There's an axiom and idiom in "family law" pertaining to the victims of a dysfunctional "broken system"- wherever the chips may fall, we are all just grist for the mill.
A very well written article which unfortunately will never be read by those most in need of reading it. It is also nice to know there is another reason for their social pathology beside intergenerational trauma from someone who attended Residential School.
Brilliant writing: "Despite the remarkable efficiency of his argument, can racism be both the problem and the solution to the problem? Only if the poison can also be the cure. Sinclair is openly advocating racism. He could have referred to it as 'positivist racial discrimination' or the like but he chose the blunt and crude term. For someone endeavoring to be an anti-racist, can any amount of racism be allowed? Is a negative orientation towards racism possible when there are positive exceptions for the beneficent use of racism?" Not only is the race card irrelevant to indigenous community crime and dysfunction, it is diversionary. It diverts thought from the real solutions, such as the welfare ministate on each reserve which drains responsible behaviour.
The problem with dealing with characters like Sinclair is that it isn't possible to have a debate with them.
Sinclair's race historicity is a form of religious dogma that isn't up for debate. Trying to have one means you are a racist heretic who is guilty of an original sin for which you cannot be forgiven because you are by definition in league with the devil & all his works.
One's oppositional posture is scuttled before it begins.
The only way left to respond is not going to be 'reasonable' in the conventional sense because that is effectively cut off. Sinclair's entire posture is one of civilizational assault.
Thus necessarily the reply must be a counter-assault that calls him out as a delusional race hustler, ant-intellectual history falsified & ideological pimp for the aboriginal industry.
This is not a debating argument so much as an exercise in delegitimization.
It is no longer enough to demonstrate the poverty & circularity if his ideas if all you are demonstrating is that you are a racist ageing white male. Of course you will try to defend the indefensible. You can't help being other than what you are....Ho hum....
You have to target his throat, not his ideas, which means that you are weaponizing your ordinarily peacetime rhetoric from the intellectual wrestling of ideas to mortal combat.
I suspect that Frances' use of the term 'race hustlers' & the tactic of caricature was what finally did her in at Mount Royal, because she quite correctly surmised that the debate was over, ordinary intellectual discourse had failed & that a visceral all-out brawl was unavoidably in order, with not just disagreeable opponents, but enemies who really hate her because they cannot be challenged or tolerate dissent....which won't have changed if & when she returns to her alma mater.
The wars of toleration have already begun.
The same thing happened in English universities when The Reformation arrived in England in the 1520s....& it ended in violence exile & murder all round
The democratic consensus is breaking up, along with the world order that gave life to it & we are front line troops in the struggle to reshape it in a coming age where very likely, reason has given way to faith.
There's an axiom and idiom in "family law" pertaining to the victims of a dysfunctional "broken system"- wherever the chips may fall, we are all just grist for the mill.
A very well written article which unfortunately will never be read by those most in need of reading it. It is also nice to know there is another reason for their social pathology beside intergenerational trauma from someone who attended Residential School.
Brilliant writing: "Despite the remarkable efficiency of his argument, can racism be both the problem and the solution to the problem? Only if the poison can also be the cure. Sinclair is openly advocating racism. He could have referred to it as 'positivist racial discrimination' or the like but he chose the blunt and crude term. For someone endeavoring to be an anti-racist, can any amount of racism be allowed? Is a negative orientation towards racism possible when there are positive exceptions for the beneficent use of racism?" Not only is the race card irrelevant to indigenous community crime and dysfunction, it is diversionary. It diverts thought from the real solutions, such as the welfare ministate on each reserve which drains responsible behaviour.
Gladue impairs equality before the law. Unacceptable.
The problem with dealing with characters like Sinclair is that it isn't possible to have a debate with them.
Sinclair's race historicity is a form of religious dogma that isn't up for debate. Trying to have one means you are a racist heretic who is guilty of an original sin for which you cannot be forgiven because you are by definition in league with the devil & all his works.
One's oppositional posture is scuttled before it begins.
The only way left to respond is not going to be 'reasonable' in the conventional sense because that is effectively cut off. Sinclair's entire posture is one of civilizational assault.
Thus necessarily the reply must be a counter-assault that calls him out as a delusional race hustler, ant-intellectual history falsified & ideological pimp for the aboriginal industry.
This is not a debating argument so much as an exercise in delegitimization.
It is no longer enough to demonstrate the poverty & circularity if his ideas if all you are demonstrating is that you are a racist ageing white male. Of course you will try to defend the indefensible. You can't help being other than what you are....Ho hum....
You have to target his throat, not his ideas, which means that you are weaponizing your ordinarily peacetime rhetoric from the intellectual wrestling of ideas to mortal combat.
I suspect that Frances' use of the term 'race hustlers' & the tactic of caricature was what finally did her in at Mount Royal, because she quite correctly surmised that the debate was over, ordinary intellectual discourse had failed & that a visceral all-out brawl was unavoidably in order, with not just disagreeable opponents, but enemies who really hate her because they cannot be challenged or tolerate dissent....which won't have changed if & when she returns to her alma mater.
The wars of toleration have already begun.
The same thing happened in English universities when The Reformation arrived in England in the 1520s....& it ended in violence exile & murder all round
The democratic consensus is breaking up, along with the world order that gave life to it & we are front line troops in the struggle to reshape it in a coming age where very likely, reason has given way to faith.
Seems like Sinclair is a firm believer in Indigenous exceptionalism.