I have to strongly disagree with Rod's claims about Canada. He wrote: >There is racism in Canada, but except for the native people there are is >little segregation. All the school districts receive comparable financing. >The private school system is very small. And believe it or not no economic >studies can find any significance for "self-identified race" in determining >income. We can quibble about what "little segregation" is, but taking Vancouver as an example, there certainly is residential segregation along the usual race/class lines, and the less-'white'/more working class area schools have inferior buildings, equipment, extra-curicular programs, etc. Partly this is because they have to provide more English language and special-education programs per capita. >Canada's treatment of native people is scandalous but otherwise there >appears to be no widespread identifiable systematic racism, at present >(historically it is a different stories) Affirmative action programmes are >not needed here. If the federal government would simply live up to its >treaty obligations to the natives, that situation would be much better as >well. No widespread, indentifiable, systemic racism in Canada at present? This is whitewash. Affirmative action has not been as big an issue in Canada but remains part of any serious program to overcome inequality. It is incredible to imply that race is not a significant factor in determining income in Canada. I'm with Rod on denying that race is a scientific category but he seems to deny most of its social reality. I don't have studies in hand on all groups, but I'm looking at a 1996 regression study by Shapiro and Stelcner that shows that unilingual francophone men in Quebec earned 20% less than unilingual anglophones in 1971 and 9% less in 1991 (17% and 8% respectively when educational levels are taken into account). Quebec is 82% francophone. The earning gap between unilingual anglophones and allophones (neither French nor English is their mother tongue) was even greater, and again, allophones who spoke only French earned less than those who spoke only English. I wonder why? And, if there is no widespread systemic racism in Canada why isn't Quebec's right of national self-determination respected? "Liv[ing] up to its treaty obligations to the natives" minimizes what is a much bigger issue. There never have been treaties covering most of B.C. and many other areas of Canada. The Indian Act, which treats Natives as wards of the state, still governs all 'Status Indians'. 'Indians' are still losing status if their mothers and grandmothers married whites (but not if their father and grandfathers did). The income of Aboriginal people in Canada was 40% lower than all Canadians in 1991, and the income of those on reserves (which make up a much smaller area than those in the U.S.) would be lower still. Aboriginals are incarcerated at 5-6 times the rate of the rest of the population, 10 times as much for female aboriginals, 12 times as much in the prairie provinces. The youth suicide rate is 6-8 times the national average. The issue of racism in Canada is different in some ways than in the U.S. but in other ways it is not. In one way it is bigger problem because it is officially denied as being a problem. The (past) treatment of Natives? A regretable error, mostly due to administrative oversight. The expulsion of the Acadiens? Long ago. Internment of Japanese in WW2? An exception. Torture-murder of Somali children by Canadian 'peacekeepers'? A totally isolated incident; besides we expelled the Nazis in that unit. Racism today? Its all in the past, except what come up from the U.S. > And >I would insist that children from an earlier age be indoctrinated with idea >that race is a stupid idea. The trick is to meet the needs of the kids >without anyone feeling left out. One of the problems with affirmative action >programmes is that poor "whites" see them and say "What about us? Nobody in >my family ever went to university, either." This makes them vulnerable to >right wing racist appeals against the 'special interests.' A >disproportionate number of "black" kids have extra needs that should be met. >Appeal to the need rather than the colour of the skin. This should provide >the basis for an alliance from common need of all the poor. I am sceptical of placing much hope on the bourgeois school system's ability to indoctrinate children from an early age that race is a stupid idea. Rod seems to feel affirmative action is too vulnerable to racist objections, so why would he think schools can do any better than some watered-down version of liberal equality? Again, saying races do not exist is true in one sense but race remains a central social fact and affirmative action is a necessary part of overcoming the legacy of racism. Bill Burgess
