>> ^Sagemind:

"French Girl.."
Why on Earth would any French Canadian be offended if they were mistaken for a French person?

This can actualy be a sensitive topic in Canada since French Canadians see themselves as French First and Canadian Second while the rest of Canada Sees them as Canadian First and French second. That's a debate we Canadians like to get into because it is offensive to us english Canadians that they should consider themselves above and beyond other Canadians - But that's a debate for another time!

lol "above and beyond"! Just "different" will be distinctive enough, please. But of course, it's easier to admit to someone being different than to them being "above and beyond", so that's probably your psychological straw man that lets you ignore the real facts: Quebecers are different than other Canadians, both culturally and linguistically. We have been different since 1759 and it will not change anytime soon. Even since before 1759, we have considered ourselves "canadiens" since until the 20th century there were more (linguistically) French people than English in the territories known as Canada (Ontario + Quebec). Thus, "French Canadian" is historically pleonastic since the majority of Canadians have been of French descent. Also, since the English side of Canada is still in love with the Queen of England, the term "English Canadian" is more than fitting for them. They've always considered themselves subjects of the Queen/King first and Canadians second (because Canadian was until recently a term reserved for Quebecers).

You could say this is less true nowadays, but you'd be wrong: in Quebec we didn't care for the Queen, but in the ROC (rest of Canada) they absolutely wanted her in the Constitution. So they forced the Constitution on us (Quebec) with their royal - plus some centralizing - shit in it. Of course, we never signed it, but because of Supreme Court rulings - a Court then presided by a majority of Trudeau-nominated judges - the consent of provinces was seen as not formally necessary, so leaving Quebec out was not a problem (this is the equivalent of the Republicans having a Republican-controlled Supreme Court rule in favor of outright torture on some provision that torture isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution). English Canadians are all the more English whereas in Quebec we don't care to be ruled by someone else. It's not like we want to separate from Canada to join France.

And so we see that between Quebec and the ROC there are cultural differences, linguistic differences and even political differences. Why do the English Canadians fear so much these differences? Do they have an inferiority complex? Or a superiority complex? Are they just dumb? Well, anyway they refuse to admit obvious facts and then delude themselves with a vision of a united and harmonious Canada (which never existed on any level since 1759), so there is something wrong with them, that much is certain. We just don't know what exactly.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, rant, earnings, culture differences, brad, buddy, cheating' to 'mitchell, rant, earnings, culture differences, brad, buddy, massive talk, cheating' - edited by calvados

>> ^Psychologic:
I'm trying to understand this situation as someone who lives in the USA. Let me know if I have this right.
The government is fine with denouncing violent religious extremism, but they do not approve of someone pointing out that certain verses in the Quran promote such behavior.
They allow people to promote violent discrimination on the basis of religious expression, but they do not approve of people criticizing those religious ideas.

As I said, I do not live in the area so I can only see it from a distance. What else is going on here, because that seems a bit unrealistic.



You've got it in a nutshell!

For instance, they keep giving this guy benefits every month and refuse to deport him even after all the hate he has spewed, however a member of European Parliament is denied entry because his movie shows the Koran in a bad light.

Imagine, Psychologic, that the Brits are so utterly confused in their interminable maze of fear of "offending others" and "respecting cultural differences" that they now call Muslim terrorism "anti-Islamic activity".

It's a tragic state of affairs that the civilization that has inspired much of the world in the realms of law, philosophy, mathematics, engineering, economics and politics is now bending over backwards to "respect" imported religious fundamentalists that refuse to admit that a book written 1,400 years ago may not be 100% relevant in this era.

Singapore ? Is this the best example you could come up with ? Come on

You think that violence is much more of a culture in the Muslim world then in Orient as opposed to economic prosperity. Their "cultural" difference may as well be the result of history as opposed to being it's cause. Ain't the tradition of commerce and trade ingrained in the Muslim culture ? Wasn't Mohammed itself a trader ? Ain't violence really NEVER a means of (national) economic prosperity ? Talk of this to the U.S. and it's neo-colonial warfare or of those country that seeks their national independence like... well the U.S. What? You want to nail down economic progress in their mind with an hammer ? Economic opportunity may as well been the factor to explain this cultural difference as giving them economic opportunity may be the solution.

What could be a better example then... well Singapore the trading port of Asia.

Why don't you learn some recent history of Lebanon and that'll answer your question.

It IS a badge of honour to say that London is breaking down boundaries and divisions between people, especially where there are huge cultural differences.

If you ever do visit London, the BNP are recruiting people just like you.

hurray for cultural differences and the mocking thereof!

Yeah, complacency is far better. Whatever happens outside (or inside) our borders isn't worth talking about.

Enjoy Dancing with the Stars. Oh, and I hear the new season of Lost is staring soon! That should be immensely edifying!

Some people need to get off their PC high horse and consider that, just perhaps, the fact that you're so intellectually profound and take for granted that cultural differences are some sort of abstract concept does not mean that other cultures are de facto "enlightened" with your unabashed optimism for serene cooperation between civilizations.

We need to dispense with this notion that culture is an illusory facet of our world. This is the ugly face of a civilization.

Yes Fedquip, fear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEpUtoUzE4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3TDhgdwUeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBMHF3QvtA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baix0Xa9x3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo0Z2WTDJnE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYDZK2u0g-o (about 1:40)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f840ab50b2



Some examples of why, even if the cop is an ass, to be nice and sign the ticket. These are the kinds of things that are going through an officer's head when they make a traffic stop.

Here's another clip of a woman cop getting beaten down by a dad with his family in the car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaCHLgZc0A


We do have a cultural difference. The culture changed some years ago when people started beating and shooting cops during traffic stops. You should see these guys come up to your car at night now. They come prepared for a fire fight. That's why I say, "be nice. Sign the ticket. Argue later." It's a traffic ticket. Now really, how big of a deal is that in the game of life?

word up SC

I dunno, methinks the cop is a little paranoid no? You don't think this is the wrong way to react? I smell fear? The driver had a baby in the car, the cop told him to leave the car because he wouldn't sign a paper or did the cop think he had a gun in the car? Could the cop have many profiled the situation a little better, family man with a baby does not look dangerous, or have we begun training our cops to imagine the worst. Cops should be a little bit more professional and courteous don't you think?

It must honestly be a cultural difference we have SC, because I watched this clip over and over now and I honestly don't see any wrong doing, I see a confused guy who really truly believes he wasn't speeding. And I bet if the cop actually spent 1 minute to listen to the guys story he possibly could have explained the ticket a little better, and if you watch the video I posted you might see there is room for debate on the validity of the ticket, (I swear your video is cropped at the start, the one I linked to was 9:58.) Yes it sucks that people argue tickets, but what type of society are we descending into if we don't fight our traffic tickets. Paranoid fear filled cops with tasers are dangerous, and I think this video is an example of why.

Chechnya and others started resolving to military actions (including violating human rights toward Russian soldiers) whenever Russia was weak historically (this time, pre-2000 without today's Russian oil business). And desperate to hold the government from downright collapse, Russia started to implement torture and violation of human rights etc.

What's going on in Chechnya and other provinces of Russia is a necessary evil. You may argue that Russia doesn't have to resolve to torture and oppression. But how else would you fight against a militarily active independence movement that outright refuses to abide by Russian rules? If they don't want to play by the rules, then the rules don't apply to them either.

You may say this is cruel, but we had a similar history of our own. We had Confederate States of America declaring independence, forcing USA to declare war, killing total 3% of United States population. These guys wanted to secede from United States and wanted to keep slavery (violation of human rights). It came from a very distinct political stance and desire to protect local economy (also influence of Texas, who wanted a country of their own as well), as seeing end of slavery would mean collapse of already dwindling southern economy.

You could argue that United States would've been better off granting independence to CSA without a declaring war. Well then I don't see why US should keep Texas or California or New Mexico or Vermont. And with CSA continuing to have slave trade, and Texas continuing to raid local Indian settlements to gain territory?

Would we have been better off as a divided nation? That is a very serious question.


In reply to this comment by messenger:
More civic power in certain culturally different areas of a country leads to demands for rights and independence, which either leads to actual independence, or to violent oppression. In these cases, it was violent oppression, and that's what I don't like. When I say that it's human rights violations that are holding those two countries together, I mean that human rights violations are forcing Chechnya and Taiwan to remain part of the country, not that the whole country would fall apart.

Ah. I see where our misunderstanding lies: When I said something about "nations clamoring for independence," I was referring only to Chechnya, Tibet, etc., NOT China, nor Russia. The only changes I would like to make in those countries is to stop their human rights violations, by I-don't-know-what-method, but certainly not by imposing democracy from the outside. That clearly doesn't work.

More civic power in certain culturally different areas of a country leads to demands for rights and independence, which either leads to actual independence, or to violent oppression. In these cases, it was violent oppression, and that's what I don't like. When I say that it's human rights violations that are holding those two countries together, I mean that human rights violations are forcing Chechnya and Taiwan to remain part of the country, not that the whole country would fall apart.

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
It's because

1. Russia actually DO want Putin to stay in power. Despite what Kasparov says there, the general Russian public does have a strong support for Putin. Especially young Russians support Putin with much optimism and vigor.

2. If released Chechnya, other states with private militaries would start demanding the same thing. Many of them being remnants of instability since the collapse of USSR. So even though Chechnya alone does have a legitimate cause to demand independence, Russia just cannot afford to show signs of 'giving up' at this time.

Once things have settled down, they may give it another chance.

3. Improved human rights treatment can be achieved without having to make a democratic nation. People usually confuse democracy automatically resulting to better humans rights and civic power. It's actually the opposite. More civic power means more demands for civilian rights, and civilian rights leads to democracy.

Human rights violations result from power struggles (government instability) and lack of civil power. Once government stabilizes and economy goes up, these things will take care of themselves.

You know in some places the people walk around naked. Are we living in a country of inequality because we have laws forcing us to wear clothes? We are bound by laws which reflect our culture the same as the arabs are. Men can walk around topless, Women can't, Simply because we see the exposed female chest as something not to be shown in public.

We also send women off to different rooms, We have pictures of men and women on toilet doors and changing rooms. It's highly inappropriate for a man to share a toilet or changing room with a woman.

It's called a cultural difference, get over it and stop being so arrogant in the assumption that our laws regarding clothes and segregation are ok, But theirs are not..

At some point, though, GoogTube, political correctness and respecting others' cultures is just no longer relevant. The extent of inequality between the sexes shown in this very clip cannot be justified by recognizing that it is out of a different context; I can't conscience things like female circumcision or the restriction of human life to this extent on the basis of cultural difference. Just because something is a part of a culture different from ours doesn't mean it can't be wrong or unjust or sickening.

To pharaphrase something Richard Dawkins writes in "The Ancestor's Tale" that I'm currently reading, "Island migration" animals that, by a freak occurrence drifts across the sea to colonize islands, is such a rare event that animals evolve into new species before the next raft arrives, and thus the variation that Darwin discovered and, presumably was inspired by, on the Galapagos islands, as he puts it, such raft journeys of, say a pregnant iguana is so rare that the possibility that it will happen in a year is one to ten thousand or so, but on a million year scale (evolutionary and geological time) its unavoidable. The same applies to nuclear war: it may be statistically improbable , but it only has to happen once.

Will we be able to set aside our petty, insignificant religious and cultural differences and move on to bigger and better things before that time comes?

ah i also found something else via boingboing that'd interest you:

"Hometown Baghdad was shot by an all-Iraqi crew and tells the stories of three young people trying to survive in Baghdad.

Chat the Planet is a global dialogue company. We connect young people from around the world to talk about everything from politics, prejudices and war to sex, music and life in general.

Chat the Planet is uncensored, unscripted and unlike anything else in the mainstream media.About Us

In 2007, we are launching an innovative internet platform that will transform the way people engage globally. It will transcend both cultural differences and long distances."

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=chattheplanet

This one was particularly interesting. The ending will hit you like a punch:
The Forbidden Salad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVTzpEOWbw

Not sure if i can post it to your collective as its more political than about Islam. What do you think?