Where next Columbus?


I came across a rather disturbing little article in the paper the other day, tucked in a little corner around page six or so that stated that there is a new provincial party forming in British Columbia that hopes to run in the next election. The main platform of this group is to push Chinese values in the B.C. provincial political scene.

Anyone who has ever been to B.C. is well aware of its large Asian population. That makes sense as it is the first port of call for people immigrating from the Far East. A poll I read recently also stated that English is no longer the mother tongue of the majority of Vancouver residents. I do not have a problem with any of this. Canada, much to the chagrin of the First Nations peoples, is a land of immigrants. What I do have a problem with is an ethnic political agenda. A “Chinese values” party is much different than parties with agendas such as the Greens (the environment), Marxist-Leninists or Parti Quebecois (an independent Quebec). These latter groups are based on common interests, not ethnicity. Our nation’s values stem from the democratic process that we have developed, though far from perfect. Further to this, we have a Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that allows us to live by our individual cultural creeds insofar as they do not have a detrimental affect on others. I suppose an ironic aspect of our democracy is the fact that, at the end of the day, people are entitled to their freedom of speech and to assemble such groups. Sadly that is how many of the racist and religious fundamentalists are permitted to exist within our democratic and free society.

Canadian society is bound to change with alterations to its demographics and epoch. My only fear is that one day this demographic may decide that democracy is too liberal a system based on another’s ethnicity and, as a result, make this nation into one of those from whom many have fled and sought refuge from. Where next Columbus?

Live. Breathe. Relax… do Yoga.

The following article appeared in the paper this passed week and I must say that it’s riled me a wee bit. Not because I’m at odds with the writer, but, rather, because of the incessant need humans seem to have to divide ourselves. I’ve provided the web link in case you don’t trust my presentation of this article. If you care to put a bit of trust my way, then the article itself is below, followed by my commentary:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=3820ba7d-9565-4ecd-9dd1-4526219ba487

White race is a fiction, despite supremacist and academic claims
Labelling generic racial groups always problematic

Leonard Stern
Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 10, 2007

White supremacists have long argued they are victims of a double standard. They complain that in today's world of globalization and multiculturalism, everyone except them is allowed to celebrate ethnic or racial identity.
There are black history months, Asian of the Year awards, Caribana festivals and gay pride parades. There are organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Arab Federation. But if you try to express "white pride," you are instantly branded a racist. As one writer complains on a neo-Nazi website, non-whites are allowed "to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage (whereas) only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow 'hatred' of others."
An intriguing argument, but one I've always rejected on the grounds that the "white" race is a fiction. There are, of course, people of European stock, and they are free to celebrate their heritage. The Irish have St. Patrick's Day, the Scottish have the Glengarry Highland Games. Germans do Oktoberfest. Ethnic nationalism is perfectly legitimate, based as it is on an ancestral homeland and shared historical memory.
The so-called white pride movement, however, is of questionable legitimacy because it proposes an identity based on white as a skin colour, when "white" people represent different languages, cultures, geographies, religions and histories. It's akin to proposing a nationalism for Honda Civic drivers. The Civic is such a generic car that those who drive them have little in common except the coincidence of their car ownership.
"Whiteness" as an identity could theoretically work in places where whites are a minority, and where the non-white majority defines and perhaps persecutes this white minority according to skin colour. But in societies such as Canada, where the white population is hugely diverse and itself the majority? Hard to make a case for a white identity movement.
Or so I thought. It now appears that white nationalists have indirect backing for their argument, and from an unlikely source -- left-wing intellectuals. At last month's annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a number of professors argued it's high time that white Canadians recognized how whiteness is central to their identity. One of the conference papers was titled But White is a Colour.
The supremacists want to legitimize white identity so that white people can celebrate that identity, whereas the liberal academics want to legitimize white identity so that white people can atone for it.
As long as a white person is oblivious to his whiteness, suggest the academics, he will be oblivious to the unfair privileges he enjoys in a society that oppresses non-whites.
The premise here is that Canada is fundamentally a racist society, and every white person is complicit. The Globe and Mail interviewed one professor who explained that "there is lots of discomfort and shame" when he tells white students that "they play a role in the problem" of systemic racism.
This is a retro moment, recalling the 1990s, when identity politics was out of control. I remember university seminars where students couldn't offer an opinion on this or that poem without first confessing all our identities (gay or straight, middle- or working-class, and so on) so that everyone would know that the opinion offered was merely the sum of our prejudices.
The moral authority you carried was proportional to the number of oppressed groups to which you could claim membership. In literature classes, this was especially frustrating, because fictional heroes are often lonely, marginalized figures, and if you as the literary critic didn't personally belong to a marginalized group, well, you brought little credibility.
Most offensive about identity politics was its determinism, and it is here where the most obnoxious elements of the right and left merge.
Rightists who promote white identity believe that skin colour, or race, determines what you are -- skim through some white-pride literature and you'll see the crude generalizations about blacks, Asians and others.
Liberal academics seeking to raise race consciousness among white people also have a deterministic view: If you are white, you are racist, or an instrument of racism, even if you don't know it. The corollary is that non-whites are by definition victims.
The world is more complex than this. One of the nastiest recent acts of racism in Canada was the torching of a Jewish school library in Montreal.
The perpetrator was -- surprise! -- a member of a minority, Muslim-Canadians. In the U.S., some of the most intense homophobia anywhere is found within the black community, whose members are supposed to be sensitive to issues of prejudice.
Spot-the-oppressor is a tricky game to play these days. Identity politics can get ugly. Anyone who wants to throw "whiteness" into an already volatile mix needs to proceed with caution.
Leonard Stern is the Ottawa Citizen's editorial pages editor.
lstern@thecitizen.canwest.com

As a “fictitious white person of European stock”, let me begin by stating that I really resent that the “fictitious white” perspective shared by White Supremacists was even given space in this debate of perceived double standards and reverse discrimination. White Supremacists are driven by hate and ignorance and the only attention their views should be given should be done by their psychiatrists. A sense of one’s culture is very different from one’s hate driven agenda.
Stern states: “I've always rejected on the grounds that the "white" race is a fiction. There are, of course, people of European stock, and they are free to celebrate their heritage. The Irish have St. Patrick's Day, the Scottish have the Glengarry Highland Games. Germans do Oktoberfest. Ethnic nationalism is perfectly legitimate, based as it is on an ancestral homeland and shared historical memory.” Okay, he has a point. Does that then mean that all Blacks are the same – whether they are African, Americans or South Americans? How about Brown people from India or Pakistan or Sri Lanka? My point is colour can not define anyone. As I tell my students and my child, skin is simply a bag to hold in all the gunk that make us tick. I use the example of a nice pair of shoes to demonstrate my point: a $100 pair of Nike’s, whether in a brown paper bag or a gold box are still the same pair of shoes. The same applies to people – the wrapping tells you very little of what’s inside. Stern’s Honda Civic metaphor also makes this point.
What makes me so angry is the perceived need that we need to make culture – which are the only real differences – a political issue. Culture is not a “political vehicle”. Culture is, quite simply, how you live. It’s the language you speak, the clothes that you wear, the food you eat, the god you do or don’t worship, the music you listen too. This too becomes a dangerous thing to categorize as it lends to stereotypes. Each and every one of us are individuals who should be treated as equals, but, in doing so via the spirit of political correctness, we have lived up to the quote from Orwell’s Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. Human Nature has warranted this to a degree, but it has become more of a fashion as opposed to a practice of common sense. Take the special treatment of Aboriginals in this country. I hold nothing against Aboriginals (or anyone else), but the apologetic politics in this nation is a joke. There is no culture in this world that’s not been subjected to tyranny and hardship. We must do our best to ensure such travesties do not occur again, but we must also question the extent of the compensation we are willing to give. The Aboriginal people were treated terribly and exploited by the Europeans and we should be taught about these terrible acts. Likewise, we should be taught of the 20 million Ukrainians killed by Stalin, the millions of Irish who died in famines, in coffin ships and under English occupation, 6 million Jews, the genocide victims in Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia…. No one has escaped hate, and, if anything, we should be looking at our common needs as opposed to finding ways to separate and divide us. I agree wholeheartedly with the statement: “Most offensive about identity politics was its determinism, and it is here where the most obnoxious elements of the right and left merge.”
My favorite festival is the Heritage Festival in Edmonton. It is a time full of food, music and celebrating how we live. That is the proper venue for culture. It is a celebration of life and a bit like traveling the world in your own backyard.
Forget the bag your bones and blood are in, to hell with our notions of “tribes” or “clans”. Celebrate life. Love and respect one another and, if you are unable to love, then at least try not to hate. Fight for justice, save our environment and fight the corporate and powers that seek to label, market and divide us. Live. Breathe. Relax… do Yoga.

Smokin' Mad


It’s a tenuous balance between “freedom to” and “freedom from” in the context of civil and personal liberties. We require legislation that protects society, and that sometimes steps on the toes of individual rights. We see this played out in a number of larger debates such as those on capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. Sadly, in order to gain certain rights we have to give up other rights. This sometimes comes back to bite us in the arse as we see when police have a criminal dead to rights for a crime, but the case gets dismissed due to a technicality in the bureaucratic aspect of law. That sucks when someone walks as a result who is a danger, but we must realise that, though one more bad guy is walking our streets, that the Police can’t simply walk through your door for no reason and tear apart your home on the off chance that they will find something incriminating. Some will say that “it’s not a problem if you’ve done nothing wrong” which holds some water. I am inclined, however, to lean more toward the statement that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

What has got me going on this tangent was something I heard in the news at suppertime this evening. Apparently doctors in Britain are passing a bill that authorises them to delay or refuse surgery (including life saving) to smokers, effective July 1st, 2007. G.P.’s can also refuse to serve as family doctor’s to smokers as part of this. I will not argue against the fact that smoking is unhealthy, and I am not a smoker myself, nor have I ever been. All of that aside, this new British policy, which has caught the attention of Canadian policymakers, is beyond outrageous!

Point number one, the doctor’s Hippocratic oath should be the first item brought to task. How can a doctor refuse life saving surgery? They can not, ethically anyway. I can say nothing else on this point – it’s black and white.

Secondly, how can a government justify the refusal of medical treatment to a citizen using a legal product in which the taxation benefits to the government is astronomical? Do we deny people medical treatment if they eat fast food daily? Of course not. Yet one can not dispute that fast food consumption is equally as bad as smoking, if not worse. I seem to recall watching the documentary “Super-size Me” where, after only a couple of weeks doctors warn the human guinea pig to end his experiment as his levels and damage to his liver are going through the roof. I would be willing to wager that a regular fast food diet will kill you faster by DECADES than smoking would.

How about people serving in the military? Should we give them medical treatment as they are subjected to horrendous working conditions, sleep deprived, eat crappy food and put themselves in harms way? Hell, it’s a choice, is it not? What about fishermen, coal miners, rig workers, etc.?

The sorry fact appears to be society’s tendencies to jump on the latest bandwagon. Smoking is the flavour of the month, just as temperance was in the early 1900’s, and fast foods seem to becoming the next big social evil to be banished. There is a lot of dangerous crap out there, and I’m glad that I am able to exist in smoke free environments when I go out (but, even if smoking were permitted in some places I’d still go out and make a grown-up decision as to whether I wanted to go to a smoking establishment or not). I do not dispute the hazards of smoking, but when I reflect on people close to me, I really wonder if we are not just predisposed to pop our cogs when the time comes. I have known nine people who have been or are friends, relatives or associates of mine who have had cancer in the past 20 years. Out of that group, four have been over 60 years of age. Of this group, two have been smokers. Out of these nine people, three have died and none of the three were smokers. When I look at older folks who I know (70+ years of age), some of them have more spunk in them – and they smoke – than many of people who are their juniors and non-smokers.

In conclusion, personal choice should be paramount. If someone wants to smoke, then that is their choice – society can deal with that just as they are by banning it in public places. I’m satisfied with the taxes on tobacco products covering their medical expenses – and if we want to go down that road, I wonder home much money I, a 38 year old athletic non-smoker, has cost the healthcare system thus far with surgical repairs on my jaw, shoulder, knee and toe, not to mention the number of times I’ve needed stitches, etc.? Does this mean that people who play sports like Rugby, Hockey or Soccer should also be refused medical treatment? Perhaps I should pack my athletics in and buy myself a pipe!

Feverish Rant and Tales of Woe (Along with my picks and recommendations)


Mother Nature is bipolar – it’s obvious given the insane weather swings we are experiencing here with highs in the +30s followed by flooding, tornadoes and evening lows down around +1c. Now I don’t want to get the Fundamentalists all excited as, for certain they are cowboys on the horizon and not the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Still, one might wonder if Nature is attempting to purge itself of the virus known as Humankind.

On the subject of viruses, I’ve been having a rather unfortunate string of luck as of late. Three weeks ago, while playing third base in a slo-pitch game, the base runner slid in, his cleat catching my big toe and, consequently, fractured a small part of the bone while dislocating the toe at the knuckle. I am not a tough guy, but, honestly, it didn’t hurt as bad as one might imagine. The worst bit was when they froze the toe – three very nasty needles – before popping it back into place.

…Note to emergency rooms: good acoustics are not necessary in your treatment rooms as the snap crackle pop of a joint being put in place is sufficient without all the extra reverb!

So, poop happens and they said I’d be good to go in a couple of weeks, and had an appointment for a follow-up one week later. So, the follow-up day comes and the news is not good. The toe had been dislocated again by a combination of the swelling and bone chip, so, again, the needles to freeze it up before attempting to pop it back (really not a happy camper). This time, the doctor can’t budge it. So, immediately I’m shipped to another hospital where, after sitting for four hours, I’m told to come back the next morning for surgery. This is very bad as I’m a school teacher and I needed to book and prepare for a sub which, unfortunately, fell upon my principal…

So, I return the next day, they put me under and I wake up with a pin protruding out of the end of my toe. I’m told not to go back to work for four weeks and I really start getting pissed off as we have a family holiday planned for San Diego at the end of the month – my first in a very long time! So now my next appointment is June 28th and our flight is June 29th. Yikes!

Anyway, I negotiate with my doctor to go back to work this Monday, and he gave me the green light. Wednesday night I was feeling good (and no, this wasn’t from the T4’s they put me on for pain), so I figured I’d go in a couple days early. So, off goes my alarm at 6 a.m. Thursday morning and I get ready for work, but had a queasy tummy. I figured it must be nerves or something, so I carried on. By mid morning I was projectile vomiting and had a fever, ending up back home in bed where I found myself for most of the day again today. The nice thing about really nasty flues is their very short lifespan. Still, it didn’t do a whole lot for my already fragile psyche (I’m a very active person and the toe lay-up had me squirrelly).

Then there’s the humiliation of the whole toe thing. I mean honestly: slo-pitch! Of all the ways to get injured! To think I gave up Rugby because of the toll it had taken over the years – but there’s glory in a Rugby injury!

Anyway, the flu ties in with my intro, the rest here is verbal diorama and raving. I know these are all very minor ailments – not like having a terrible terminal affliction. Still, we must still have a place to moan about our woes as everything is relevant.

…Note to the Fundamentalist – negotiate a better deal with your Union (the Church) to see if God can’t just tack the sick days onto the end of one’s life and give us the option of living through that or checking out of life early – it would also ease the stress on our healthcare system as well.

Anyway, in closing, here are some things you should check out: Hungarian author Imre Kertész, Toronto F.C. and Feist’s new record: “The Reminder”.

I’ve recently read two novels by the Nobel Prize winning Kertész and loved them (Liquidation and Fatelessness). The author is a Holocaust survivor and has written one of the more poignant accounts of this dark part of history in a style that reminds me of a mix of Kafka and Camus.

Toronto F.C. are the newest MLS Soccer franchise and they not only play exciting soccer, but they have an atmosphere in their stadium that is comparable to European matches. Finally a Canadian Soccer franchise that has approached the game the right way: build a stadium of reasonable size that will create an atmosphere that is not cavernous, don’t give them a dumb name and sod the cheesy gimmicks. The last (failed) professional soccer club in Edmonton was the Edmonton Aviators of the USL. Point one: Aviators is a dumb name (when the club finished the season they were called Edmonton F.C. – is there hope?). Point two: the biggest clubs in the English Premiership, aside for Manchester Scum… er … United (Go Villa!) play in smallish stadiums of 30,000 or so. In Edmonton the… er… Aviators played at Commonwealth Stadium which holds 65,000. Toronto F.C. has used their noggins, built BMO Stadium which seats 20,000 and they’ve sold out every match thus far and have an electric atmosphere. So, if there are any wealthy Edmonton business folk out there that want to campaign for a MLS team here PLEASE use your brains (and pay me a consultant fee of $5,000,000 if you use any of my ideas here) and let’s make EDMONTON CITY F.C. a reality!!!!

Lat off, “The Reminder” by Calgary folk singer Feist is living up to all the hype and play it’s received on CBC – I encourage you all to support real music written about real things by real people as opposed to the quantised computer mixed tripe that is passing for popular music these days.

Heard on the radio that there was a riot at the maximum security prison where I worked up until August of last year with gunfire... ah such a provencial life I'm leading now...

I’m done. Have a good weekend. Out.

Freedom In Our Journey


The local Letters to the Editor section of the Edmonton Journal has been battling back and forth over the concept of “creationism” in light of a new creationist museum that is opening here in Alberta. There appears to be three points of view:

(1) The Creationist who subscribe to a literal translation of Genesis as it pertains to the creation of the earth

(2) The Pure Scientific perspective which refutes all Biblical claims on the basis of scientific evidence

(3) The Theist who believes in God but that the Bible is not intended to be taken literally.

Clearly the divisions created by religion are being portrayed as people defend what they believe in oftentimes a harsh, hateful, vindictive and critical manner. I find those defending their personal absolutes with such vigour to be a bit on the scary side. If there is one thing we should take away from the study of our selves is that nothing is finite, nor have we positively answered all questions of science or theism with 100% clarity and accuracy. As progressive as we may believe ourselves to be, modern humankind will be viewed as primitive in 100 years time. Both Science and Religion are riddled with errors as any “objective” study will reveal - our subjective nature supports this premise from the start. Yet people are frothing on this issue, from which, ironically, stems hate and intolerance.

In my statement here, I am pressing the issue of tolerance the hardest. I am inclined to believe in the second point of view named above, but accept that this is my belief based on my life and my experiences. I am hard pressed to understand why Christianity, Islam and Judaism haven’t gone the way of myth, just as the Norse tales of Odin or the Greek Odysseus. There is a certain morality stemming from these religions that was necessary in our evolution, to hopefully keep certain parts of our world from becoming a Hobbesian reality, but that morality can oftentimes in its self lead to such a world as we can see in our present day pertaining to Fundamentalist extremists.

I do not believe in creationism as far as ethereal or metaphysical beginnings go, but one can easily see how the inclination to a supernatural origin might develop. I am also inclined to believe, taking a page out of Dostoevsky, that “2+2” might not always equal 4. Science is the best explanation for things based on what we know, but we can never conclude its findings to be absolute. After all, Science is a coding and theory translated into language and if numeracy, for example, is a product of language, then so too are the theories they purport = they are symbolic representations and not absolute. We might say the same of religion or myth in that they are explanations formulated on an absolute but encoded into language and syntax.

Interestingly, my wife and I recently had to make a decision regarding our daughter’s education: Public or Catholic system. We opted for a Catholic school with a Science focus. The reason for this was simply because the Catholic system does not slam the door on the spiritual side of things and, legally, the school is compelled to teach Science according to the curriculum. One might think it contradictory to have a Catholic school with a Science focus. In a polarised perspective, perhaps this is so. My attitude is to not be fearful of what theories are being put out there, but to allow my daughter the opportunity to find her own path and make her own decisions in life. My job as a parent is to present opportunities and assist in her critical assessment of the road that lies ahead. I am nearing 40 years of age and am still discovering my own route in life. I was brought up a Protestant, resolved to Atheism in high school, discovered Buddhism in my late 20’s. Today I would classify myself as floating the either somewhere between a Buddhist and Pagan, with a strong spiritual (though non-theist) contradicted by Existentialist dimension to my beliefs. Regardless, I’ve enjoyed the journey and the questions raised along the way, as opposed to fearing them. Long live freedom of speech, objective inquiry and the right to go our own ways in peace!