ProudCanadianCitizen

joined 3 months ago
[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is not about racism.

Being 'all White' does not lead to a homogeneous culture. America was at its greatest risk of self-annihilation during the American Civil War, but it must be remembered that this was a clash between two mutually exclusive homogeneous White cultures, each claiming to be democratic, yet democracy completely failed to prevent the civil war. In fact, democratic decisions made WITHIN each of these factions lead to the decision to go to war. This goes directly to the root of my point - does trying to maintain multiple cultures in a democratic nation potentially lead to a polarization of two mutually exclusive factions, leading to the collapse of the democracy? The American Civil War never did end, it continues in the background festering away, and that has lead to the threat to American democracy that we see today. Democracy within each side in the Civil War worked well because the two cultures were homogeneous in their destination, and the vote was used to determine the path each separate culture would take. But democracy completely collapsed into adversarial fighting when the two cultures tried to work as one Nation. The American Civil War should never have happened - each side should have been given the democratic freedom to chose their own destination. The Civil War resulted because the North refused to allow the South to determine their own destination in a democratic process, over-ruling the democratic decision of the South through military means.

Canada has tried to avoid this clash of cultures through the invocation of 'distinct nation' status to Quebec, in a system that allows the people of Quebec to determine their own destination. For instance, civil law in Quebec follows the Napoleonic Code, whereas civil law in the rest of Canada follows the British Common Law system.

Also, being of one race is not necessary for a homogeneous culture. Early Roman Catholicism unified much of Europe into one homogeneous culture driven by the Catholic religion, even though it covered people of many races and ethnicities.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

On the contrary, it is your response that verges on racism towards the Chinese. You completely deny that they have the intelligence and the mental ability to create a great nation on their own, that because of their backwardness they can not be trusted nor allowed to determine their own form of governance, but that they need the wisdom and guidance of the White West to tell them how to run their own country. Painting the Chinese as 'just another oligarchy' is to deny their entire thousands of years old history, culture and identity, dismissing it because it is not a superior 'White narrative'.

You are repeatedly putting words in my mouth that I did not say, deliberately changing my narrative with false claims to make your point. I never used the phrase 'common sense' nor did I ever claim that a homogeneous society needs to be of the same race or ethnicity. The predominance of Catholicism throughout Europe during the late Roman Empire led to a homogeneous society, while it governed over many ethnic groups and races. Catholicism itself is decidedly NOT democratic, but it can be claimed that the origins of the concept of Statehood and early democracy had its roots in the clash between two autocratic homogeneous religions during the Thirty Years War.

It is not the ratio of population to councilors that results in the Law of Diminishing returns, it is the overall number of councilors. Toronto had reached a point of absurdity in their meetings with 47 councilors all wanting to put in their two cents worth on every issue. Politicians by their nature demand to be heard and thrive on posturing in front of the public.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You are trying to make my comments fit your racist narrative. It is obvious from your comments that you are anti-Chinese. You denigrate their entire culture and society in your blanket statements over the form of government they chose. It is very evident that you consider them not smart enough to determine their own destination and that only the White West has the intelligence to create a 'proper' government for them, that only the White West has the ability to form a 'free society'. The Chinese peoples themselves have collectively and of their own free will decided on the governance system they want, and Xi has their overwhelming collective support and backing. But according to you those poor misguided inferior Chinese need the White West to determine what the Chinese want for themselves, and to force the White ideals onto the backwards Chinese. Oh, wait, that DID happen to the Chinese during the opium wars. Mao completely undid that bondage to Whites, and the Whites have never forgiven him for freeing the Chinese from White oppression. Taiwan is nothing more than the last vestiges of this colonialism.

Incidentally, recent polls in Taiwan indicate that as the evidence for the success of the mainland Chinese government become evident in improving the lifestyle of the Chinese, the illusion of the benefits of so-called 'democracy' in Taiwan is losing its luster . https://www.taiwanplus.com/news/taiwan-news/taiwan-china-relations/260616005/poll-finds-smaller-majority-opposing-beijings-one-china-principle

And I never claimed that homogeneity would lead to democracy, but that perhaps democracy could only function in a homogeneous society. They are not the same statement. Stop twisting my words to fit your narrative. There are far more countries tending towards homogeneity in the world than there are multicultural, with a mix of democratic vs autocratic governments among them. Iran vs Iraq, for instance.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"adore"???????

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I am afraid that the only thing this would result in is even more political posturing and politicking by three times as many politicians. The more diverse the political spectrum represented in the HoC, the less likely that any decisions would be made. How do you get that many MP's to decide on anything? Toronto suffered this fate when the number of counselors rose to unmanageable levels.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

And the cost of implementation would be enormous. You are talking about a huge supporting infrastructure, the cost of just the MP salaries alone would be triple the current expenditure. The Law of Diminishing Returns gone ballistic.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I believe I made clear that my position was that democracy can only thrive when the population is homogeneous with a common goal and the only thing that is to be decided is the path. When the population is on the same wavelength of the government, then all the people believe the government is going in the right direction. When the population is diverse, there will always be the majority that thinks the government is going in the wrong direction, although this majority will never agree to what the right direction is. Thus, the majority who feel the government is not going in the right (their desired) direction, will consider that their vote has no effect on public policy. This is inevitable in a diverse society.

I am sure that your denial of what is actually happening in China is so persuasive to you. I can see how this would happen. You confuse an autocratic leader with a decisive effective leader. I can see how you might think that a leader that oversees the implementation of the will of the people in a decisive manner as 'autocratic', but you miss my point. If the homogeneous society as a whole wants exactly what Xi is delivering, and Xi is delivering exactly what the society wants, and the society is solidly behind him, that is not autocratic, that is completely bureaucratic in its efficiency. When the destination is completely agreed upon, the most efficient way to get there is through bureaucracy, and Xi s the penultimate bureaucrat in the penultimate bureaucratic system. But bear no illusion, when Xi stops delivering what the people want and demand, he is toast.

Perhaps you should research the term 'Autonomous Chinese Province' with respect to regional boundaries in China. That would seem to make these regions of China a 'Republic' as in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Statehood is more than just a political boundary. Being a Republic is no guarantee of anything related to the term 'democracy'. But making broad accusations of what is happening in China without actually knowing what is truly happening in China is certainly not conducive to intelligent discourse.

The situation regarding the Uyghur population in China is a lot more nuanced than 'they are trampled on by China'. There is a lot more to the Uyghur narrative than the one driven by the Chinese response to a minority of Uyghur Islamic Terrorists within the general Uyghur population, yet the Western media goes no further than the popular mischaracterization of painting all Uyghurs in general with the same 'oppressed population' brush.

White Europeans (Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Slavic, etc.) were historically racialized and marginalized incidentally in this country, experienced systemic disadvantage, but certainly do not experience racism today

I really can not get my head around the American census breakdown of the population into Black, White, and non-Spanish-speaking White.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago

And many would say that you haven't really been 'poor' unless you were a poor citizen of China in the last century. Yet socialism has pretty much eliminated abject poverty in the country.

Carney is decidedly NOT a Corporatist. He is 100% a Banker, tried and true.

A Banker is what makes a Corporist possible.

view more: ‹ prev next ›