I’m getting really sick of hearing these “root-cause” arguments for hatred. Between Osama’s apologists, Arafat’s cheerleaders, and the Jaggi Singhs who insisted on blaming everyone for the rioting at Concordia but the rioters, it seems that nobody takes personal responsibility seriously anymore.
In a letter in today’s Gazette, Dorval resident Juerg Bangerter blames Anglophones for being resented by Francophones:
If some 25 years ago or even 50 years ago, the French-Canadian population would have been treated equally and with respect in Canada, the Parti Québécois would never have risen to power. If English Quebecers would have treated the francophone Québécois majority as equals, there would never been any of the language extremism we all hate today.
If there were as many bilingual anglophones as there are bilingual francophones in Canada, there wouldn’t be any controversy about the Quebec flag, and we would behave as citizens of a real confederation in which all minorities are equally respected.
If Bangereter wants to criticize the members of the Anglo society fifty years ago who didn’t treat Francophones as equals, then that’s certainly legitimate. But his suggestion that “they hate us cause we don’t all speak their language” is ridiculous. Firstly, many of us do speak their language. Secondly, since when is it grounds to hate someone simply because they don’t speak a certain language? Silly me, I was under the impression that this constitutes discrimination.
And she’s right in what she’s saying. No more “white niggers of America.”
Ok, Hanthala, I must admit I was impressed by your criticisms of Ahenakew, but isn’t it the francophones who have the “language police”?
Do you think this is empowering for them?
From CNN:
PARAOTT, Indian-controlled Jammu — Suspected militants entered a home in a Kashmiri village and brutally killed three young women, just days after posters ordered females to wear a veil.
The attackers slit the throats of two of the women, both aged 21, and shot the third, police officials in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region said on Friday.
Jonny, what does that have to do with Quebec Anglophones?
Its an illustrative example of “Osama’s apologists, Arafat’s cheerleaders, and the Jaggi Singhs”.
Ah, understood.
Who are these “white niggers of america”
you speak of, Hanthala? I would like
to meet them.
Jonny, I think the media (on both sides) purposefully play up the language issue in Quebec.
The woman’s letter stemmed from an accusation made that the Quebec flag represents hate. These kinds of inflammatory–and silly–comments are typically found in newspapers such as the Gazette and the Suburban (which was slammed by the Press Council for hateful comments made about French Canadians). Degradation of French Canadians as a group is not over in English Quebec and Canada. I’ve been around long enough to hear it for myself.
It is this type of stupidity, within the context of Quebec history, that fuels the more radical demands for the protection of French.
Hanthala, is it okay if we add you to the list of “root-cause” apologists? Always looking for what “fuels” anger, rather than looking to condemn the angry people’s outbursts.
There is no “angry people’s outburst” in this case. But while we’re on that topic, yes I would condone the angry outbursts of people who are being discriminated against. During the civil rights movement, blacks were angry. During the feminist movement, women were angry. Anger is not violence and sometimes anger is justified.
Hanthala, I agree that blacks and women had every right to be angry, but I don’t believe that “anger” is necessarily empowering. If you follow the development and continuation of the femenist movement from the modern period to the present (you can’t really say “during the femenist/civil rights movement” because this implies past tense) you will find that the focus of the movement has progressed into a movement of “empowerment” rather than one of “anger”.
I’m no expert, the above ideas were precured from conversations with both women and men involved with the movement and contemporary femenist theory.
Show me your anger and I’ll show you my fear.
Give me your hand and I’ll draw you near.
Yes Jonny, but people had to get angry first. That’s how it gets to be a movement. If there’s no reason to be angry (or sad–that’s another emotion that comes into play), why bother giving so much time and energy to achieve change (and it is a lot of time and energy)?
It does not have to remain anger, but it generally starts that way. Social injustices and gross inequalities make people angry and sad. That’s normal, I would say. The trick is to take that anger and sadness and turn into a positive source of energy and motivation to struggle for change. Its a process and it takes time.
“Show me your anger and I’ll show you my fear. Give me your hand and I’ll draw you near.”
Now that, in my opinion, is certainly true. It is also a debate that’s been going on among various sections of the Palestinian solidarity movement across North America for the past few years. What do we do about the Zionists? Try to have dialogue with them? Some would say yes, others argue that this is a waste of time.
The Palestinian solidarity movement as I know it in Canada is composed of at least three interwoven struggles: Palestinian self-determination & struggles against anti-Arab & anti-Muslim racism in the West more generally. It is exceedingly difficult to separate these 3 issues. The anger, I believe, stems from anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric found in the mainstream media and echoed in speeches and quotes by B’nai Brith members. B’nai Brith is openly racist towards Arabs (less so towards Muslims) and its strategy is often to tap into the underlying anti-Arab racism in Canada to make its arguments. This, personally, makes me very angry.
When it comes from young Hillel members, I used to be very angry. Now, I realize that many of them are not consciously racist. It is in their discourse, but because it echoes a broader mainstream discourse of acceptable racism towards Arabs and Muslims, they just don’t see it (I don’t think, for example, that these young people would stand up in a crowded hall and knowingly ask questions that are implicitly racist). Dialogue here may be useful to the extent that the racism is not conscious and deliberate.
When it comes from B’nai Brith members, however, I have enough experience to know that it is deliberate. In this case, there’s no point to dialogue. They have chosen racism consciously and very consciously use it to their advantage.
Of course, there’s much more to be said around this issue, but this is a post not a book(!)
Segacs,
Aren’t “root cause apologetics” consistently used to justify the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, the attrocities committed there daily against the Palestinian people, and the entire Israeli claim to previously Arab-held land?
If it is fair to look at the root causes of one side of an issue, then it is certainly fair to look at the root causes of the other side.