I know this is a little long but I feel its appropriate for this topic. I also respect this person's (Chief Justice McLachlin) opinion very much.

From Racism and Law:

Human beings, from time immemorial, have tended to gather themselves
into social groups of various sizes and differing degrees of complexity. By definition, groups develop rules, conventions, and traditions that define membership in them. Persons within the group are members. Everyone else is the “other”. We do not, as a species, have a good record of dealing with people outside our group. Some of this is territorial. The encroachment of the “other” on what a group of like individuals have claimed as their territory has traditionally provoked what Robert Ardrey called the territorial imp erative:2 the group’s fierce attachment to that territory, often giving rise to resentment, fear, exclusion, and aggression. In humans, the territorial imperative often finds more complex expression in religious and cultural values. Humans respond to these social realities and perceived threats in a variety of ways, some of which are aimed, consciously or not, at diminishing or eliminating the stress and perceived threat that the presence of the “other” poses. They include exclusion, subordination, discrimination, violence and, in the extreme cases, war. Human history is but a long catalogue of such responses.

Exclusion and expulsion of the “other”, the outsider, may have served their purposes in the past in simpler forms of human organization. But in modern nation states, composed of a variety of racial and social groups, exclusion and expulsion are often destructive forces. We know them by familiar names: racism, discrimination, and adverse treatment. Left unchecked, these forces are destructive of human dignity, social order and, ultimately, society itself. Inclusion and empowerment of individuals and groups promote a richer society and ensure the preservation of the distinct features that define them. Modern democracy depends on respect for every individual. Progress in modern society is not feasible, unless all its members feel they are part of the whole and confident and empowered to play a role in it. It is in our collective interest to find ways to contain our discriminatory impulses and overcome any inclinations of preventing certain individuals from enjoying the benefits that membership in Canadian society has to offer.



If you're interested in racism and law in Canada you can read more here:

http://www.jle.ca/files/v1n1/JLEv1n1intro.pdf

-- Edited by neruda at 20:53, 2006-01-11

Paradox wrote:

---

To what extent does a feeling of envy entitle someone to have that feeling removed, and in what way? This might seem a strange question, because we are accustomed to thinking of envy as a vice, not something granting a moral entitlement. So, let me put the question another way: To what extent are people entitled to be treated fairly? 

---

Well, with this question you are jumping from a sociological standpoint, into a philosophical/moral one.

When you get into these kinds of topics, you have to be very careful with the words you use, because a LOT of things here are very subjective, which will only lead to inaccurate answers and hypothetical situations. your first question is much more accurate than your second one, given that in order to accurately answer it you would have to define the term "fairly", and that's too big of a topic for this thread.

To answer you first question "To what extent does a feeling of envy entitle someone to have that feeling removed, and in what way?" I would love to think that we are free to choose our actions in any way. Although this might have been true 30,000 years ago, nowadays we are VERY restricted by an avalanche of social and moral codes. Having said this, I would have to say that a person is entitled to remove that feeling only to the extent this person's sorrounding  environment allows her/him to, socially and morally. Hence the different degrees of segregation all over the world. Any surpassing or overlooking of these codes will undoubtedly be frowned upon, or even legally punished in some places.

I think that the extent to which a person might strive to remove that feeling of envy is now fundamentally dictated by the line that separates one's own well-being from another person's. In order to define this line you'd have to have a very deep understanding of the people in question, thus making this situation very succeptible to misunderstandings and assumptions of many different kinds. the solution?? i guess in simple terms would be "Know each other".

 

 

 

Daeveed wrote:

---

Guadalupana wrote:  it always come down to this: you may tell yourself "no one is better that anyone else" but really, you're just lying to yourself, because deep down inside, we always tell ourselves 'i'm better then they are'....then there are those who take it a bit further by trying to prove it, making the rest of the world see...   YES!!! One of my biggest Pet Peeves is this phrase : "We are all equal" I hate it, and i hate it because it is a blatant lie. If we were really all the same, this forum would be dead boring, same with our jobs, lives..etc. We are all different!!! (DNA anybody???), and until we realize of this universal truth, there's always going to be problems.

---

The "we are all equal" thing applies more to our rights as human beings, when it comes to our inherent attributes, I think everyone recognizes the fact that we are all different.

In my mind this idea makes sense but I'm having trouble wording it so bear with me...

This goes what Guadalupana was saying: our conflicts come from comparing one human being to another. To make an objective comparison you need to have similar, equal or analogous things. If I made some pupusas for a foro gathering, then you could compare those with Angelita's and decide that hers probably kicked mines' a$ses but... How can you make an objective comparison between a dog and a cat; a sofa and a chair; a Van Gogh or a Monet? How do you decide which one is better? Even if we all prefered one over the other, would that really mean it's better?

-- Edited by Lahtina at 14:22, 2006-01-10

Guadalupana wrote:

---

and we only learn to stereotype, from very young....from our parents.

---

2ND REALISTIC POINT OF THE DAY!

LOL

YOU'RE ON A ROLE.....

Daeveed wrote:

---

yes.

Should we as humans try to differentiate from this natural behavior not? Is it possible that the cognitive factor plays a role here? or is it maybe our social self-imposed rules?
Segregation as an act on unfunded hate/fear is ignorance, therefore remediable. But segregation as a means of survival is much more instinctive and even almost necessary. 

---

i think there are a few who do recognize the behaviour, and i'm sure they know that changing that will change things in the world.
the thing to do would be to get those who don't see it, to see it. only then will something get done.

yes.

Let's also not forget that segregation does exist as an intrinsic part of nature, and us being also part of nature (although we seem to be doing the impossible to stop being), are affected by it.

Segregation in nature though, exists as a way of mere survival and preservation. The injured/incapacitated is left behind by the pack, otherwise the whole pack wouldn't survive on their quest for food.

Here is where the question I'm really interested in lies.

Should we as humans try to differentiate from this natural behavior not? Is it possible that the cognitive factor plays a role here? or is it maybe our social self-imposed rules?

Segregation as an act on unfunded hate/fear is ignorance, therefore remediable. But segregation as a means of survival is much more instinctive and even almost necessary. 

Daeveed wrote:

---

I do not care about this subject, but let me explain. I do not care about all the segregation talk because i think the less we speak about segregation, the more we'll see each other as nothing more than human beings. I believe segregation talk only helps to further build stereotypes. Now my interest is based solely on finding effective ways to silently and gently segregate the segregators, until they stop segregating out of necessity.

---

This actually makes a whole lotta sense. Words are the source of misunderstandings. - Saint-Exupéry.

I do not care about this subject, but let me explain. I do not care about all the segregation talk because i think the less we speak about segregation, the more we'll see each other as nothing more than human beings. I believe segregation talk only helps to further build stereotypes.

Now my interest is based solely on finding effective ways to silently and gently segregate the segregators, until they stop segregating out of necessity.

Dogo wrote:

---

Lahtina wrote: Dogo wrote: Yup, it's early, alright! Ok, this is why man will never understand that we are all citizens of the world! Because Dogo sucks! Eeeverybody Hates Dogo. Ya, you can blame that one on me as well....... "que le hace una ralla mas al tigre"

---

You mean 'raya'. Can't say I blame you for the spelling mistake, what would you know about LL and Y when it's all the same Shhhhhh to you. LOL

Lahtina wrote:

---

Dogo wrote: Yup, it's early, alright! Ok, this is why man will never understand that we are all citizens of the world! Because Dogo sucks! Eeeverybody Hates Dogo.

---

Ya, you can blame that one on me as well....... "que le hace una ralla mas al tigre"

torontotrucho wrote:

---

Now, the U.S is spending billions in weapons and getting into debt while the victims of hurracane Katrina are still waiting for real help.  It took a ridiculous amount of time to start helping the victims cause there were not enough helicopters and other vehicles and resources while very expensive airplanes are flying all over the world. Also, the U.S is spying, wiring their citizens conversations,and even involving themselves with torturers or torturing themselves; all these actions were supposed to happen only in evil empires such as the former Soviet Union. The question is... are they going backwards now?,what's next?

---

Ha! I know, eh? Did you read/hear about the story of the Mississauga man who was arrested because he was a security threat? They two (was it two ) fighter jets accompany the plane which wasn't even to land on U.S. soil. Pfffft, how ridiculous is that?

LaDyBuG wrote:

---

Lahtina wrote: And btw, I'm kinda dissapointed that this thread hasn't had more responses. WELL TO BE HONEST WITH YOU....I THINK YOUR HISTORY KNOWLEDGE INPUT SCARED EVERYONE OFF.....LOL..... ACTUALLY ITS TOO MUCH "SCHOOL READING, FACTS & TERMINOLOGY" .....AND MOST PEOPLE COME ON HERE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES, SOME LAUGHS AND QUICK GENERAL INFO.......

---

Is this why Brainy Smurf always got tossed behind the bushes (or where ever) when he went on his nerdy rampages? LOL

 ETA: Awww but c'mon, I'm not the only nerd on this forum.

 

-- Edited by Lahtina at 09:37, 2006-01-10

Lahtina wrote:

---

torontotrucho wrote:  All empires fall, I wonder what empire is next.  Chances are the chinese are going to aquire the knowledge and resources from the rest of the world, as the west fall in a deep recesion after their workers start loosing their jobs cause their employers prefer to transfer those job to the far east in order to get more profits and satisty their share holders. I really wonder if it's going to happen anymore. They say that empires fall under their own weight - the cracks in the system inevitably become too many to repair and contain. I came across these two thoughts in the book I'm reading: All human history is a perpetual cycle in which barbarism gives way to civilization, only to be replaced once more by barbarism as civilization decayed, became weak, corrupt, and overrun by that most feared of eighteenth century ills, "luxury". Whoops, gotta go now but I'll add more to this later. And btw, I'm kinda dissapointed that this thread hasn't had more responses.

---

The U.S used to critizise the "evil Empire" ( the Soviet Union).  The Soviet Union is history now, some say that's becaused they used to spend their money in weapons and security.  Now, the U.S is spending billions in weapons and getting into debt while the victims of hurracane Katrina are still waiting for real help.  It took a ridiculous amount of time to start helping the victims cause there were not enough helicopters and other vehicles and resources while very expensive airplanes are flying all over the world.

Also, the U.S is spying, wiring their citizens conversations,and even involving themselves with torturers or torturing themselves; all these actions were supposed to happen only in evil empires such as the former Soviet Union. The question is... are they going backwards now?,what's next?

torontotrucho wrote:

---

 All empires fall, I wonder what empire is next.  Chances are the chinese are going to aquire the knowledge and resources from the rest of the world, as the west fall in a deep recesion after their workers start loosing their jobs cause their employers prefer to transfer those job to the far east in order to get more profits and satisty their share holders.

---

I really wonder if it's going to happen anymore. They say that empires fall under their own weight - the cracks in the system inevitably become too many to repair and contain.

I came across these two thoughts in the book I'm reading:

All human history is a perpetual cycle in which barbarism gives way to civilization, only to be replaced once more by barbarism as civilization decayed, became weak, corrupt, and overrun by that most feared of eighteenth century ills, "luxury".

Whoops, gotta go now but I'll add more to this later. And btw, I'm kinda dissapointed that this thread hasn't had more responses.

Bumping up this post with some other thoughts I encountered in my readings yesterday.

Nationalism is the idea that peoples have separate, distinct and indissobluble features, that they are united by a common language and culture, and live under a single and indigenous ruler. People think of themselves overwhelmingly in nationalist terms. It is almost inevitable since it's "the man's" wish. Profitable adventures beyond the boundaries of the homeland have always been a way for rulers to give their subjects what Machiavelli shrewdly called "great expectations of themselves" - one way of making them forget, if only briefly, their present divisions and miseries. Only as long as Rome was expanding, as Machiavelli also observed, had she been free from corruption. When she stopped, her peoples began to argue among themselves and instantly lost the martial spirit which had held the state together.

If we keep in mind that ignorance produces fear, then your question, LadyBug: WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNIVERSE, is almost answered. Enlightment eighteenth century theorists such as Diderot eagerly favoured interracial relationships but the nineteenth century theorists feared it. By then it was thought that the future of the world belonged to the Anglo-Saxon, to the Russian and the Chinese races. All the others: Australian Aborigines, American Indians, etc., were singled out for extintion. It was thought that interbreeding always resulted in the weakening of the supposedly stronger and superior stock. European colonists had a persistent fear that it would only be a matter of time before they became "natives" themselves - either that or they would perish altogether.

So, there was fear but then there is also greed. The white man saw the natives as their "surplus". They would give the Europeans their cheap if not free labour and their raw materials. In return, the Europeans gave them: "enlightment", technology, Christianity - in short: civilization. Now, how much "enlightment" have they really provided?

Cosmopolitanism has generally been a luxury that only aristocracies or one kind or another can really afford. They have always been the wealthy, the privileged and the intellectual. So who has time to understand that we are all citizens of the world when you're busy working your butt off/screwing others to make ends meet or to increase your bank account?  

-- Edited by Lahtina at 16:02, 2006-01-09

edruzco wrote:

---

Not too long ago a friend of mine that lives in the States came to visit me, and she was amazed how at the mall she saw people of all the different races that live here in Toronto. She said that where she lives, certain areas are specifically for certain ethnicities, that you never see a latin american person in a mall that is located in a white neighbourhood. She even found it very odd to see middle eastern people at a latin club. She said that south of the border things are quite different.

---

THE SAME THING HAPPENED YEARS AGO WHEN MY AUNT CAME TO VISIT FROM CALI.....

SHE WAS LITERALLY SHOCKED....SHE COULDNT STOP STARING AT PEOPLE AND LISTEN TO WHAT LANGUAGE THEY WERE SPEAKING.....

THEN AGAIN, I UNDERSTOOD HER....CUZ THE STATES IS SUCH A MELTING POT......THE AMERICANS TAKE PRIDE IF THEY EVEN LEARN HOW TO SAY "HOLA COMO ESTAS" IN SPANISH......(A LANGUAGE THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IN SCHOOL)

BUT ALL THEY REMEMBER FROM SPANISH CLASS IS:

"CERVEZA"  LOL

"La libertad de uno termina donde empieza la del otro", this is more or less an accurate translation.

It is all about respect. There is a lots of mix in my family and family friends ! Different religions, culture, nationalities, etc... so if there is one thing we learned is not to discriminate someone for his believe or skin color !

I find it very sad, than today, more than ever, there is still so many discrimination going on. With all the access we have to infomation, travel, etc... we should learn about the world, the civilazations instead of shutting ourselves down to new opportunites of growth.

But I guees some things never change, although I really hope this one does !

 

LaDyBuG wrote:

---

IN THE GENERAL SECTION ON THE THREAD "ISLAM 101"...I CAME ACROSS A GOOD POINT MADE BY MARKY MARK WHO STATED: Life is too short to be segregated because of religion.   SO THEN WHAT ABOUT...... Ethnicity, Culture, Nationality, RACE..... Everyone living in the own country.....isn't that considered Segregation as well? What do you guys think.....

---

Wow, great topic LB!  Why are there no responses yet? Well, I guess it's too complex - one big paradox. Unity and segregation - the eternal struggle of humanity. 

Indeed ethnicity, nationality and culture promote segregation but they also unite the peoples who have that in common.

Kant insisted that the human history ends as the history of settlement, of order, of peace and law come to an end, for it began in movement, in restlessness, in the quest for new resources, the search for more hospitable climates and the zealous desire for possession. These impulses drove the first humans out of Africa and across the world.

It is probable that all cultures of all the races of the world have been the creations of prolonged periods of migration. As they travelled, these people came together into families and then into tribes, all speaking separate languages and pursuing separate ways of life. Once divided, the stronger begin to seize possession fo the weaker.

The same continues to happen over and over again.

-- Edited by Lahtina at 23:59, 2006-01-08