Unprecedented Nonsense

Ann Lagace Dawson is not immune to bits of fallacies or hyper-nationalism passing off as progressive thinking.

The other day, in her defense of millionaire hockey players, she used Maurice Richard as an example of how bad things were for players once upon a time.

It was a ludicrous comparison to make.

Once upon a time is the operative phrase here. Just like once upon a time child labor was the norm in the early stages of the industrial revolution.

Working conditions and labour standards have ensured human rights are protected now. No one, even if they tried, could possibly and remotely offer working conditions once seen long ago. Just like we'll never, ever, never see (all things being constant of course) kids working the mines anymore we won't see today's hockey players be moving furniture as a second job. Or be exclusive property of their owners.

Today, athletes are extremely well protected and compensated to the point that bringing up past injustices as somehow being able to make a comeback is plain stupid.

Athletes today are mini-corporate entities on to themselves. Many even branch out into other fields. Their incomes allow them to diversify their employment.

When this was brought up she replied "well, they're elite athletes that put their health on the line."

Yes. But two things. No one asked them to become athletes and they're already properly compensated for it.

Here's a person that probably wonders "how much money is enough" for a banker in the U.S., but seems comfortable in merely accepting excessive salaries in athletes on the premise they play a dangerous game. Oh, and don't forget (she's a socialist) owners should always be viewed skeptically. This goes without saying.

Why stop there? Why not, say, an action actor? Is she ok with the money they make? Why do we try and divide who we believe is "earning" their money? It's such a futile and patronizing exercise.


She pulled another one today.

Apparently, and as a student of history this was unknown to me, Canada's respect and tolerance for religion and cultures is unprecedented in the world. She may have even alluded to in history as well.


Typical, parochial Canadian nationalist rhetoric. I wonder, if a Canadian shits, does it stain?

Look, we have a nice country. Some may even claim a model to some. I personally don't see what's to copy but I can see why some countries may like us.

Dawson is conveniently ignoring history. Canada is not the first nor is it the only nation in the history of the world to aim for and sorta achieve religious freedom and respect. That shit has been happening for centuries. Pick up any ancient text and see how empires were often peaceful entities patching together many great civilizations existing side by side in peace. Merchant trading centers across Asia and Europe were models of tolerance for centuries. The city of Cordoba, Lebanon and other regions are but places where Jew, Muslims and Christians coexisted in harmony.

Then there's our own checkered racist past from eugenics to internment of Japanese AND Italian Canadians. Never mind Quebec's recent mean xenophobic streak. I sometimes wonder what syrup she drinks.

Historically, her assertion (again, if I heard correctly) is absurd.

But even in the context of modern society can we say Canada is the single model to follow? Not sure. Australia must feel like we do. And then there's the United States.

I think for the most part, yeah, we seem to assimilate immigrants well but to use the word "unprecedented" is arrogant on her part.

The United States "melting pot" versus Canada's "multicultural policy" is a debate I've heard for decades. I like the melting pot because it organically allows for people to become Americans.

Professor Schlesinger (an interesting liberal historian I consider required reading) demolished the multicultural theory in his book 'The Disuniting of America.' At the heart of it, what we mean by multiculturalism as policy is nothing but political correctness. It was penned by a scholar who had a substantial background in such matters.

There is not 'melting pot policy' in America. It just happens...

Here, we enshrined it into policy creating what is known as hyphen-nated Canadians or Canadians of convenience. Allegiance to Canada is not as strong as it is to America.

Just my impression. It is my contention Canadians should reflect more. We're too complacent and comfortable in our assumptions.

It goes without saying to nationalist Canadians, they tend to dismiss the American model with scant proof.

Just my impression.

Point is, there's more than enough evidence - neigh, one can see through simple observation - Americans are equally as tolerant and proud of their assimilation record.

I know. I'm such a poopie pooper.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.