Really, now.
So Joachim Stroink, an MLA from Nova Scotia, went to a Dutch Christmas party and sat on Zwarte Piet's knee. Zwarte Piet is a mythical character usually portrayed by someone wearing blackface; Mr. Stroink decided to tweet his nice picture and was then very surprised when people got upset.
"I didn't sign up for this," quoth he as the maelstrom broke. Presumably, Mr. Stroink refers to the scrutiny of his life and photographs. Is it right that members of government have every detail of their lives picked apart? Probably not. But it happens, and when you're posting the pictures yourself, I don't think you're allowed to be upset with the press for demonizing you.
What's really irksome is this description of Zwarte Piet:
"A traditional song refers to the character as a “servant” to the elderly St. Nicholas, but in recent years those references have largely been replaced with the idea that he is black from chimney soot as he scrambles down to deliver toys and sweets for children who leave their shoes out overnight."
No. Zwarte Piet is not a white dude covered in soot from hustling up and down chimneys. The Dutch held colonies in Africa and captured slaves too. Let's not elide that part of history away, and let's not practice this kind of malignant euphemism, the same effort that produced the concept of "colour-blindness", that we don't see race when we look at other humans. Of course we see race; pretending skin colour doesn't mean anything does a fundamental disservice to people of colour. Feigning colour-blindness is the act of well-meaning white people trying to pretend that treating everyone the same is the same as treating everyone equitably, that we can just forge ahead as a united whole and leave all those nasty memories of slavery and segregation and lynchings behind. Similarly, claiming Zwarte Piet is just a sooty white man is harmful revisionism that attempts to avoid both history and the well-deserved controversy blackface performance generates. Zwarte Piet is a racist historical representation of a black servant. That is a fact. So, where does Canada's Dutch community go from this point? Ideally, by acknowledging these three things:
1. Yes, that happened.
2. It was wrong.
3. Let's consign that tradition to the past.
I can already imagine the uproar, the claims that pluralism is neutering cultural celebrations. Never mind that if any other ethnic group in Canada had a special figure who was represented in whiteface, we would raise holy hell about it. The fact is, there is a lot of racist crap that we used to do that we don't do any more because it is no longer compatible with the world we inhabit. The cartoon image of the "darkey" eating watermelon or "talkin jive" was present in mainstream American culture for decades; it no longer resides there because it is offensive. It was deemed to be an unacceptable portrayal of real, live humans with feelings and individual personalities, so it faded away. Zwarte Piet, or at least his representation by humans in blackface, can fade too.
Showing posts with label is this for serious?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label is this for serious?. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Sunday, 7 November 2010
G&M EXPLODES WITH RIDICULOUS
DENSITY (EXCUSE ME WHILE I GEEK OUT)
Neat density-related facts I have discovered this month:
1) When diet and non-diet soft drinks are placed together in a bucket of ice-water for the purpose of keeping them cool, the sugar in the non-diet drinks increases their density enough that they sink, while diet drinks float near the top.
2) In my 50-pack of Halloween candy (thank you, November 1st!), a natural resettling of the candy bar contents moved most of the high-density, rice-crisp-based Mr. Big bars towards the top of the box, while the denser, nougat- or caramel-based Wunderbar and Caramilk bars moved towards the bottom.
NANOWRIMO
For those not in the know of quirky literary events, NaNoWriMo is an international event where participants strive to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. Naturally, once a thing is around long enough, people start being assholes about it.
NaNoWriMo has been accused of being everything from self-indulgent to an affront to real literature to a useless expenditure of time.
At its heart, NaNoWriMo is about doing something huge, something that people often say they'd like to do "some day", and saying, Why not today? Why not do something big and fun that scares you a little? It's about shaking off the chains of needing perfection right from the start, and finding the fun in a tough, but not insurmountable, challenge. Yes, maybe your final product shouldn't ever see the light of day, but it isn't about creating publishable material or degrading literature with one month's worth of low-quality output. It isn't really about the destination, about the 50,000 words at all. It's about doing something, doing anything, without being crippled by fear or perfectionism or even procrastination. NaNo doesn't make you a better writer, it makes you a better person. So to criticize NaNo for producing hastily-written, unpolished manuscripts is completely besides the point.
THIS IS NOT HOW LIBEL WORKS
Ontario PC caucus leader Tim Hudak accused a Liberal minister of tweeting statements that were both libelous and unworthy of a cabinet minister, and demanded a public apology or the minister's resignation. First of all, judging by the list of words and phrases that are banned from further use in the House of Commons, I don't see how this particular statement is somehow "beneath the role of a cabinet minister". Secondly, I distinctly remember learning in Grade 11 Law that the one group of people who could not accuse others of libel were elected politicians. This is a pretty neat amendment when you consider that it prevents us from going to jail for criticizing the government's policies or calling the prime minister a buckethead. So, no matter how offended Hudak may have felt by being lumped in with Harper and Rob Ford in the "trifecta of republican-style, right wing ignorance and bigotry", he has no recourse to call anything libelous, no matter from which side of the House it emanates.
BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW IS TOTALLY JOKES, GUYS
The lawyer representing an Asian youth who disguised himself as an elderly white man in order to board a flight from Hong Kong to Canada called the Canadian Border Services Agency "negligent" for releasing photos of his client in and out of the mask, and demanded a media publication ban on the photos in order to protect his client's privacy. Privacy? If you want privacy, how about next time you don't violate international law by impersonating someone else on a flight to Vancouver! Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about a Globe reader recognizing him - the majority of the people who read this newspaper undoubtedly think all Asians look the same.
PEDOPHILES
Amazon.com is being slammed by the public for allowing a self-published e-book geared towards helping pedophiles stay within the law to be available through its website. At first glance, this seems like a no-brainer - a how-to guide for pedophiles doesn't belong on the market. But look a little deeper, and again, we butt up against the issue of harm reduction vs. standing on principle. Yes, the rape and molestation of children is abhorrent. But it continues to this day despite legislation against it. This book seems not to be so much focused on how to evade police, but on safe forms of release for people whose sexual preference falls on minors - i.e. forms that do not actually involve the touching or molestation of a child! We have a choice - continue to stick to the principle that pedophilia is wrong, or accept that, despite its wrongness, pedophilia continues to exist, and that a book that helps pedophiles find other ways of handling their feelings without actually harming children might be a worthwhile product. There is such a thing as dangerous information...but this isn't it.
Neat density-related facts I have discovered this month:
1) When diet and non-diet soft drinks are placed together in a bucket of ice-water for the purpose of keeping them cool, the sugar in the non-diet drinks increases their density enough that they sink, while diet drinks float near the top.
2) In my 50-pack of Halloween candy (thank you, November 1st!), a natural resettling of the candy bar contents moved most of the high-density, rice-crisp-based Mr. Big bars towards the top of the box, while the denser, nougat- or caramel-based Wunderbar and Caramilk bars moved towards the bottom.
NANOWRIMO
For those not in the know of quirky literary events, NaNoWriMo is an international event where participants strive to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. Naturally, once a thing is around long enough, people start being assholes about it.
NaNoWriMo has been accused of being everything from self-indulgent to an affront to real literature to a useless expenditure of time.
At its heart, NaNoWriMo is about doing something huge, something that people often say they'd like to do "some day", and saying, Why not today? Why not do something big and fun that scares you a little? It's about shaking off the chains of needing perfection right from the start, and finding the fun in a tough, but not insurmountable, challenge. Yes, maybe your final product shouldn't ever see the light of day, but it isn't about creating publishable material or degrading literature with one month's worth of low-quality output. It isn't really about the destination, about the 50,000 words at all. It's about doing something, doing anything, without being crippled by fear or perfectionism or even procrastination. NaNo doesn't make you a better writer, it makes you a better person. So to criticize NaNo for producing hastily-written, unpolished manuscripts is completely besides the point.
THIS IS NOT HOW LIBEL WORKS
Ontario PC caucus leader Tim Hudak accused a Liberal minister of tweeting statements that were both libelous and unworthy of a cabinet minister, and demanded a public apology or the minister's resignation. First of all, judging by the list of words and phrases that are banned from further use in the House of Commons, I don't see how this particular statement is somehow "beneath the role of a cabinet minister". Secondly, I distinctly remember learning in Grade 11 Law that the one group of people who could not accuse others of libel were elected politicians. This is a pretty neat amendment when you consider that it prevents us from going to jail for criticizing the government's policies or calling the prime minister a buckethead. So, no matter how offended Hudak may have felt by being lumped in with Harper and Rob Ford in the "trifecta of republican-style, right wing ignorance and bigotry", he has no recourse to call anything libelous, no matter from which side of the House it emanates.
BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW IS TOTALLY JOKES, GUYS
The lawyer representing an Asian youth who disguised himself as an elderly white man in order to board a flight from Hong Kong to Canada called the Canadian Border Services Agency "negligent" for releasing photos of his client in and out of the mask, and demanded a media publication ban on the photos in order to protect his client's privacy. Privacy? If you want privacy, how about next time you don't violate international law by impersonating someone else on a flight to Vancouver! Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about a Globe reader recognizing him - the majority of the people who read this newspaper undoubtedly think all Asians look the same.
PEDOPHILES
Amazon.com is being slammed by the public for allowing a self-published e-book geared towards helping pedophiles stay within the law to be available through its website. At first glance, this seems like a no-brainer - a how-to guide for pedophiles doesn't belong on the market. But look a little deeper, and again, we butt up against the issue of harm reduction vs. standing on principle. Yes, the rape and molestation of children is abhorrent. But it continues to this day despite legislation against it. This book seems not to be so much focused on how to evade police, but on safe forms of release for people whose sexual preference falls on minors - i.e. forms that do not actually involve the touching or molestation of a child! We have a choice - continue to stick to the principle that pedophilia is wrong, or accept that, despite its wrongness, pedophilia continues to exist, and that a book that helps pedophiles find other ways of handling their feelings without actually harming children might be a worthwhile product. There is such a thing as dangerous information...but this isn't it.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
PEOPLE , CUBA & RESEARCHERS SUCK
THE CENSUS
The census long form used to be mailed to 1 out of 5 Canadian families, chosen at random, and its completion and return were mandatory. Now, the long form is being replaced by a voluntary survey that will be mailed out to 1 in 3 Canadian families. CUE MASSIVE DRAMA, WEIGH-INS FROM EVERYONE WHO EVER TOOK A STATISTICS CLASS, AND THE RESIGNATION OF THE STATSCAN BUREAU CHIEF.
So scrapping the long form was a terrible idea, and does nothing to alleviate the alleged problem of personal (though anonymous?) collected information being used for...well, whatever bad guys do with information like how many children you have and where you went to school. But this has been in the news for two weeks now. Come on, guys.
CODY LECOMPTE
Cody LeCompte is a 19-year-old Canadian who rented a car while in Cuba. Apparently you need to be 21 to do this, but the rental agency gave him a car anyway. While he was driving, a truck sideswiped him, causing an accident. For some reason, the Cuban government has decided to a) call Cody to trial JUST IN CASE the accident was his fault, and b) keep his passport for over three months until said trial and refuse to allow him to go home...wait a minute, what? Cuba, we LIKE you! We buy your cigars! We ignored the US when they went all embargo on your ass! We have never tried to kill Castro with exploding lily-pads or itching powder in his wetsuit! So what are you doing?!
(However, as a sidebar, it is worth noting that this has NOT happened because Cuba is a "filthy corrupt Communist country" as the Globe and Mail commenters would have us believe. Idiots.)
POOR PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER
In some stunning break-through research, a study published in Cancer earlier this week found that family income and 5-year survival rate are correlated in Canadian cancer patients. But how is this possible?! they query. We have universal health care! Everybody should be receiving identical treatment!
Simply put, universal health care only goes so far:
1. Lower-income families have trouble dealing with catastrophic drug costs. Newer, more effective medications are inevitably not covered by the government and inevitably cost hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars, per dose.
2. Fighting cancer, especially after chemo when your immune system is in the toilet, takes a lot of things - lots of sleep, good food, and not too much stress. Lower-income families, especially single-parent ones, often do not have this luxury.
3. Higher-income patients have a wealth of options available to them - cue-jumping by heading Stateside for treatment, paying for experimental, non-OHIP procedures, and attending private Canadian clinics. For a lower-income patient, the only choice is to accept standard, OHIP-sanctioned treatment at a Canadian hospital, even if a more effective treatment is available elsewhere.
My point? This study's results are not a surprise, and gradual privatization and a lack of a comprehensive single-payer drug plan are turning universal health care into "universal" health care.
The census long form used to be mailed to 1 out of 5 Canadian families, chosen at random, and its completion and return were mandatory. Now, the long form is being replaced by a voluntary survey that will be mailed out to 1 in 3 Canadian families. CUE MASSIVE DRAMA, WEIGH-INS FROM EVERYONE WHO EVER TOOK A STATISTICS CLASS, AND THE RESIGNATION OF THE STATSCAN BUREAU CHIEF.
So scrapping the long form was a terrible idea, and does nothing to alleviate the alleged problem of personal (though anonymous?) collected information being used for...well, whatever bad guys do with information like how many children you have and where you went to school. But this has been in the news for two weeks now. Come on, guys.
CODY LECOMPTE
Cody LeCompte is a 19-year-old Canadian who rented a car while in Cuba. Apparently you need to be 21 to do this, but the rental agency gave him a car anyway. While he was driving, a truck sideswiped him, causing an accident. For some reason, the Cuban government has decided to a) call Cody to trial JUST IN CASE the accident was his fault, and b) keep his passport for over three months until said trial and refuse to allow him to go home...wait a minute, what? Cuba, we LIKE you! We buy your cigars! We ignored the US when they went all embargo on your ass! We have never tried to kill Castro with exploding lily-pads or itching powder in his wetsuit! So what are you doing?!
(However, as a sidebar, it is worth noting that this has NOT happened because Cuba is a "filthy corrupt Communist country" as the Globe and Mail commenters would have us believe. Idiots.)
POOR PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER
In some stunning break-through research, a study published in Cancer earlier this week found that family income and 5-year survival rate are correlated in Canadian cancer patients. But how is this possible?! they query. We have universal health care! Everybody should be receiving identical treatment!
Simply put, universal health care only goes so far:
1. Lower-income families have trouble dealing with catastrophic drug costs. Newer, more effective medications are inevitably not covered by the government and inevitably cost hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars, per dose.
2. Fighting cancer, especially after chemo when your immune system is in the toilet, takes a lot of things - lots of sleep, good food, and not too much stress. Lower-income families, especially single-parent ones, often do not have this luxury.
3. Higher-income patients have a wealth of options available to them - cue-jumping by heading Stateside for treatment, paying for experimental, non-OHIP procedures, and attending private Canadian clinics. For a lower-income patient, the only choice is to accept standard, OHIP-sanctioned treatment at a Canadian hospital, even if a more effective treatment is available elsewhere.
My point? This study's results are not a surprise, and gradual privatization and a lack of a comprehensive single-payer drug plan are turning universal health care into "universal" health care.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Things that have been annoying me lately on the Globe and Mail website.
1. Anti-union comments:
This started a while back and continues even now: Rabid Torontonians and "helpful" members of other municipalities and/or countries offer suggestions like "Let's be Reagan...just fire all of these lazy morons and hire new garbage collectors" or "How about we publish the addresses of the union members and dump our trash on their lawns!" I am not sure if these people are just perilously ignorant of how a union works, or genuinely misanthropic.
Let's get something straight: I am not unionized; I have no agenda in favour of or against unions. But there's a world of difference between a unionized worker and the union itself. If you don't like the way or the fact that a strike is happening, you can complain about the union. You can complain about the union captain, who called the strike. But you never, ever antagonize the people who belong to that union, because they are not calling the shots. A union works because all of its members agree to take collective action to defend their interests. When a strike is called, the union only has power when everyone goes on strike...not just fifteen guys who feel like taking a break. To work when others stop is more or less treason. So how dare these high-handed elitists who are angry about having to drive somewhere to dispose of their trash scorn the union members for doing what has been commanded of them?
2. Anti-health care comments:
Another one that's been raging for awhile, ever since Obama announced his plans for reforming US health care. Nobody believes Canada's healthcare system is perfect. We struggle, we know that. But seriously? Stop using us as your poster child for how socialized medicine can go wrong. Ask any Canadian (well, outside petrodollar-flush Alberta) if they'd rather trade our system for the American one. You will get a firm and resounding NO from the overwhelming majority. We are proud of our universal health care; we don't care to be told we shouldn't be.
3. Antivaccinationists/conspiracy theorists:
I've heard enough from just about every party on the H1N1 issue...vaccine makers, government officials, the WHO (incidentally, an organization I feel would benefit from transforming themselves into the band The Who), scientists, doctors, etc. But the people who are talking the loudest and in the most grating tones are the antivaccinationists and conspiracy theorists who are clogging up the comments page with their declarations of the imminent danger of influenza vaccines.
Some people like to point to the Guillain-Barre syndrome episode of the 1970s (as if medical and vaccine technology hasn't changed AT ALL in nearly 40 years). Others just like to foam at the mouth about how Big Pharma is trying to subdue us all with mind-control drugs. Seriously, what is it about a pandemic that brings all the crazies out of the woodwork? I'm not saying we need to be handing out Tamiflu and other antivirals like candy; I'm saying people need to shut their mouths. Get the flu shot, don't get the flu shot, I don't really care. But stay the hell away from me if you choose not to be vaccinated.
4. This:
Really? The antivirals weren't working?
Maybe it's because none of that shit is caused by viruses!
Asthma is an autoimmune response brought on by triggers such as pollen, smog, and exercise. Bacteria are by far the most common source of pain-causing middle ear infections, especially in children. And should ANYONE be surprised that antivirals do a bad job of curing bacterial infections? Really, Oxford? Really?
5. Anti-Globe and Mail comments:
So you don't like the Globe. You think it's reporting frivolous trash not worthy of even Page Six mention. Excellent. HOW ABOUT YOU STOP READING IT, THEN.
This started a while back and continues even now: Rabid Torontonians and "helpful" members of other municipalities and/or countries offer suggestions like "Let's be Reagan...just fire all of these lazy morons and hire new garbage collectors" or "How about we publish the addresses of the union members and dump our trash on their lawns!" I am not sure if these people are just perilously ignorant of how a union works, or genuinely misanthropic.
Let's get something straight: I am not unionized; I have no agenda in favour of or against unions. But there's a world of difference between a unionized worker and the union itself. If you don't like the way or the fact that a strike is happening, you can complain about the union. You can complain about the union captain, who called the strike. But you never, ever antagonize the people who belong to that union, because they are not calling the shots. A union works because all of its members agree to take collective action to defend their interests. When a strike is called, the union only has power when everyone goes on strike...not just fifteen guys who feel like taking a break. To work when others stop is more or less treason. So how dare these high-handed elitists who are angry about having to drive somewhere to dispose of their trash scorn the union members for doing what has been commanded of them?
2. Anti-health care comments:
Another one that's been raging for awhile, ever since Obama announced his plans for reforming US health care. Nobody believes Canada's healthcare system is perfect. We struggle, we know that. But seriously? Stop using us as your poster child for how socialized medicine can go wrong. Ask any Canadian (well, outside petrodollar-flush Alberta) if they'd rather trade our system for the American one. You will get a firm and resounding NO from the overwhelming majority. We are proud of our universal health care; we don't care to be told we shouldn't be.
3. Antivaccinationists/conspiracy theorists:
I've heard enough from just about every party on the H1N1 issue...vaccine makers, government officials, the WHO (incidentally, an organization I feel would benefit from transforming themselves into the band The Who), scientists, doctors, etc. But the people who are talking the loudest and in the most grating tones are the antivaccinationists and conspiracy theorists who are clogging up the comments page with their declarations of the imminent danger of influenza vaccines.
Some people like to point to the Guillain-Barre syndrome episode of the 1970s (as if medical and vaccine technology hasn't changed AT ALL in nearly 40 years). Others just like to foam at the mouth about how Big Pharma is trying to subdue us all with mind-control drugs. Seriously, what is it about a pandemic that brings all the crazies out of the woodwork? I'm not saying we need to be handing out Tamiflu and other antivirals like candy; I'm saying people need to shut their mouths. Get the flu shot, don't get the flu shot, I don't really care. But stay the hell away from me if you choose not to be vaccinated.
4. This:
"Researchers at the University of Oxford cautioned about the broad use of anti-viral drugs to treat children 12 years of age and younger suffering from seasonal flu. They found anti-viral drugs have little or no effect on asthma flare-ups, ear infections or bacterial infections in children."
Really? The antivirals weren't working?
Maybe it's because none of that shit is caused by viruses!
Asthma is an autoimmune response brought on by triggers such as pollen, smog, and exercise. Bacteria are by far the most common source of pain-causing middle ear infections, especially in children. And should ANYONE be surprised that antivirals do a bad job of curing bacterial infections? Really, Oxford? Really?
5. Anti-Globe and Mail comments:
So you don't like the Globe. You think it's reporting frivolous trash not worthy of even Page Six mention. Excellent. HOW ABOUT YOU STOP READING IT, THEN.
Friday, 10 July 2009
Wafergate
Canada's latest and greatest political conflagration:
Stephen Harper, while attending the funeral of former Governor-General Romeo Leblanc, supposedly accepted the host from the priest, and tucked it into his pocket. The host is considered the body of Christ, and is therefore meant to be eaten immediately, not treated disrespectfully (see: Toronto Archdiocese's director of communications Neil MacCarthy: "We never throw Jesus out."), so I can understand why this would be a big deal - if it had actually happened.
Here is the sum total of the physical evidence we have that Stephen Harper doesn't know how to behave at a Catholic funeral:
a) After a moment of uncertainty, he accepted the host from the priest and held it for approximately two seconds.
b) The camera stopped filming.
So this comes down to eyewitness accounts: there are a handful of people who say Harper did put the host in his pocket, and a handful who say he did not; that he it ate like he was supposed to. Somehow, out of this, we've managed to create an enormous furore, with some members of the Catholic community calling Harper's behaviour "scandalous".
Really? This is what we're turning into a political scandal? A religious faux pas whose occurrence we cannot even verify? This may be a good example of why many people find Canadian politics boring and petty.
Stephen Harper, while attending the funeral of former Governor-General Romeo Leblanc, supposedly accepted the host from the priest, and tucked it into his pocket. The host is considered the body of Christ, and is therefore meant to be eaten immediately, not treated disrespectfully (see: Toronto Archdiocese's director of communications Neil MacCarthy: "We never throw Jesus out."), so I can understand why this would be a big deal - if it had actually happened.
Here is the sum total of the physical evidence we have that Stephen Harper doesn't know how to behave at a Catholic funeral:
a) After a moment of uncertainty, he accepted the host from the priest and held it for approximately two seconds.
b) The camera stopped filming.
So this comes down to eyewitness accounts: there are a handful of people who say Harper did put the host in his pocket, and a handful who say he did not; that he it ate like he was supposed to. Somehow, out of this, we've managed to create an enormous furore, with some members of the Catholic community calling Harper's behaviour "scandalous".
Really? This is what we're turning into a political scandal? A religious faux pas whose occurrence we cannot even verify? This may be a good example of why many people find Canadian politics boring and petty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)