Heh, Lorne Cardinal. Probably the first instance ever of a native actor getting a non native-specific role. It's a shame really, so much native talent out there and yet there's only a handful of celebrities out there. Adam Beach, August Shellenberg, Graham Greene, and even those prominent three are lost on most people.

Oh btw, that little brown kid with a pretty face, "Jacob Black" from the "Twilight" series. Yeah, his native lineage is dubious at best. Sadly just another tragic instance of another opportunity taken from us. I guess not much has really changed from the olden days of the "Spaghetti Westerns" when courageous cowboys gunned down droves of galloping Indians, many of whom were played by olive-skinned Italians.

Ofcourse, it's refreshing to see guys like Lorne, breaking the the barriers of racial type-casting. Saw him work as an MC at the Aboriginal Achievement awards awhile back, seems like a really chill guy.

>> ^Throbbin:

In my University there were 3 groups - the jocks, the nerds, and the aboriginals.


Pardon me?

In my University there were 3 groups - the jocks, the nerds, and the aboriginals.

Ok, weird tangent. I used to work in a fine dining restaurant here in Australia. On the night of the opening of the Sydney Olympics, I was working in the private dining room of the restaurant, serving a group of 20-odd rich white people. There was much debate about who would light the o;ympic flame that night, and I was coming in and out of the room giving updates of who was holding the torch etc. Each prominent (white) Australian athlete who held the flame met with grand approval from the room, until I came in announcing that Cathy Freeman, an Aboriginal athlete and most prominent Australian track star at the time (and since, to be fair) had lit the flame. The announcement was met with cold shock, and a number of "I'm not racist, but she's not appropriate etc etc..." sentences.

I can't put words in their mouths, but I'm confident they would all argue that they don't believe one race has a moral right to dominate another. However, it seemed to me that the main reason for their displeasure was the race of the athlete, and that they were indeed racist.

Where does this fit within your consciousness argument?

Well-put! Thanks a lot for the clarification, timtoner. Your comment reminded me of a book I read recently: "Playing Indian," which tells a kind of history of this country as seen through the ways in which people have 'played out' the 'role' or adopted the 'image' of first nation people.

Anyway, your point is well-taken. I do think that one of the really complicated components of this scene is the fact that we encounter two instances of 'tourism' in it: one is a sort of 'cultural' tourism, while the other could have no better name than 'disaster' tourism (the latter of course being problematic in perhaps much more obvious ways).

>> ^timtoner:

This might be a touchy point, but giving this video a 'native' 'american' tag is a bit of a stretch, and 'first' 'nation' is right out. The New Orleans Indians are a wonderful adaptation of African culture to a new setting. They adopt the name and general aesthetic as gratitude for all that the Aboriginal Americans did for runaway slaves during the antebellum period. The elaborateness of their costumes came in direct response to Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show passing through the area in the 1880s.
Still, a powerful scene.

This might be a touchy point, but giving this video a 'native' 'american' tag is a bit of a stretch, and 'first' 'nation' is right out. The New Orleans Indians are a wonderful adaptation of African culture to a new setting. They adopt the name and general aesthetic as gratitude for all that the Aboriginal Americans did for runaway slaves during the antebellum period. The elaborateness of their costumes came in direct response to Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show passing through the area in the 1880s.

Still, a powerful scene.

>> ^redyellowblue:

Take away the 2nd and 3rd nuke and I'm gona guess the death toll was near nothing over all those years, because they were tests... in a desert.. or remote area.
If each of those nukes were aimed at a populated city containing stuff people care about and infrastructure. It would be "yabba dabba doo time"


Actually, after those pommy fuckers blew their filthy payloads over the desert of South Australia, they visited the nearby Aboriginal communities to see what effect the radiation had on them. It was a similar situation in the Pacific

@blankfist - Yeah, Canada is pretty racist. The cities not so much - alot of diversity in the bigger cities (although I've noticed many Chinese-Canadians are terrified of aboriginal folk too), but rural communities can be pretty bad.

I don't like to give those folks the benefit of the doubt - if they're going to paint us all with the same brush they don't deserve my considerations.

Good discussion. Hope your gf's nephews are doing ok. I've got several First Nations siblings that my mom adopted (and continues to adopt) because she couldn't stand the conditions they were living in, and Inuit children often face the same circumstances. My gf and I are planning on adopting a few just to give them a better shot at a future.

@blankfist

I would agree that Denmark is not a melting pot - but neither is Canada, and I like it up here. Multiculturalism can be tricky, but it is ultimately a rewarding atmosphere (IMHO). I'm not sure what you mean by closing of borders - most countries I listed do allow for immigration. If you mean open borders as in 'come on in, all of you', I would oppose that. I think immigration is great, and I think more is better - but I do think it has to be controlled in a manner. I don't want Rwandan genocidal collaborators or 'reformed' warlords getting into Canada (although some have been found here). I'm opposed to some of the controls in place now (such as a minimum bank account balance or priority for educated refugees - a part of me thinks the countries African Medical Doctors are emigrating from may need them more than we do). Ultimately, I don't think immigrants should have to beg to immigrate into the west if they are not criminals or misfits - but we do have to control for criminals and misfits.

Regarding Native Americans and conditions on reserves - I see the same thing up here (with both First Nations - thats what we call Native Canadians - and Inuit alike). I do not see a causal relationship, but combined with historical injustices, oscillations between Government heavy-handed interventions and neglect, financial mismanagement by 'leadership', corruption, and the viciously reinforcing poverty cycle I'd say you're right. I've got friends I grew up with who see no need to put the pipe down and get off their asses to make a living if the government is providing social housing and social assistance checks. In Canada (I dunno about down there) there is also an entire 'Aboriginal Industry' of 'well-meaning' white folks who makes loads of money fighting for the Indians while buddying up to corrupt leadership and enriching themselves, thereby prolonging the problems we face.

These problems are multi-faceted and complex, and I do think self-reliance is a necessity. However, yanking out the welfare platform many rely on is not the solution. Ultimately I'd rather that people come to appreciate the dignity and virtue of a hard days work without dropping them all in the gutter to see who climbs out because the truth is many won't make it. We want the same thing - healthy, vibrant, independent people with broadened horizons, but I think it would be cold comfort to withdraw the safety net on principle when so many folks, old and young, only know the lifestyle they've been surrounded by their whole lives.

@NetRunner - ^Read that. What Blankfist says rings true in my experience. I wouldn't say the welfare state caused the problems, but in a manner they are prolonging and intensifying problems that already existed. However, this does not render general arguments in favour of a semi-socialist state or a welfare system moot any more than the experiences of marginalized Americans renders arguments in favour of Democracy moot. They are but examples of a broader systems, and as such I remain a pinko-feminazi-communist.

I think it would be more accurate to say that those countries are doing well in spite of the colonization. Also, it depends who you're talking about in those countries... Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada, Maori in New Zealand, and Aborigines in Australia all had their cultures completely or nearly completely destroyed by colonization. A lot of those populations still live in poverty or are marginalized. I doubt they'd share your opinion about colonization's benefits.

>> ^rychan:

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

>> ^dag:

I've spent a couple months in Thailand- and have friends in Bangkok. It's really disheartening to see this kind of strife happening. It's a place where Buddhist monks in saffron robes are walking down almost very street- lots of smiles and laughter.
I know they're only human and capable of the worst like all of is- but nationally I never thought they had this in them.


I didn't think the Greeks where modernly capable of the row either.

This sort of thing is common in the US, only they call it a riot or a street gang. Of course I'm speaking of Rodney King, or all the other riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

I don't know much about Australia, but I would assume that the Aborigine have seen their fair share too. (http://www.australian-news.net/Redfern_riots.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Riots_in_Australia

Riots, revolts, from my arm chair they all look the same; however I have the cognitive power to know that is not true in many places. People have grievances, they should be aired or they end up like this video.

>> ^BoneRemake:

what a dumb overly tanned fucktard. I find it absolutely idiotic that people are assumed to have to hold religion up to some higher standard then other ideas or beliefs. This guy is a brainwashed idiot; going up to bat because they called his beliefs a myth.. what about those that think all the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or Egyptian gods are real... OHHHHH snap, oh no you didnt ??? you calling RA in to question ? ima get myself on the news and bring this book against ra's sun god intentions into question...

MAN. people who believe in invisible unscientific, unproven JACK ASS beliefs. really piss me off. I am really just mad that humans can be so, blatantly ignorant and idiotic. whe are all cogs in our species demise, its funny though how we can witness it and understand it, yet do nothing about it.. oh thats right, god will make it all good in the end, no worries mates


Im an atheist through and through*, however he has a point:

You can't call society's religion myth, as that implies falsehood: which if you missed it, is athiests forcing belief on others. Which is of course, is disappointing as its the victim becoming the victimizer.

I would not call the Australian aborigine's Dreamtime stories "mythology", Id call it a creation belief or even better, a religion belief.


*Even though that sounds like I'm a Christian plant posing as an atheist

Saw'em at the Aboriginal Achievement Awards awhile back. Gave one hell of a concert, Tho it's a shame when you look at his history. If you check around, online, Robertson isn't exactly the most popular guy in town. He apparently "stole" all the rights to The Band's songs and then quit entirely to focus on a solo career. As far as I know he and Levon Helm don't talk anymore. They both came out with biographies, "Across The Great Divide" from what I've read (haven't finished it yet) is quite heavily biased towards Robbie Robertson, tho I'd expect Levon Helm's "Story Of The Band" tells a different tale.

Regardless, remarkable man.

No, a bunch of executives did. A bunch of executives do not represent a company, the shareholders do. Unless you have evidence that a majority of the shareholders endorsed the commercial then you can assume any more than what I stated.

You also have no evidence they used a racial stereotype intentionally. I had never heard of this stereotype until I came across it on VideoSift.

I'm not aware of your example but what you're describing is racist. If it was designed to entertain white people at the expense of mocking black people as a racial group then it was racist.
>> ^longde:
I think this is a valiant effort to rationalize something that is cut and dry. KFC did endorse this commercial (obviously, since it's their ad); and the aussie ad team did intentionally use a racist stereotype to sell chicken.
And I disagree that intent is at the core of what makes something racist. The sambo stories are offensive to blacks, but when they were produced, the intent was to entertain whites, not to offend blacks. They didn't care what black thought.
>> ^RedSky:
I think the notion of racism needs to be brought back to the core.
It's not racist unless it's purposely meant to be offensive to a particular racial background. It's clear that no company, least of all a fast food chicken company, would walk off a cliff willingly like this and put on an intentionally racist ad.
At worst it was produced by a bunch of employees that want to play up on a racial stereotype but was in no way endorsed or acknowledged by KFC. At best, and to me most likely, the ad was produced by an Australian marketing team unaware of the stereotype. Cenk to me seems correct, they're not rowdy, they looked like they were generally having a good time at the game. As for the whole 'awkward situation' phrasing relating to being surrounded by a bunch of black people, well yes it's a fact that even now people from different racial backgrounds tend to have more trouble getting along. There's no harm is stating that evolution has made us innately mistrustful of those that look different to us, there's nothing offensive about admitting that.
Point is, regardless of which it is, it's overblown and diverts attention away from actual examples of racial hate.



It comes down to how you define it, and yes I agree that ignorance with no hateful or prejudiced intent can be harmful but I wouldn't think of it as racism. The point where you draw the line is definitely fine though. Being wilful ignorance as a form of denying your prejudiced views is not the same as simply being unintentionally offensive. Being culturally acceptable is also of course not a defence either. Jokes about Aborigines are common place around here unfortunately, although I can definitely say I've heard less of them since I left high school.

It also doesn't help that it's virtually impossible to separate the two. We will never really know if the people who made this ad were purely ignorant or racist. Looking from the point of view of a minority I can see that perhaps past experience would gravitate you towards assuming the latter but I think it's an important distinction to make.

>> ^Throbbin:
RedSky - racism doesn't have to be intentional to qualify as racism. Ignorant/inadvertent racism is just as harmful, maybe even more harmful than intentional (hateful) racism. At least with hateful racism it's easy to isolate, identify, and mock/ridicule the racists. When it's ignorant/unintended racism it's tacitly accepted by society, and thus harder to isolate and rectify.
I don't buy the 'Australia doesn't have the same stereotypes of black people that Americans do' line. Aussies consume just as much American media as Canadians do, and all of the stereotypes about black people I encountered came from American media. In general, I have heard that Australia is an exceptionally racist place - I heard this firsthand from Aborigines (and Maori from NZ). I have even even heard it from 'white Aussies' themselves. One Aussie was trying to congratulate me (us? as in Inuit) for having our shit together much more than the good for nothing Aborigines down under. I shit you not.

RedSky - racism doesn't have to be intentional to qualify as racism. Ignorant/inadvertent racism is just as harmful, maybe even more harmful than intentional (hateful) racism. At least with hateful racism it's easy to isolate, identify, and mock/ridicule the racists. When it's ignorant/unintended racism it's tacitly accepted by society, and thus harder to isolate and rectify.

I don't buy the 'Australia doesn't have the same stereotypes of black people that Americans do' line. Aussies consume just as much American media as Canadians do, and all of the stereotypes about black people I encountered came from American media. In general, I have heard that Australia is an exceptionally racist place - I heard this firsthand from Aborigines (and Maori from NZ). I have even even heard it from 'white Aussies' themselves. One Aussie was trying to congratulate me (us? as in Inuit) for having our shit together much more than the good for nothing Aborigines down under. I shit you not.