when that does happen, it's labelled "gentrification" and is denounced as racism.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While things are obviously not that hermetic, you just describe the Gatineau housing market vs. the Ottawa housing market in a nutshell.

I lived through this myself (and benefited from dumb luck). One of the neighborhoods in FL where I have a few properties was 100.00% homogeneously black when I started in 2011/2012. The cap rates were great, and I'm 0% racist, so I figured, no prob, I'll just be limited to black tenants but I don't see this as not viable.

And for the first couple years, only blacks were interested in renting.

(That indeed kept rents low-ish for the greater metro area.)

But then whites started to move into the neighborhood (which is well located and convenient). It became a lot more diverse. I think nowadays it's probably a third black, a third white and a third Latino.

So now my renters are ethnically diverse, rents are higher, and main effect of all, property values have increased insanely.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Andy6

But the only way that would change is if other people suddenly found those neighbourhoods desirable and began to bid on properties, driving up prices. But when that does happen, it's labelled "gentrification" and is denounced as racism.

The example I described above was indeed labeled "gentrification" and I was several times accused personally of having helped it happen (accusations that, as you can guess, I totally shrugged off) as I did contribute directly to several improvements in that neighborhood in addition to helping displace bad tenants after acquisitions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I just used Jane and Finch as an economically depressed area that everyone would recognize by name. There isnt really an analogy for the African American experience among black people in Canada. The better example is an indigenous person living with no economic potential on a reservation, but long-standing cultural or family pressure keeping them there.

Regardless, I wonder if black newcomers to Toronto predominantly settle in neighbourhoods that have more blacks. My guess is that they probably often do. Not solely because they want to be around other black people (though some people do) but because of contacts: your uncle John's friend rents apartments there, a cousin runs a pizza parlour and he'll give you your first job...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While things are obviously not that hermetic, you just described the Gatineau housing market vs. the Ottawa housing market in a nutshell.

And, just as in my other examples, if all Gatineau residents switched to using only Fluent English while successfully getting the territory of the municipality permanently handed over to Ontario and merged into the City of Ottawa, the net worth of all property-owning Gatinois would greatly increase overnight.

(Out of curiosity - would you root for that? )

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by lio45

One could argue that these people are trying to have it both ways though.

Let's stick to whites for the sake of this example.

Imagine Industrial Chicago (or Detroit, or Hamilton) a century ago. Imagine everyone's white.

A bunch of those white people are Polish immigrants. They like to live among themselves. So there's a Polish neighborhood, where all the signs are in Polish, the grocery stores only bother selling Polish food and ingredients, the only churches are RC with services unilingually in Polish, the only language you ever hear on the streets is Polish, etc.

They enjoy that. But then, people who don't speak Polish and/or wouldn't feel comfortable living in a semi-alien environment are not interested in renting or buying property in that particular neighborhood.

In a normal open-to-all neighborhood, whenever a property comes up for sale, the pool of potential buyers for it is the entirety of Chicago.

In the Polish neighborhood, whenever a property is for sale, the pool of potential buyers is Chicago's fluent-in-Polish ethnic Poles - a much smaller pool.

So property values are markedly lower.

So the Polish-speaking ethnic Poles, who enjoy their "Little Warsaw" neighborhood in Chicago, are at the same time complaining that the property values in it aren't anywhere near as high as they are in some other comparable neighborhoods.

Now, in this example, what would you recommend exactly? And in which proportions do you assign blame?

A "normal, open-to-all neighbourhood" is a pretty recent urban phenomenon though. It wasn't that long ago that every neighbourhood was either Polish, or Italian, or German, Jewish, etc. Lots of neighbourhoods were segmented as such, but none saw the depression that black communities did once they were deemed no-go zones after the race riots. Other ethnic enclaves didn't experience it so it's an odd hypothetical. The Ukranian village is one of the more desirable areas in Chicago. Even the poor and heavily-Hispanic Pilsen, while considered a little rough around the edges, has never carried the same perception as nearby Garfield Park.

These places were seen as gentrification opportunities while others weren't.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I just used Jane and Finch as an economically depressed area that everyone would recognize by name. There isnt really an analogy for the African American experience among black people in Canada.

North End Halifax has public housing projects inhabited by a large proportion of black people who have lived in the area for hundreds of years. Uniacke Square and Mulgrave Park are two examples. Metro Halifax also has a number of intact historic black areas.

I think there is a genuine historical wrong in that some of them owned property and it was taken from them, and they were given public housing in exchange which they do not own and can't easily improve over time or adapt to run businesses in and so on. I don't think there would be much of an outcry if the old property were given back in cases where historical occupation or ownership can be demonstrated.

But one aspect of the whole story that people tend not to appreciate is that the public housing development was a progressive interventionist project in the 1960's, not a conservative project. The conservative racists simply ignored the poor black areas (which to be clear was not a good policy; lots of people lacked basic services back then).

Yet you still hear "groundhog day" type arguments about how it would all be better if only people were sympathetic and the government gave $X for whatever. And the old government project is often treated as some kind of intentional evil plot, incorrectly implying that if we mean well today and do something similar things will turn out differently. Predictably there are also the anti-gentrification folks who get upset at any new development around the public housing, even though it brings in new business and employment opportunities (and just generally makes the area more interesting).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

And, just as in my other examples, if all Gatineau residents switched to using only Fluent English while successfully getting the territory of the municipality permanently handed over to Ontario and merged into the City of Ottawa, the net worth of all property-owning Gatinois would greatly increase overnight.

(Out of curiosity - would you root for that? )

No. For a variety of reasons. And not just the obvious ones you might think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

North End Halifax has public housing projects inhabited by a large proportion of black people who have lived in the area for hundreds of years. Uniacke Square and Mulgrave Park are two examples. Metro Halifax also has a number of intact historic black areas.
).

Yeah, that's almost the only place in Canada where you have this on a truly visible scale. With the possible exception of a few towns in SW Ontario.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...m/?arc404=true

Also, some 746869843 social media messages related to the U of O n-word scandal where countless people let loose with "fucking frog" and other slurs and abuse against individual francophones and francophones collectively and (of course) Quebec too.

Just to name a "few".

Is J.J. McCollough actually representative of any Canadian school of thought? My impression of him is that he's mostly speaking to an American audience and that his views seem to be deliberately and insincerely provocative to Canadian sensibilities.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Is J.J. McCollough actually representative of any Canadian school of thought? My impression of him is that he's mostly speaking to an American audience and that his views seem to be deliberately and insincerely provocative to Canadian sensibilities.

You'd be correct.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, that's almost the only place in Canada where you have this on a truly visible scale. With the possible exception of a few towns in SW Ontario.

I went to school at one point in an area that had a mix of white and black students. Some of the black students lived in a poor historic rural village type setting. Standards of infrastructure improved over time and I don't know what it looks like now but it was definitely on the low end standard of living wise for the era or at least looked kind of shabby (older vehicles, less landscaping, etc.).

Occasionally you'd see articles (usually from Ontario-based media) pointing out how terrible these villages are with a strong implication that they are somehow uniquely bad and kept down in some way.

None of those articles pointed out that there were dirt poor historically white areas nearby that are probably about the same. They look very similar. They tend to compare the mostly black rural areas with an average that includes wealthier urban areas.

They also didn't talk much about how people living in those villages could easily commute into town or move somewhere else if they wanted. And they do vote with their feet in some of these places. So the demographics tend to evolve to look worse and worse since they'd shift to being older people who didn't want to move.

The wider history too is that NS gave land grants and voting rights to these black settlers back when they were turned away from other colonies and previously had been enslaved (back around 1800, many decades before the Civil War in the US).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Is J.J. McCollough actually representative of any Canadian school of thought? My impression of him is that he's mostly speaking to an American audience and that his views seem to be deliberately and insincerely provocative to Canadian sensibilities.

I thought that he was an alt-right performance artist.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Is J.J. McCollough actually representative of any Canadian school of thought? My impression of him is that he's mostly speaking to an American audience and that his views seem to be deliberately and insincerely provocative to Canadian sensibilities.

But he's not wrong. The entrenched bilingual Laurentian elite monopolizes those positions.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But he's not wrong. The entrenched bilingual Laurentian elite monopolizes those positions.

I don't disagree about the Supreme Court but he only rants convincingly about a very narrow range of jobs. Most of the "bilingual" jobs require only a minimal level of French that's much more modest than what you might need to learn in some subject area in university in order to become qualified to work as a professional. Basic French shouldn't be a big roadblock for somebody with a law degree. Being brought up bilingual is an advantage, sure, but lots of Francophones are excluded from that too and is it really any different from having doctor, lawyer, or professor parents? If you look at the people who occupy Canada's top positions you will find many advantages in their upbringing that the masses never had. In many cases a lot more exclusive than public school French immersion.

The heads of the armed forces are a bit less clear and a good example of how superficial analysis can fall apart. I looked up Jonathan Vance and he began serving in 1982. Most of those guys are from that era, and the military has a conservative structure that promotes people after many years of service. So even if they were perfectly unbiased in who was admitted in 2015 you wouldn't see that showing up yet in the people at the top. And the apparent bias may not be as big as it seems; you'd need to look at what kind of people enlisted in the military back in the 80's. Few people seem to get upset about the diversity of people on the bottom rungs of the ladder. You won't get an outcry when it's mostly white small town men getting blown up in Afghanistan but there may still be the expectation that the ones at the top will be different.

[wg_flamip]

Parliament as an institution has had a troubled relationship with racism and colonialism in the past, including the laws it passed, the restrictions it placed on the franchise and the way it treated non-white members. A lot of work has been done to mitigate, ameliorate and (to an extent) atone for past actions, but there's still room for improvement, and structural issues remain that probably aren't going to change any time soon.

For example, take the adversarial Westminster system. This system of competing sides challenging each other across the aisle is very British; it reflects the principles underpinning the former colonial government and has a whole host of values embedded in it. It does not reflect the values and principles of most (any?) Indigenous groups, whether past or present. I'm not talking about hereditary chiefs and undemocratic institutions here—this is not a binary, and the British don't have a monopoly on democratic governance. Rather I'm thinking of institutions like the territorial assemblies of Nunavut and NWT, which incorporate consensus-based decision-making and shun party partisanship.

While consensus-based governance might sound a bit kumbaya, it's still politics. It can get messy, and conflict inevitably arises. How those conflicts are resolved, however, operates fundamentally differently. So long as Parliament only incorporates the values and principles of one group, the highest legislature in the land will remain an uneven playing field at a foundational lever. When conflict occurs and only one side gets to set the rules on how to resolve it, that side will by default have an enormous advantage. Given the racialized nature of the colonial relationship in this country, this imbalance–whether intentionally or not–will remain an obstacle in the fight against racism.

And don't forget that the reasons why we refuse to incorporate Indigenous governance models into our system are imbued with all sorts of racism, which absolutely flows uninterrupted from our more overtly racist past.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't disagree about the Supreme Court but he only rants convincingly about a very narrow range of jobs. Most of the "bilingual" jobs require only a minimal level of French that's much more modest than what you might need to learn in some subject area in university in order to become qualified to work as a professional. Basic French shouldn't be a big roadblock for somebody with a law degree. Being brought up bilingual is an advantage, sure, but lots of Francophones are excluded from that too and is it really any different from having doctor, lawyer, or professor parents? If you look at the people who occupy Canada's top positions you will find many advantages in their upbringing that the masses never had. In many cases a lot more exclusive than public school French immersion.

The heads of the armed forces are a bit less clear and a good example of how superficial analysis can fall apart. I looked up Jonathan Vance and he began serving in 1982. Most of those guys are from that era, and the military has a conservative structure that promotes people after many years of service. So even if they were perfectly unbiased in who was admitted in 2015 you wouldn't see that showing up yet in the people at the top. And the apparent bias may not be as big as it seems; you'd need to look at what kind of people enlisted in the military back in the 80's. Few people seem to get upset about the diversity of people on the bottom rungs of the ladder. You won't get an outcry when it's mostly white small town men getting blown up in Afghanistan but there may still be the expectation that the ones at the top will be different.

The Minister of Defense is a brown guy with a turban, which means the lower rungs of military are currently whiter.