Obscurantism and Improvement

One of the secrets to the southern domination of blacks was that the media paid little if any attention to the racial reality that was so prevalent at the time. "(The) success of segregation had been the way newspapers had neglected it." It is unfortunate, that even today, given the freedom of the press how the unconventional reality of race is often overlooked. Even though we live in a great democracy, sadly the totalitarian way is still eminent. Racism is not some exception that goes on rather it is conventional and ingrained via culture.

People cannot be free, if they are subjected to oppressive measures. Therefore the obscurantism of this reality is part and parcel to the denial of freedom. Great freedom will never be achieved, unless those who are repressed are set free and given the public opportunity to openly face their oppression.

When I read Dr. Green's article, I know it is saying more than what some people can fathom. That because such an issue as race is overlooked and given little consideration it is seen as the exception; and nothing can be further from the truth.

All a person has to do, is listen to the people south of us and you will hear about the race reality that occurs in the not so distant land. Barak Obama coming to the helm of power is a prime example. The mistreatment of the Blacks was openly confessed, and the racial significance of Obama was then conferred. It was considered by some to be the fulfilment of Martin Luther's dream speech. Yet here in Canada, there were other emotions, such as fear and anger. How can such an event be met with such extreme and diverse sentiments? How can hope stand side-by-side with fear and anger? If anything it proves that yes there is a veracity that is not recognized: And it is defined by race and its reality. When I see fear and anger, and when justice is ringing from the mountain tops, then are you really holding back a dream? It is only equality that will pave the way for greater things. And we should start with giving people the opportunity to express their reality. Canada certainly needs a greater infusion of justice: And Canada does have room for improvement.

 

Racism in Canada

In the deep south of America, there were some very strident measures in place (the Jim Crow laws); these measures were all about race. One of the secrets to the continuous power of racial oppression was that those who were oppressed were hardly if ever recognized; little or no effort or recognition was given to their oppression. Thus the ones in power could keep in a system of power by not recognizing the reality of those whom they oppressed. Regarding Natives and their plight, there is little recognition, and their mistreatment is conventionally overlooked. This is as clear as a parallel as one could get.

In terms of native people the oppression is locked in place through many factors, yet being in a democracy this goes against all that a democracy represents. Social equality is a must for a democratic country, and thus there should be no disadvantaged person or groups. However there is a bold face lie and manipulation of truth that is often used to keep things in place. Every time a small advantage is given to native people there is an outcry, yet in the context of justice, the little that is given cannot compare to the disadvantages incurred by Native people in our great (Canadian) society.

Racism has always been about power, from putting measures in place to creating advantages, to incurring disadvantages for others. This is the essence of institutionalizing racism, by making it convention, to creating a culture of racial advantage and disadvantage. Yet these fundamentals are obscured, and made to be insignificant. If a person dare mention racism and its oppressive nature, it appears to border on treason. But how can recognizing the injustice of the lowly be treason? If anything, it is clearly wrong to continue on, where some people are advantaged and others disadvantaged: More so when those who are disadvantaged are so poor. If justice is truly color blind, than racial distinction inclined to give advantage and disadvantage is clearly unjust.

A clear example of the power that accompanies racism is the recent election of our first black President, Barak Obama. The fact that this appointment was met with anger and fears indicates that the issue of power-shifting from one person to another, (and the other being not like yourself), was a jolting experience for some. Yet from another perspective the idea that a person from a disadvantaged group could make an unprecedented stride was exhilarating, to say the least. It seems that when power is threatened, all hell breaks loose. And it seems equally understandable that fear and anger are the net result of losing power.

If we are in a great and actual democracy, it would seem the sharing of power is not some strange bedfellow. Rather it should be the essence of our countries, the time has come where people must think of unifying and this could ultimately mean working with others not like you.

Another example of the elements in racism has to be apartheid system in South Africa. “Apartheid can be best understood as (the systematic attempt to reverse economic integration as much as possible by legislating social barriers) in order to channel the inevitable political consequences of African economic advancement in the interests of privileged white.” For those caught in a repression like this (colonialism) they must transcend the efforts of humiliation and disrespect. These attacks have been so widespread that the obvious example of the Indian Act is a true culmination of these colonial efforts of humiliation and disrespect. The Indian Act will always be an act of colonialism; (the economic and political policies by which a nation indirectly maintains or extends its influence over people). And so it is that within civilized society, there were many different ways to achieve the end of advantage and disadvantage.

To then overcome both apartheid and colonialism is to overcome control/domination and exclusion. Clearly the Indian Act is a prime example of both control/domination and exclusion. It was certainly not the Apartheid system, nor was it the Jim Crow Laws but it was a system so similar that it is obviously no different than the other systems of exclusion, and domination/control.

Segregation is not conducive to an equal and democratic country. It would seem it is inevitable that systems of segregation will be challenged by the enlightenment of equality. That all men are created equal, and that given the same opportunities success is predestined.

The net result of such a system is the pit of poverty that continually grows, and it seems unjust that billions have to be poured into poor communities. It becomes a national outcry; riches should be given to the progressive, let alone the unmerited poor. For example the constructed Jim Crow laws helped “white Americans, as a group (to) continue to be the beneficiaries of the legal apparatuses of white supremacy, carried out the full weight of America’s legal, political, and economic institutions. The consequences of state-sponsored racial inequality created a mountain of historically constructed, accumulated disadvantage for African Americans as a group.”

The only way for the lowly to succeed is to tear down the control/domination and exclusion factors.
The worth of the lowest is equal to the highest. No longer should the lowest be disrespected and humiliated.

Power does not always go to the arrogant. The Apartheid system was defeated by democracy, the idea that numbers would play an important part in redistributing power was the culmination of the new system. The Jim Crow laws were also defeated by democracy, this time it was about the equality of man. In Canada it will be about “good governance,” that unless native communities practice democracy good governance will not be possible. The people have to decide matters for them self, they do not need outside indirect (colonial) control. Those days are gone; the perpetual children need to grow up. The Indian Act and its paternalism are truly anachronistic.

I think the idea that this is new information is nothing more than a farce, it is about the age old secret of keeping things the way they are, about hiding the obvious, and by not recognizing the repressed reality. Justice is about hearing the repressed, about initiating change that we might all partake of the benefits that this great country has to offer.

Responsibility

Native people are needy. They have little political power, little resources, all in part to their marginalization. Our present government was given, by me, a lot of room to produce a better relationship. I started out feeling that there was hope, however, it has been replaced by a greater belief that arrogance lies at the root of our government. Firstly there was the United Nations incident where indigenous people where to be given more rights. But Canada took the helm and acted against this initiative, and that, moreover, the lowly should receive nothing more. Is Canada only about progress of the rich, the rich get richer? The road to riches has been unimpeded, so at what point do the powerful consider the lesser? There is a great responsibility with great power, no doubt about it. The rich cannot continually snub their noses at the needy and feel they are acting responsibly? If I feel somehow under duress, to consider those who are less fortunate, then there is an obvious disconnection and waywardness to our social responsibility. Are the lowly forgotten and unheard, never, their cries are loud, and they are heard by a greater factor: A factor so in control that they, the lowly, will inevitably ascend.

The biggest factor of impediment to progress is the arrogance factor. Arrogance is a great corruptor of power, but to be responsible with power means consideration. In other words it is the inconsideration of others that is the apex of arrogance. Our world, country for that matter, is tagged as being Democratic. Yet being democratic means social equality. Segregation is the biggest factor when it comes to discrimination. There is nothing different, about fundamentals, no matter how we think we can control or dictate things. For example Multiculturalism per se will never change racial issues, and segregation is this biggest factor related to bigotry. To even think that we are as dominant as to control social outcomes reeks of subversive arrogance. Unless, good honest, respectful relations are sought with all diligence, then we shall, continually, be tripped up. There must be forums and debates that must occur to enhance these good relations. Respect and honour needs to given to all parties involved.

Recently the latest political developments are certainly a prime example of how things need to change. Arrogance has reached a peak; our government feels it does not have to act as the world: And we can deduce that once again arrogance is leading the way. This time though, it has backfired. There are two things that will happen; our government will be in trouble for its ways or arrogance will rise even more. Unless the government sees that this is a second chance to recreate better relations.

In other words, we have to become better people by more civil interactions. This present issue should be seen as a second chance at averting a disaster. The governor general is not the one who holds the balance, it is the government. Now if all that can be deemed as good is that we are democratic, then social relations must then be a priority. If it is about going back to the people, then it is also about proper representation. If we are multicultural, as we so dauntingly hold to, the doors of diversity are a must. Is Democracy about majority rules? Or is it about diversity being given the chance to express its concerns, (minority issues have to be more than a marginal thing): then and only then we will ultimately become more democratic.

I fear that given a system of opportunity that power and corruption will continually try to manipulate our system into a self-serving scheme. More power more arrogance, yet we have been given a way out and that is to open the doors for greater participation. The more involved the less room for arrogance; take the present initiative of downsizing, it could mean more power for fewer people. Downsizing of bureaucracy seems more sensible, but greater participation must also be an inevitable thing for a country like Canada: Less bureaucracy and more participation.

The present situation of where the government is threatened by a coalition that wants to take-over has been met with distain. Since most of Saskatchewan is conservative, this whole thing would be pretty disturbing, to say the least, especially regarding these seemingly unprecedented developments. And so we have a majority up in arms, how is that for instantly losing power? No matter how you feel about being in control, suddenly there comes along a circumstance that invariably chances everything. Is there anything greater than, the lifting up of the strength of man? Is there a greater justice in the works? I would think so!

Moreover consider the reactions that are taking place: First there is the ridiculing of the coalition and then there is the demonizing of the Quebec MPs. Already these are not reactions conducive to good relations, if anything it indirectly promotes further divisions and arrogance. How the government in place is a representation of democracy seems obviously erroneous. 37% of the popular vote is hardly a representation of democracy. In fact, we must admit that what has recently transpired is related to the governing system that is in place.

Harper is now evoking for more democracy and that the people should decide. But democracy means greater social equality, and not to mention greater representation. At least this is what democracy should entail. We must also know there certainly will not be as much power in the hands of a few and the representation of a multicultural spectrum will be inevitable. This is what our country will look like; a spectrum of multi-cultures and a broader base for which power can lay.

We may decry the present initiative as being underhanded, yet having a government with 37% of the popular vote is just as underhanded and manipulative. But you may even justify it as being democratic yet when in fact real democracy is about proper representation. Canada is multicultural and diverse and it would seem that our government should be no different.

So one should ask is this about growing pains? Or are we about to dissolve because we cannot develop into greater things? The old school of one group being dominant is fading away. Welcome to the twentieth century, where others will and should take their rightful place in government.

Harper's position

So far, we have been told that the country will break apart. We have been told the separatists are akin to making a deal with the devil. Two things have run by us under deception; One, that Harpers was a person who was proposing the use of the block to get power, even before this whole new issue came into focus. Two, that the coalition is about two parties coming together, and that the block has limits. After using deception under demagogy, and driving a wedge between the parties, you would think it has done more harm than anything. Harper obviously knows how a coalition works, and to also come out and give false information is deceptive and irresponsible. By saying that the coalition refused to sign by the flag is also deceptive and irresponsible? He stopped at nothing to cling to power, a different scenario where he once arrogantly pranced about doing his business. Canadians must not forget these facts. He must be held to the highest standard given the disaster that was before us. It has been fortunately averted, and people who played the demagogic card should be disciplined. Certain folks forced people to act in certain way by using fear-mongering and playing an emotional rollercoaster to sadly manipulate their way into hanging onto power. Not everyone is deceived. Chicken Little has frenzied the barn house: And they should be held accountable.

Let not, the arrogance continue

Now permission has been given, will this further endorse arrogance? Will the fear mongering continue? Do we not have a system with certain procedures? Are these procedures to be followed, or is playing politics the most important. Harper has now used politics today to change things, to get his way once again. And therefore he must now be more responsible, otherwise arrogance will be the undoing: It is now up to Harper and his party to clean up this mess and to act responsibly.