Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Both are actually powerful motivators. Your language example above was actually what motivated a lot of English expats in Holland to leave there and go to the New World, at the time effectively taking their lives in their hands.

No, not really. There's your broad brush again. There is a massive difference between being persecuted for being culturally distinct, and simply being culturally distinct. Several people have pointed this out to you, and you've ignored it in the manner that you're accustomed to.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Then I suggest 'Western European Integration' might be a better phrase for that.

No, not really because, you know, Spain. The phrase "European Integration" works just fine because it doesn't refer to the transition from Communism or fascism. That's what the terms "post-Communism" and "post-fascism" entail.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And Georgia and Estonia. And, secondly, many of them had been 'absorbed' since the time of Peter the Great or earlier, so claiming that it's a 'communist' thing is a bit misleading.

Georgia isn't in Europe, which is the topic of this discussion. And Estonia fought its rebellion against Moscow, which is what I said before.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

So, in a nutshell, you're claiming that we shouldn't worry about them taking power because they're not the exact same nazis that lead to the destruction of most of Europe years ago?

No, and this should have been clear in the context of my previous posts, Nazism now is not what Nazism was then; a dominant political force. Today its a fringe group, and has been for years. You only see it rearing its head in places the far right has always had traction, or where "Kill the Roma" has always been popular. This is not only distinct from Hitler's Nazism (note: there exist Jewish Nazis) but it doesn't have anything like the political role that it once did.

This is something that I'm not sure you understand. When Hitler rose to power National Socialism was not a "fringe" movement, it was a very, very big thing. It was akin to Libertarianism* in terms of the number of people that expressed sympathy towards it. In short, not everyone was a Nazi, but lots of people were nationalists, hated Jews, and vaguely disliked communism.

*Disclaimer: Libertarians are not at all like Nazis in terms of ideology.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You're that divorced from morality and ethics that you actually ask that question?

I suspect its more like "I'm that involved with morality and ethics that I actually ask that question."

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?

None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?

None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.

Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?

We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.

*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).

whembly wrote:Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?

We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.

*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).

It's a giant clusterfeth. Some bands signed treaties in some provinces, whereas others did not. It changes from group to group and from province to province.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?

None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.

Don't just assume everything is the same in Canada because we look the same as Americans. Need I remind you that America and Britain where enemies back in the day and because America were enemies with all the indigenous people at the time most of them ended behind allies with the British. Sadly, 99% of Canadians have forgotten that the First Nations fought and died side by side with Canadians against American aggression in 1812. Who knows if there'd be a Canada at all without their help. It was also the closest Aboringinals came to having their own modern Nation-State: the deal they struck with the Brits. Unfortunately, this "Native Confedrecy" died with Tecumesh on the field of battle. As the war wound down America made the non-existance of an Indian State the number one priority at the peace talks because they knew it would be a huge block to westward expansion.
Neither Canada or America gained much in that war but as usual the natives lost somehow.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?

We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.

*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).

It's a giant clusterfeth. Some bands signed treaties in some provinces, whereas others did not. It changes from group to group and from province to province.

Interesting...

This thread is interesting as is prompting me to read up on this...

Oh... look up what happened in Bismark, N Dakota... the indians wanted to build a Casino... the folks of Bismark said "no".

Indian said, get off our land... Bismark leases that land...

Folks at Bismark said... "okay".

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me. It's like when South Koreans call Europeans "Yankee" (which they do; the term is used for anyone who is caucasian).

It's not an insult, it's a designation. We quebecers have a complete lexicon full of insults, don't worry, our insults for english-canadians are much more colourful.

 dogma wrote:

No, not really. There's your broad brush again. There is a massive difference between being persecuted for being culturally distinct, and simply being culturally distinct. Several people have pointed this out to you, and you've ignored it in the manner that you're accustomed to.

Dogma, who was talking about anyone being persecuted? The people I was talking about went to Holland and were welcomed into Dutch society by the dutch, and left because they didn't want their children to be dutch. (It should be said that I've found Holland to be the most open, liberal place I've ever been, and have a hard time picturing them persecuting anyone. Even during the burning times, they barely roasted a hundred people. Compare that to the rest of Europe!)

 dogma wrote:

No, and this should have been clear in the context of my previous posts, Nazism now is not what Nazism was then; a dominant political force. Today its a fringe group, and has been for years. You only see it rearing its head in places the far right has always had traction, or where "Kill the Roma" has always been popular. This is not only distinct from Hitler's Nazism (note: there exist Jewish Nazis) but it doesn't have anything like the political role that it once did.

Dogma, Nazism in Germany before Hitler assumed power was having a good year when they got more than 30% of the vote. Hitler only got 35% when he ran for President, and that was with the backing of most of Germany's major industrialists. That's hardly 'dominant'. It's influential, sure, but not the all powerful dominant force you're making it out to have been. At 21% Hungarian nazis just did better without major economic backing than the NSDAP did *with* major backing before 1932.

While I can't argue that Nazi ideology does not play well to the far right, as it does, and no one has said that Nazism does not turn up in places that are about as far from Aryan as you can possibly get. Unfortunately, it's hard to name a nation where more than one culture is forced into contact with another where it's peaceful, stable, and racism doesn't go on. While the most dramatic examples have been, as you said, in nations long associated with instability and racism, it's not like they are not growing in power elsewhere as well. Look at the Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Latvia. All of them have seen a marked rise in ultra nationalist 'nazis in all but name' parties.



These are still some pretty damn big numbers for nations you have implied are well adjusted to their mishmash of cultures.

 dogma wrote:

This is something that I'm not sure you understand. When Hitler rose to power National Socialism was not a "fringe" movement, it was a very, very big thing.

See above.

 dogma wrote:

I suspect its more like "I'm that involved with morality and ethics that I actually ask that question."

So you're implying that Americans are debased, unethical and immoral to the point that it would not bother them to see their government murder children on live television?

So, I'm hateful if I beleive that Islam promotes an unhealthy and intolerant (not sure if that's the best term) image of gender relations?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So, I'm hateful if I beleive that Islam promotes an unhealthy and intolerant (not sure if that's the best term) image of gender relations?

Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Dogma, who was talking about anyone being persecuted? The people I was talking about went to Holland and were welcomed into Dutch society by the dutch, and left because they didn't want their children to be dutch.

No, they left because they wanted their children to be Anabaptists or Calvinists, which were both persecuted in Holland by the Catholic Church. That you didn't say anything specifically about persecution was either the result of ignorance, incompetence, or disingenuousness.

You're also substituting an adherence to English culture for an adherence to a religious faith, which is what happens when you dislocate your argument from any sort of temporal continuity.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Dogma, Nazism in Germany before Hitler assumed power was having a good year when they got more than 30% of the vote.

I'm not just talking about Germany, nor did I say that I was. The word "Nazi" does not mean "German National Socialists."

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Unfortunately, it's hard to name a nation where more than one culture is forced into contact with another where it's peaceful, stable, and racism doesn't go on.

Name a nation in which cultures are not "forced" into contact.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

These are still some pretty damn big numbers for nations you have implied are well adjusted to their mishmash of cultures.

They are well adjusted. In fact that's what your little picture shows.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

So you're implying that Americans are debased, unethical and immoral to the point that it would not bother them to see their government murder children on live television?

No, I'm implying that, having studied ethics and morality for the better part of a decade, I'm well aware of how much of it people assume, rather than reason.

Anyway, I know you feel persecuted, but I don't care. I care about whether or not you can make a good argument, and you have consistently failed to do so. You've committed several fallacies, which I've let slide, but the essence of it is that you're reaching in order to justify how you feel; not something anyone should ever do.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So, I'm hateful if I beleive that Islam promotes an unhealthy and intolerant (not sure if that's the best term) image of gender relations?

Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation.

Oh oki. Yeah, demagogue could easily use such themes, even tho they might factually have some truth to them. I was surprised that simply having a negative conception of religion equivalate being hateful.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.

So you grand statement is that someone, somewhere, could create hate based on popular sentiment?

Welcome to reality. Please enjoy your stay.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.

So you grand statement is that someone, somewhere, could create hate based on popular sentiment?

Welcome to reality. Please enjoy your stay.

Numbers closing in the 50% marks should be rather alarming, I think. Although I doubt the 'Israel is abusing the post-Holocaust pro-Jew sentiment' might actually give way to real political action, I can see how 'there's too damn much immigrants' could.

I also want to be clear. While I did state that multi-culturalism was the best method of assimilation attempted yet, I do not beleive in any way that immigration is a bad thing.

 dogma wrote:

No, they left because they wanted their children to be Anabaptists or Calvinists, which were both persecuted in Holland by the Catholic Church. That you didn't say anything specifically about persecution was either the result of ignorance, incompetence, or disingenuousness.

You're also substituting an adherence to English culture for an adherence to a religious faith...

Nice passing the blame onto me, but it's not so much time as space. I'm talking about the Dutch Republic, you're talking about the Spanish Netherlands, which had two very different policies on the Calvinists. Further, I'm guessing that you were talking about the Puritans whereas I was talking about the Quakers.

 dogma wrote:

I'm not just talking about Germany, nor did I say that I was. The word "Nazi" does not mean "German National Socialists."

Um... you are aware that it's an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, right? That's pretty much exactly what it means.

 dogma wrote:

Name a nation in which cultures are not "forced" into contact.

Off the top of my head, Samoa?

 dogma wrote:

They are well adjusted. In fact that's what your little picture shows.

Actually, no. What the picture shows is the cultural predisposition to right wing extremism based on the European Social Survey and how 'in demand' right wing politics were at the time the survey was conducted (2010). If you scroll down a bit to the numbers, you might notice that the things that such groups feed on are surprisingly high in many of them, however. Poland, for example, is still in the green, but has startlingly high numbers. As you may be aware most of the nations in the picture have outlawed ultra nationalist groups, but despite outlawing such parties, still has a large number of them, and those numbers have been growing since 2008 at an alarming rate. Switzerland, also green, has had the Swiss Nationalist Party making gains in local elections, but staying out of the national spotlight so far.

 dogma wrote:

I care about whether or not you can make a good argument, and you have consistently failed to do so.

If by a good argument you mean 'not bothering to read what the other guy is saying' then, no, I suppose I haven't. You've accused me of several fallacies, but yourself backpedaled furiously when called out for claiming I said things that I did not.

If the idea that people would not find being shown the immoral acts of their government disturbing is the result of ten years of studying ethics and morality, I would have to ask, where at, the Objectivist Institute?

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me.

I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread. Apparently that's OK, though.


I wonder if it would be the same if the ethnicity wasn't 'Anglo', a word which is being tossed around like an insult in this thread, despite what certain people say.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's not an insult, it's a designation.

Saying that it's not an insult is like listening to a Mexican immigrant tell me that Gringo isn't an insult.

The way you are using it is full of contempt and smugness, making it obvious that it is an insult.

I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.

Anyway, I believe, before dogma dragged me off on a tangent, we were talking about those wacky separatist Canadians.

 Albatross wrote:
I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.

Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.

Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.

Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!

The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.

 Albatross wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.

Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.

Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!

The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.

OK, that makes more sense, thanks.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.

Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.

Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!

The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.

OK, that makes more sense, thanks.

It's all about the intent, isn't it?

I mean, calling someone a 'Paddy' is fine, because that's a typical Irish name, right? Wrong. And calling a Japanese person a 'Nip' should be OK, because the anglicised version of their country's name is 'Nippon', yeah? No. Not cool.

Yes, I am Anglophone. I speak English. Call me an 'Anglo' because you hate my kind and I will smash your face apart, however. Well, not you personally. Just in general.

 Albatross wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me.

I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.

That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's not an insult, it's a designation.

Saying that it's not an insult is like listening to a Mexican immigrant tell me that Gringo isn't an insult.

The way you are using it is full of contempt and smugness, making it obvious that it is an insult.

It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

Yes, I am Anglophone. I speak English.

Then you are an Anglo. What's hard to understand about it? Again, we have insults specific to english and english canadians. I always avoid using them, because they are ridiculous and the Anglo are mostly a great people that doesn't deserve being lumped togheter by insults.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me.

I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.

That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.

Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?

 Albatross wrote:
Call me an 'Anglo' because you hate my kind and I will smash your face apart, however. Well, not you personally. Just in general.

But what if I call you 'sassenach' or honio'on?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?

I think they mean that Quebec would join the US as a 51st state. I wonder if they'd add maple leaves instead of stars?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me.

I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.

That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.

I wasn't speaking specifically about the issue of Quebecois seperatism, rather the general attitudes displayed in the thread, and not just by you, though you are one of the worst offenders if not the worst.

Also, if you continue to subject me to ethnic slurs, then I will continue to report them to the moderators. Just a heads-up, mon frère.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?

Like I said, it's only a 'fairly' large portion that actually wants this, mostly people that have been too much affected by the 'SOCIALISM IS BAAAAAD' portion of American media.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Call me an 'Anglo' because you hate my kind and I will smash your face apart, however. Well, not you personally. Just in general.

But what if I call you 'sassenach' or honio'on?

Meh, spin the wheel. I've never even heard the second one.

 Albatross wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me.

I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.

That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.

I wasn't speaking specifically about the issue of Quebecois seperatism, rather the general attitudes displayed in the thread, and not just by you, though you are one of the worst offenders if not the worst.

Also, if you continue to subject me to ethnic slurs, then I will continue to report them to the moderators. Just a heads-up, mon frère.

Since the objective of an insult is to carry over one's contempt for another, don't you find weird that the person who supposedly insulted you would deny having insulted you? If you want to feel insulted because you've been called by a designator that semantically applies to you, fine. It's another thing to give intent to someone who denies that very intent.

Rather weird too that until you and Melissia showed up, no other english-canadian engaged in this thread felt the need to report as insulting an idiom that's actually included in the title of the very thread.