Is it racism?

[Jack Attack]

Haven't read everything that has been said here, but just wanted to throw this one into the mix...

My mother is an air-hostess for a major airline. When she visits certain countries, particularly in the middle east, she is obliged to follow local customs - i.e covering her head, taking off her shoes in certain places etcetc.

Call me bigoted, racist, xenophobic, w/e... But if this is the case in other countries, which seem to have zero tolerance to non-conformity, then surely it is right for us to say: 'No, sorry, you can't wear your head thingy because we dont do that here'.

This is a UK perspective btw - i feel immigration here is getting slightly out of control.

 

[Jumpman]

My family has been in Canada since the colonization by the Europeans (on my father's side). Now we have been here for a looooong time and we've been through the bad times and the good times over the past few hundred years. some of our ancestors helped build this country.

I mean, think about it this way : you invite a person into your house, for let's say dinner. And they decide to rearrange all of your living room and furniture because they think that your house should look more like theirs. Or they start to comment on how you should be raising your kids and that you're doing a bad job. Wouldn't you get insulted and mad at them for that? I mean, they're in your home thanks to you being nice to them, and they turn around and do something insulting...

I really really hope your entire family all dresses like this:

nah dude. dont play the "native americans were hear first" card. Its a completely different situation. That was conquest. this is immigration. People have been wiping out other people since the dawn of time and imposing new laws. this is an issue of someone joining a country, becoming a citizen, and trying to change it from the inside. Its different.

On the one hand, people agree to certain laws when they immigrate, like the helmet thing. It was their choice to come to canada so they should have to abide by the laws. As far as the gay marriage thing goes, if the canadian government has programs in place to update or change current legislature, then every citizen, even the new ones, have a right to use those programs to affect the country. there's a difference in refusing to follow a rule, and legally working to change a law.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

if you live in any state bordering mexico in the united states then you probably hate most immigrants hate

 

[Wai]

OK most people seem to say this in the context of immagrants. So if a people is born in Canada but is Sikh would that make a difference to them having issues?

 

[Easykill]

Sorry for not re-wording it, and repeating myself, but I'm out of shape forum-wise.

I already said my stance on this earlier, talking to you only started when you disagreed with me disagreeing with someone else. So, we've gone past the original points. If we're done, we're done, but I'd rather not have an argument in the shape of a circle. Just saying.

"As for the topic; I pretty much think anyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want. As that isn't going to happen, I'll settle with saying that they should follow what the current laws of Canada are for now, and try to get them changed. For company policies and such, a code needs to be developed to stop any sort of bigotries there. But, they should obey the law for now. Stupid laws...."

I don't have a stance on which of your directions government should take, either would be fine if done well, and I'd rather get rid of any pointless restrictions.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

I just saw an Andrex advert. And I saw a dog's trust advert the other day.

...

 

[Vivvav]

Well... this is kinda edgy.
Stuff like the helmet and the knife make sense from the legal standpoint, though I would honestly just wear the turban over the helmet.
As for the Mounties (if you don't mind me calling 'em that), it's insensitive to his religion.
But I live in America, so fuck sensitivity. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go chug a gallon of freedom fries and drive my Hummer. Fuck yeah.
DISCLAIMER: I wish I were in Canada. You guys are awesome.

 

[cainx10a]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

What the hell is a Hadji? Is that the other N word for Arabs now?

Pretty much, yes.

It's basically America's new "gook".

*growls* Get off my lawn

Get off theirs first

 

[Mullahgrrl]

Now there are kirpans that, while still looking like knives, arent really, but yeah, the whole point of it is to constantly whear one "to protect the innocent" but i dont really know.

Now a Sikh Mountie is a whole other level of cool!

 

[CrafterMan]

No, that's not racism, that's common sense.

You don't want to wear a motorcycle-helmet? Then don't ride a goddamn moterbike.
You don't want to wear the RCMP uniform, then don't join the goddamn RCMP.

That goes for everyone, turban or no bloody turban.

Pretty fuckin' much bud.

 

[beddo]

I'm just wondering if you guys consider this racism? My family has been in Canada since the colonization by the Europeans (on my father's side). Now we have been here for a looooong time and we've been through the bad times and the good times over the past few hundred years. some of our ancestors helped build this country.

So it pisses my dad off when someone who obviously is a new immigrant comes in with pins & stickers & etc. that are basically saying "down with gay marriage", and etc (gay marriage is legal in Canada, and my dad is gay). That is just one example, but what about when other people in my family get upset and sometimes downright mad when we get immigrants who want to bend the laws so they can sort of impose their culture unto the rest of the country.
For example a guy did not want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle on the highway, because he had a turban. Or the right to allow Kirpans in schools (a Kirpan is a small knife) to accommodate religious groups (keep in mind knives are weapons). Another one is one man refusing to wear the imposed uniform of an RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) officer because he had a turban and didn't want wear the regulatory hat. Is it racist to get mad at these people and complain?

I mean, think about it this way : you invite a person into your house, for let's say dinner. And they decide to rearrange all of your living room and furniture because they think that your house should look more like theirs. Or they start to comment on how you should be raising your kids and that you're doing a bad job. Wouldn't you get insulted and mad at them for that? I mean, they're in your home thanks to you being nice to them, and they turn around and do something insulting...

Racism is simply to arrive or imply a negative view or stereotype against a group simply because of their race, ignoring other factors.

The case you have put across is that you disagree with their behaviour. Note that the behaviour you mention is actually based on religion, so if anything it just could be considered creedist.

It's a difficult situation. Of course people who enter a society should respect their culture and rules even if they do not agree with them. Unless of course actual harm is being done such as in Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe etc.

With that respect the society should also respect the beliefs of the immigrants. Both groups should try and come to mutual agreements over differences. Of course it is not unwarranted for the original inhabitants to expects their values to come first.

There is the argument that if you immigrate but don't agree with the rules then perhaps your decision to move was ill thought out.

However, I would agree that the host's culture and rules should not be put aside to appease immigrants. For example, the police wear a uniform. If you are unwilling to wear that uniform then you are not upholding the expected behaviour and responsibilities of that position. Certain positions, especially the civil service should be conducted without interference from religious aspects and beliefs or individuals predujices. This is because in civil service you are serving the nation, the people, not yourself or your God.

 

[beddo]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

I just saw an Andrex advert. And I saw a dog's trust advert the other day.

...

Yea, I think you've been reading the Daily Mail too much.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

What the hell is a Hadji? Is that the other N word for Arabs now?

Pretty much, yes.

It's basically America's new "gook".

This might help you out:

1. hadji

used as slang by troops in Iraq to describe an Iraqi citizen. Usually used in an offensive context. Also spelled Hajji, because noone can make up thier minds which is correct.
Hadji is actually a term of respect for muslims who have made the piligrmage to Mecca and completed the "Hajj". Those who have completed the Hajj often have Hajj added as a prefix to thier name when being formally addressed.

Also this kind of stuff (reverse-racism type practices) is not as widespread as you think it just gets the populace of the "defending" country riled up and so sells papers and the more sensationalist the article the more readers are intrested in it.

 

[s0denone]

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood me here, or no - But the core of the point I'm trying to make, is that Denmark is forbidding "Religious Advantages" just as well as "Religious Disadvantages."

Sure you can be any religion that you want, the state just enforces conformity. You can go to church, or pray to an altar in your living room, you're still not getting any special treatment.

Compare that to most middle-eastern countries, and the laws and legislations in Denmark are child's play.

I'm all for diversity, in terms of culture, ethnicity and what-not; But carrying a knife around in your pocket all day, even in school "because of religion" isn't what I believe is right.

Laws are most likely there for a reason, if they weren't they'd be removed. Like for instance the law not to carry weapons in a public high school.

Sorry for not re-wording it, and repeating myself, but I'm out of shape forum-wise.

I already said my stance on this earlier, talking to you only started when you disagreed with me disagreeing with someone else. So, we've gone past the original points. If we're done, we're done, but I'd rather not have an argument in the shape of a circle. Just saying.

"As for the topic; I pretty much think anyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want. As that isn't going to happen, I'll settle with saying that they should follow what the current laws of Canada are for now, and try to get them changed. For company policies and such, a code needs to be developed to stop any sort of bigotries there. But, they should obey the law for now. Stupid laws...."

I don't have a stance on which of your directions government should take, either would be fine if done well, and I'd rather get rid of any pointless restrictions.

I must say that I completely share you opinion, so that would mean we're done
A good day to you, chap.

 

[Mr0llivand3r]

I'm just wondering if you guys consider this racism? My family has been in Canada since the colonization by the Europeans (on my father's side). Now we have been here for a looooong time and we've been through the bad times and the good times over the past few hundred years. some of our ancestors helped build this country.

So it pisses my dad off when someone who obviously is a new immigrant comes in with pins & stickers & etc. that are basically saying "down with gay marriage", and etc (gay marriage is legal in Canada, and my dad is gay). That is just one example, but what about when other people in my family get upset and sometimes downright mad when we get immigrants who want to bend the laws so they can sort of impose their culture unto the rest of the country.
For example a guy did not want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle on the highway, because he had a turban. Or the right to allow Kirpans in schools (a Kirpan is a small knife) to accommodate religious groups (keep in mind knives are weapons). Another one is one man refusing to wear the imposed uniform of an RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) officer because he had a turban and didn't want wear the regulatory hat. Is it racist to get mad at these people and complain?

I mean, think about it this way : you invite a person into your house, for let's say dinner. And they decide to rearrange all of your living room and furniture because they think that your house should look more like theirs. Or they start to comment on how you should be raising your kids and that you're doing a bad job. Wouldn't you get insulted and mad at them for that? I mean, they're in your home thanks to you being nice to them, and they turn around and do something insulting...

its not racism its just arrogant

 

[Dele]

I'm all for multiculturalism, but it's a two way street.

If immigrants expect us to adopt or adapt to their customs, they have do the same in change.

Thats now multiculturalism. That is merging of two cultures to form one monoculturalistic society. Multiculturalism by definition means segregation.

European union a multicultural society
Yugoslavia was a multicultural society
Canada is a multicultural society (Quebec)
United States is (mostly) multi-ethical monocultural society


You wanna imagine US as a multicultural society? Imagine Alaska speaking Russia, Texas speaking Mexico, California speaking German and Alabama speaking Swazi. Would you really like to live on a such country? Multiculturalism encourages having different cultures, languages, religions and whaterever and to NOT assimilate. People of the same color/culture/language/religion tend to pile up on a certain region thus causing segregation. Multiculturalism as an ideology forces the government to maintain these regions because they would otherwise assimilate *GASP* which is bad according to multiculturalists. When a country becomes truly multicultural it also becomes truly unstable and subject to breaking into smaller states as people have less and less common ground. This is also supported if we look at the history of multicultural nations (Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary etc.)

Tolerance + Assimilation = Win

Country filled with Chinatowns = Fail

 

[Fanboy]

I'm all for multiculturalism, but it's a two way street.

If immigrants expect us to adopt or adapt to their customs, they have do the same in change.

Thats now multiculturalism. That is merging of two cultures to form one monoculturalistic society. Multiculturalism by definition means segragation.

No, it's not. Monoculturalism implies that everyone in a unified society shares the same cultural identity. Multiculturalism implies that people preserve their own cultural identity within a unified society. You can adapt to someone else's culture without losing your own.

For example; An immigrant from Japan and an immigrant from India will both need to adapt to canadian culture, but neither will need to adapt to Japanese or Indian culture. So you have Canadian-Japanese and Canadian-Indian cultures, hence multiculturalism.

 

[Dele]

I'm all for multiculturalism, but it's a two way street.

If immigrants expect us to adopt or adapt to their customs, they have do the same in change.

Thats now multiculturalism. That is merging of two cultures to form one monoculturalistic society. Multiculturalism by definition means segragation.

No, it's not. Monoculturalism implies that everyone in a unified society shares the same cultural identity. Multiculturalism implies that people preserve their own cultural identity within a unified society. You can adapt to someone else's culture without losing your own.

For example; An immigrant from Japan and an immigrant from India will both need to adapt to canadian culture, but neither will need to adapt to Japanese or Indian culture. So you have Canadian-Japanese and Canadian-Indian cultures, hence multiculturalism.

Those would be sub-genres of Canadian culture. Not 'real' multiculturalism.

 

[Fanboy]

Those would be sub-genres of Canadian culture. Not 'real' multiculturalism.

I agree that it is not multiculturalism in it's purest form, but for lack of a better word it is what I use.

 

[Dele]

Those would be sub-genres of Canadian culture. Not 'real' multiculturalism.

I agree that it is not multiculturalism in it's purest form, but for lack of a better word it is what I use.

Assimilation/Melting pot would be a better definition for that effect. It would be the opposite of Multiculturalism though. Over long times it will lead to a single culture.