Author Topic Options
Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:20 pm
 


<strong>Written By:</strong> Robert Payne
<strong>Date:</strong> 2004-10-20 22:20:00
<a href="/article/182019584-to-some-its-the-infamous-five">Article Link</a>

The thing is, not everyone in the Famous Five held those noble perspectives about equality, dignity and rights. <p> Though these women were clearly pioneers of the feminist movement -- besides the Persons Case, they also were instrumental in establishing the Alberta Dower Act in 1917 that granted women property rights in marriage -- at least three of them held views that can only be described as xenophobic and racist. <p> Full article (subscribers only, unfortunately): <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20041019%2FCOYEDLIN19%2FTPComment%2FTopStories&ord=1098301738359&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true">To some, it's the Infamous Five</a>





PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:38 pm
 


Too funny! It's so politically correct these days to give women and minorities a pat on the head for fighting for rights and justice while dismissing the entire collective, and more effective, efforts of white guys in suits. They'll put anyone's face forward, bigots or not, so long as they meet skin colour and gender requirements. That's bona fide racism and sexism in practice. We've come a long way baby! LOL!


Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:48 am
 


Well these women were anything but politically correct, they were fighting for rights in a time when many people, except rich white men, had none. They were also a product of their time, not to say it was correct, but it was then. Holding racsist views back in the early 1800's and 1900's was not uncommon, it was rare to not have prejudices because that is how they were raised. Often people had prejudices just as they do today because they fear the unknown. If you never met a white person, and someone told you to fear them, or told you they stole your parents land, starved them out etc, you might hate all white persons because of it.

Men feared women becoming powerful, because after all work was hard to find and if women took men's work, what would men do, surely not women's work?? If they were persons, if they could vote, they would upset the whole universe. Everybody had their place in society and few challenged it for many years, but regardless of these women's prejudices they did pioneer the way for progress, women got the vote, later so did people of colour, then the First Nations People. I suspect that if these women had not pushed the envelope it would have taken alot longer for progress for anyone. Before prejudice can be erradicated people have to become educated about other cultures and races, and once we are, there will be less chance of wars based on fear about a culture.

We only have to look at Iraq today, people using religion and culture to cause fear in others. Both of these statements are extremes but widely promoted in the media: 'The religious right is trying to conquer the world to preserve Israel for the end of times, while the Muslims are trying to kill all the infidels.' Hitler used the same b.s. to cause fear in people about the Jews taking all the jobs, gold etc in Germany.

Fear breeds hate and intolerance and the famous five were merely taking baby steps on the road to our evolution. So I say bravo to them! To call them infamous, because they were behaving or holding beliefs current to the times in which they lived, is to try to make politically correct in todays world, what was merely life in theirs.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 585
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:38 pm
 


Whelan, what you say is true to a point. Except one of these women, I believe it's Emily Murphy but I may be wrong, also pioneered a repressive way of thinking in Canada that still exists today (to some degree). You see, under the pen name "Jane Canuck", she wrote outlandish stories and falsified facts to turn public opinion against Marijuana.

Marijuana prohibition began in the United States as a measure to keep Mexicans outs by making the US less appealing to them (they weren't liked because they worked too hard for small wages - and enjoyed smoking a joint at the end of the day to relax). This was where the "lazy Mexican" stereotype was born. And when marijuana spread to the New Orleans Jazz/Blues scene, anti-pot sentiments were exploited to oppress black people. Thus, marijuana prohibition was born as a child of racism in the United States.

Jane Canuck embraced this racist thinking and created falsified studies claiming all sorts of nonsense, such as the 'fact' that marijuana made people go crazy (think "Reefer Madness"). She gradually turned public opinion against this substance and was instrumental in getting in included in the Opium Act (which was the result of another bit of racism - the 1907 Anti-Asian Riot in Vancouver - the Opium Act was designed to appease the bitter white racist majority).

Thus, Jane Canuck's legacy of marijuana prohibition in Canada still lives on to this day. And repressive this legistlation is! Recently, the Canadian Senate published a study supporting the full legalisation of marijuana. So far, the federal government hasn't indicated any will to do so. Prohibition is racist at its very roots and is repressive in present day. And we have Jane Canuck to thank for it!!

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes



Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1032
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:14 pm
 


Therein lies the conundrum.

Many of the people who've made important contributions are not necessarily those you'd want to have living next door, marry your son or daughter or lend money too.

As CWC points out, judging people by whatever current day standards happen to be isn't entirely fair.

As Kory points out, heroicizing those who were largely not heroic is a dubious exercise.

Much easier to have the long dead as icons, as any warts they possessed are often long forgoten.

Probably much better to realize that humans can encompass both the desirable and undesirable, and appreciate the desirable they created without romanticizing the individual. This perspective allows all to better appreciate what being human, and who we are, means.

People can produce wonderful things without being wonderful people.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).



"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).





PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:52 pm
 


the banking fraternity will put ANYTHING on a piece of paper called 'money' if it thinks that the image enhances value. (in this case, among the brainwashed female 'working girl' and shopaholic) Gotta remember the underlining theme of the article is not about how far women have come but about the phony bank system that has impoverished their standing in families so they can 'work' 'spend' and 'divorce' their way to a full life.


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2532
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:55 pm
 


We have not come a long way at all, really, given that today`s discrimination is monetary. If you`re not rich, you can`t go to school; if you`re not rich, you can`t run for office; if you`re not rich, the law doesn`t work for you like it should; and the list of freedoms prohibited by the lack of money is growing for the majority of Canadians, and world citizens for that matter.

---
Dave Ruston



Dave Ruston


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2234
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:04 am
 


"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

But, as Joe Crow (22 Minutes) points out, there's always an asterisk(*) following these things. And the asterisk is native Americans.........


---
RickW



You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me





PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:44 pm
 


Aboriginals in Canada today are actually more equal than others in that they get special priveleges from government and the courts, exclusive rights to deplete resources, tax breaks, cash grants for any number of things, they can damage the environment, etc. etc. And that's all legal.

What holds some of them back today is their cultural background and the fact that many, if not the majority, of aboriginals are exploited by their own aboriginal leaders because all the money has to pass through their hands first. The feudal culture that Canadians support on aboriginal reserves will one day cause your average Canadian to look back on these days in the same way they look back on Japanese internment during WW2.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.