Okay, so basically Ontario with a side order of French. So your view of Canada is predominantly that of an English Ontarian. Would I be right to assume that? You are entitled to that view and have a right to display that view publicly , but as I mentioned earlier, Canada's culture varies from region and from background. Secondly, many French Canadians view Don Cherry as a personification of English Canada in general. A loud, obnoxious and holier than thou character, looking down upon the Cretans who are not "of his kind".
"Basically" isn't your universal relativists' charge card security code. "Basically" doesn't dismiss the cultural cache my family's experience informs me of in an exchange where being Canadian is concerned in a country largely defined by "Ontario with a side order of French". Do you know what it entails for a family like mine who has roots here and in Europe and a presence in both English and French Canada? And the East Coast once upon a time?
And again, an assumption, "So your view of Canada is predominantly that of an English Ontarian." An English-speaking man born in Toronto, yep. But I don't know what the predominant view of English-speaking Ontarians is...And neither do you. You have a supposition, but you don't have an experiential, informed opinion. There's a vast difference of experience amongst English-speaking Ontarians. A Scottish family from Windsor might have an entirely different apprehension than an actual English family from North York. What you're attempting to normalize is your conception of English-speaking (And I presume you mean, "White Ontarians"?) Canadian views which are as varied as individuals may be and the political expression necessarily therein.
As to your secondary caricature re: French Canadians viewing Don Cherry as a personification of English Canada...I'm not sure if you caught the not-so subtle implication from a comment I provided prior to this one, but it conveyed the opposite of what you're saying by personal familial experience, not to mention friendships that remain in Quebec to this day...You're obviously parroting the most available, opportunistic script that poses as ethical intention but is bereft of real meaning.
And it's patently false to describe his demeanour as "looking down upon Cretans who are not of 'his kind'." How on Earth would the CBC survive that type of obvious prejudice?
If Don Cherry hasn't said this bluntly or publicly, he certainly gives that vibe...and what's troubling is that he doesn't try and remove himself from that label or vibe...he tends to just remain silent. What can one conclude from that?[
That where no material racism exists (i.e. "what's troubling is that he doesn't try and remove himself from that label or
vibe...") and that your lack of training in critical thinking is demonstrating a preference absent evidence.
You're willing to vilify an elderly man with no personal experience, with no verifiable racism that adheres to any rational definition who just happens to work for a Crown Corporation and you're only target of precise accusation lays within the realm of..."vibe" and that said symbol of disunity is culpable because he doesn't address the deficiencies in the "vibe" he gives out and ignores the apparent "label" he's (un?)aware of...Did I get that right?
Your efforts are real, your reasons are phantasmagorical. You simply have no valid premises from which to draw your preferred conclusions.
Furthermore, some of his comments are certainly borderline racist. Back in 2004, he said that most NHL players who wear protective visors are “European or French guys,”...in other words implying cowardice. In 2015, MacLean mentioned he’d eaten a seal burger in Newfoundland, and Cherry roasted him, asking if he was a “savage” or “barbarian.” The Inuit community, which has a seal-hunting tradition, wasn't amused at all. In 2003, Cherry launched into a controversial pro-U.S. tirade, slamming Chretien and the Liberals for declining to back Bush’s invasion of Iraq...an invasion that has now been clearly proven was based on a LIE and the cause of the rise of ISIS...which in turn destabilized the Middle East and led to the refugee crisis we're seeing today. Amazing isn't it?
I wish you would remember the brief history I provided you with and cease attempting to tell me what Canadian culture, coast to coast to coast is. As for your rabbit hole, no thanks. I'm here for the hockey and the brief vanity tangents that one must address here from time to time.
If you wish a tete a tete apropos of geopolitics, message me privately for a venue of your choosing that wouldn't mimic your work in this thread.
What exactly has changed about Canada in the past 60 years? The constitution is still the same, the charter of rights still exist and good government is still practiced. The only thing that has changed are faces and technology. There are less people who align with the traditional British ways of yesteryear. Is this a bad thing? Is so, why? And how does that negatively impact Canada? Will any of the things I mentioned earlier change (ie. Good government, Charter of Rights etc.) be threatened if we don't adhere to that culture?
So I take it you couldn't sense prejudice and tolerance from the anecdote of my Great-Grandfather, an early Canadian, n'est ce pas?
I'm missing the necessity of your questions. You seem to need a perspective in me and in those who defend Don Cherry as being opposite to one that fights for rather than against all people of good will who either live or come to Canada to live.
The problem is yours, sir, not mine, not my family's and not in the overwhelming majority of Canadians who are loyal to Canada.
And will less people adhering to the foundational culture of this said culture that has provided a haven for all peoples of the world to live in harmony and peace? You mean like our model of government you just called good and our Charter and our Constitution which similarly rely on British/European political culture?
Well you tell me...If we adopt Pakistani models of diplomacy and democracy are we going to be better off or worse?
You see, it's plainly revisionist to deny the origins and identity of the founding cultures in the civilization so plainly deferential to them. You're playing the neo-marxist's new game...Haves and Have-Nots didn't work, so the Oppressors and the Oppressed is the next best thing. It appeals to the intellectually regressive and it will spawn intellectual regression...And it's best typified in efforts to compel speech and then eventually, compel thought i.e. compel "vibes".
My issue with Don Cherry is the vibe he gives off. If you were giving off a certain vibes to people that you clearly didn't align with, would you not make an attempt to try and void yourself of that vibe? For example, if Don Cherry (and he knows this mind you) gave off a "racist vibe" wouldn't he make an effort or attempt to rid himself of that vibe?
Again...The word of the day is: Phantasmagorical. These "vibes" you charge Cherry with beg all sorts of questions about sobriety and internet usage. Feelings betray people all the time. The will is concerned with social engineering in a manner that assumes puerile behaviour is temporary and with maturity sees the good in the person while it tolerates the bad or impolitic.
What you repeat as a "racist vibe" isn't racist, it's gruff, it's impolitic, it's inconsiderate and impatient, but...Culturally speaking, and maybe that's the problem, that you have no reference for it...Culturally speaking, Cherry's demeanour is typical for his generation. There were Jamaicans and Italians and Filopinos in my neighbourhood that were equally gruff and impolite and impatient amongst men and women...No one I knew took offence to pride in one's country or inferred being short-tempered as a short-hand for racism.
You go from accusing him according to "vibe" to confessing that you "know" that Cherry "knows" that in a hypothetical situation in which he knew he was giving off a "racist vibe" that he would attempt to rid himself of said "racist vibe"...That makes absolutely zero sense.
He doesn't...which sort of shocked me...originally I was a supporter of Don Cherry to be honest and for the most part I agree with his views on hockey becoming soft, but as more time has elapsed, I've started noticing oddities and hypocrisies. Let's put politics aside, and talk about hockey. Tie Domi and Marty McSorley were lauded by Cherry for being tough hockey players, while European players like Ulf Samuelsson and Tomas Sandstrom who play the same style are termed "dirty".
Right...Well Tie Domi's first name is actually spelled, T-A-H-I-R. So...If there's another less inconvenient example to your preferred narrative, next reply's the time to address the inconsistency commensurate with your repeated charge.
I have zero bias against the importance of British culture in Canada. My problem is with British colonialism and the after effects of that British colonialism. I am of Asian descent, and Britain had colonized the territory of my parents for 105 years (1842 to 1947)...it's for another discussion, but I'll be happy to explain why I have issues with it if you ask.
Riiight, mmm, but again, you posed the apparently preferred scenario in which "traditional British ways of yesteryear" are no longer adhered to...No you're stating you have zero bias against the importance of British culture in Canada. I guess there's a sliver of equivocal real estate that allows those two concepts to co-exist, but I'm pressed to comprehend why they would need to if A) The Government of Canada is preferable; and B) You have no apparent bias towards the importance of British culture in Canada.
And if you're problem is with British colonialism then you're in luck, because Canada isn't a British colony. And that's in no small part to the other European elements of the Canadian identity (i.e. Scots, French, Dutch,German, Italian...). And that doesn't dismiss the Native influence...It merely identifies the paradox your narrative contains.
And in case I didn't mention it...My family is predominantly Scottish. Scottish and Catholic. If you ever want to compare tales of "British" colonization, it's best to buckle up if your discussion partner is Scots or Irish and Catholic. Before everywhere else got a taste, those two maligned peoples lived a millennia under the actual occupation of or the threat of colonialism...It's why so many came to this great land called Canada and shaped it into a place where it's identity rejects tyranny in all forms. And remember they did it as a result of colonialism...English isn't Scottish peoples' first language you know. Nova Scotia's history should be an eye-opener for you as well.
And by the way...Cherry's people are Scots and Irish, so...Mind the gap.
But who is equivocating cultures? And what cultures might I ask I being equaled to that of Canada? And why is it a problem?
You did. Do you not know what equivocating cultures means in your initial application? Sincerely? It means you foisted your definition of what I mean by Canadian culture as being exclusionary of rather than inclusionary of various other influences that aren't English. I simply didn't say what you characterized me saying. So I corrected your error.
And it looks like I'm doing it again. And by cultures I mean to compare the country of Canada with say Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or North Korea...They are not equally valuable and valid cultures. They have a right to exist, they have the right to a modicum of respect, but it is subjective insanity to assert that the culture and society borne by those countries are as valuable and as appropriately celebrated in their value either domestically or internationally as that of Canada.
And why is that a problem? Well...Pick your horse, friend...You either employ rational means of synthesis and analysis and employ like standards in your assessment and conclude on the basis of objectivity or you descend into post-modernist perpetual relativity and come out confidently stating that female genital mutilation is a preferred practice over not restraining young girls to involuntary accept needless, unscientific and completely definitive assault as something culturally interchangeable.
Honouring soldiers doesn't make one racist. You are of the assumption that because he holds a certain political view that I assume he's racist. No, judging from his comments and from his SILENCE, I can see why people call him racist. Do I think Don Cherry is a racist...no. But do I think Don Cherry is a traditionalist who would rather see Canada remain the way it was before Trudeau's immigration changes. Yes.
No....I regard your opinion of him as being entirely informed by the zeitgeist that rewards crowd participation in compelling thought of a certain kind while vilifying those who don't comply as being "racist", whether in deed or in "vibe". It's readily identifiable in the absence of valid premises and the dependability of your contradictory statements. That's why certain people can maintain certainty without the verifiable evidence to justify the position. It relies on preferred feelings, repetitive messaging and a false sense of justified collective social victimization.
You've spent the entirety of your participation stoking the flames of accusation and then - as the above highlighted reads - deny the claim against absence of evidence, except in the instance of..."vibes" and his irresponsibility in addressing the emission of those "vibes".
And when that fails, there's always another necessary sign of racism to fall back on. In this instance, Cherry as a "traditionalist" who would rather see Canada remain the way it was before Trudeau's immigration changes.
Again...You simply don't know what you don't know...Italians received a lot of hardship in their first waves of immigration. And I know this because my mother's father is/was Italian. You know who also married an Italian? Don Cherry...So...What you mean by "Traditionalist" and what he understands by words of integrity and loyalty shouldn't conflate, and yet they do. Not because of his worldview, friend, but because your narrative has no room for another other than the one that provides social reinforcement currently rewarded online and in virtually every media outlet on the planet outside of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran.
The real question here isn't about Don Cherry's willingness to adapt in a country that's defined by welcoming, adaptive men like Don Cherry or my Great-Grandfather, it's whether or not the critics - like you - are willing to hold a mirror to their faces and likewise answer under same conditions and under same standards the necessary question of reciprocity in a global village amongst "global citizens".
My money is on a less than eager defence for Canada's openness and Canada's traditionalism being shared outside Western democracies.
My issue is the vibe Don Cherry gives off and his silence to rid himself of that vibe, which speaks volumes. If you're okay with people calling your a racist, well what other conclusion should I come too?
One that doesn't rely on feelings and attempts to interpret facts and arrive at reasonable conclusions rather than deform facts into an impossible, preferred conclusion?
Who empowered the accuser with power to simply speak definitions into existence without reasonable recourse to criticism and debate?
So...On the face of actual charges, by your own admission, you don't find Cherry racist and yet. your issue is his unaddressed, silently-supportive(?) unprovable "racist-vibe"? It seems you do deem Cherry racist but can't find the consistency in your own thoughts to move from "borderline racist" to "vibe-racist" to "verifiable racist". It's a shell game until the facts fit your conclusion.
That's confirmation bias, friend.
