Das Boo

It's an occasional custom in hockey for fans to boo a hated player whenever he touches the puck. There are numerous reasons why this can happen. Usually it's because the target has committed some sort of dirty play against a member of the home team.

But often, the booing has a mob-mentality to it that waters down its meaning. Years ago, Toronto Maple Leafs captain Mats Sundin was suspended for throwing a stick into the stands. Later, Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson broke his stick mid-play, and jokingly mimed throwing it into the stands. Leaf fans took offense, and gave Alfredsson the booing treatment for years to come. For one thing, the original act wasn't really offensive. But also, hockey is a sport where grave injustices are often left to stand, and booing is the only recourse for fans. It's depressing to think that the punishment given to an unstable cheap-shot artist is the same one given to a guy who did a mildly insulting joke.

Even more unfair is when the crowd turns on a member of the home team. One of the most embarrassing experiences I've had as a sports fan was when the Leafs "fans" decided veteran defenceman Larry Murphy was so personally responsible for the team's woes that they began booing him every time he touched the puck. It was one of the great justices of the game that he was traded to Detroit just in time to win a couple of Stanley Cups.

And this week, the Leaf faithful extended the booing treatment to Nashville's star defenceman PK Subban. Of course, that was a little awkward, booing a guy who's not known for dirty play, and happens to be the only black guy on the ice. To be fair, there's never been a clear, irrefutable explanation for why many people don't like Subban. He may be a different race than most hockey players, but he also differs in other ways: he's a very outgoing individual in a sport that usually values people who fit in. In the past, I've argued that is actually an interaction between the two causes: people cast an especially critical eye towards him because he's of a different race.

So was there an element of racism in the fans' booing? We can't say definitively, so instead, I'd like to look at a different question, which may also say some disturbing things about the sport's culture. I may think there is a racial component to the hockey culture's treatment of Subban, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong. Let's say this is nothing to do with race. That still leaves the question: why do so many people in hockey hate PK Subban?

Like I said, he's not known for dirty play. He also seems quite friendly in interviews, and is famous for being very charitable. So the only way left to explain it is his personality. Or more specifically, we're talking about the way he expresses it. The hockey world is okay with players like Brent Burns, who are eccentric in ways that fit the hockey culture better, with beards and good-natured oafishness. But charismatic fashionistas are not welcome.

This could be a problem for the sport in the future. For all its dominance in Canada, you can see that the powers that be in hockey are worried, given how many ad campaigns are trying to encourage kids and their patents to get into the sport.

If Subban's treatment is racist, that's bad news for these recruitment drives. We're talking about a sport that's hugely white, in a country that's becoming less so. It's clear that hockey's long-term health requires getting more diverse. But if Subban's treatment is not racist, that may be less bad morally, but it would actually be worse for the sport. If kids don't perceive the rejection as being about colour, they'll see it as being about personality. The lesson will be that if you want to be your own person, then you're not welcome here. To generations that will grow up with more and more avenues of self expression, we'll be selling a sport where your individuality may only be expressed through degrees of aggression.

Kneel Before Sod

The situation in North Korea is still tense. And Puerto Rico's infrastructure was devestated by hurricane Maria. But here we are talking about football players kneeling. Well, that's what Donald Trump wants to talk about, and everyone else is following along. I'm guessing that's because unlike North Korea, Puerto Rico, and the Obamacare repeal, this is something where there's a chance to fight back.

Some have suggested that Trump made the condemnation of NFL players kneeling for the anthem as a distraction, so we won't notice the health care disaster, or because he knows that there's incriminating Russia evidence about to drop. But the world just doesn't seem to work that way any more. We're used to new megastories coming at us every few hours; we can easily drop one story for another whenever we need to. Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm writing this article late at night; there will probably be a new outrage by morning.

The real reason for Trump's attack is that it's a great issue for him to score points with his base. It's got everything he likes: nationalism, condemning dissent, and a racist subtext. The whole thing is not very surprising really. What is interesting, though, is that the way each sport has responded has illustrated the sport's personality.

Football

I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction. A lot of players protested, there didn't seem to be much anger. There was even some official sanctioning, including the anthem singer himself kneeling in Detroit. No one seems to have been fired over this, or even much anger expressed by the owners (though give them a few days.) And there was thankfully little of the feel-good avoidance I complained about previously.

Having said that, the guy who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is still without a job. So teams and owners' tentative support of their players comes with a big dose of hypocracy. Which is typical NFL too.

Basketball

The NBA and Basketball's culture clearly won the weekend. Trump looked desperate when he revoked Steph Curry's unaccepted invitation to the White House. And the Warriors' decision to "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion" in Washington in place of a White House visit was a bold response. And Lebron James's Twitter burn of Trump was something Kim Jong Un could only dream of. Come on, NBA stars, I'm trying to hate you. Stop acting like the only adults in the room.

Hockey

The NHL isn't really involved, but somehow managed to turn the incident into a public relations loss by choosing now to announce that the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins will still be visiting the White House. It's just like them to find a way to lose a controversy they weren't involved in.

Having said that, I will forgive the NHL and become a Penguins fan if Yevgeny Malkin spends the entire visit acting like he's only there to pass on Putin's latest instructions to Trump.

But this is also typical of the paradox that hockey culture hates to rock the boat. It's a sport that takes bravery to play, yet never seems to generate bravery away from the rink among its players.

Baseball

It seemed kind of separated from the rest of the sports world. After all, it is the most conservative, traditional, and increasingly the whitest sport. So it seemed almost like an afterthought when news came out that A's catcher Bruce Maxwell knelt for the anthem. We were like, oh, right, baseball players might be doing that too.

But going back to the hurricane: given Trump's lackluster reaction, you have to wonder how many Puerto Rican players don't feel like standing for the anthem right about now.

Nascar

In sharp constrast with the other sports, Nascar was totally on board with Trump. Legendary car owners Richard Petty and Richard Childress both said they would fire any employees who didn't stand for the anthem - to my knowledge, the only owners in any sport to follow Trump's advice.

Of course, this is just the latest example of how Nascar is fine with being exactly what everyone expects it to be. It's like they want to make it really clear whether you are welcome in the sport or not. Certainly I'm feeling happier with my decision to walk away from it.

Cleveland Crocks

In this weekend's NFL games, the TV coverage treated the National Anthem as a competition of its own. Even highlights noted who, if anyone, didn't stand for the anthem, or gave the black power sign. If you're not aware, this started with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem in protest of the treatment of African Americans. Kaepernick himself was suspicious by his absence, having still not been signed this season. Although his performance has gone downhill since nearly winning the Super Bowl in 2013, it's still hard to believe that he's not qualified for a league with about a hundred quarterback jobs. It will get even more suspicious as time goes on, and we see some of the has-beens and never-weres that aren't getting the job done.

But in Cleveland, they headed-off the anthem controversy by having a big video on the scoreboard urging peace and understanding.

A special message on unity and equality from members of the Cleveland Browns. pic.twitter.com/CvyTdgTaIS

— Cleveland Browns (@Browns) September 10, 2017

This video gave me a new level of understanding of America. Suddenly I get it. I get why black people hate it when you say, "All Lives Matter." I mean sure, I'd heard lots of explanations. And I'd seen the recent meme that tries to address the flooding in Houston with "All Cities Matter." But it didn't really hit home until I saw this attempt to show concern for real - and rather specific - problems using a bunch of vague platitudes.

It's become apparent in recent years that America has problems that have been around for a while, but lurk beneath a friendly sheen of agreeable principles. The challenge of activists has been to call attention to those problems that are getting ignored by a big portion of Americans that should be sympathetic but are turning a blind eye. Making a feel-good video that doesn't acknowledge any problems is just adding to that facade.

Okay, you can make the point that in the current America where up is down and Nazis are normalized, actually promoting those positive principles is a radical step. And if you're going to promote those values, then the ideal place is the national Lowest Common Denominator, football. But I've moved beyond that. Yes, I'm apparently woke now.

You (Practically) Da Man

Let's say you hear a story about someone facing prejudice. A person discriminated against at work, or treated unfairly by the judicial system. Assuming you're a reasonably compassionate person, you want to show that you care. But there's two general ways to do this:

You could portray yourself as a sort of comrade in arms, either by comparing it to your own situation ("I know what that's like") or by highlighting a common enemy ("You tell 'em! Stick it to The Man!")

The other way is to act as a representative of society as a whole ("We really need to change as a people.") Or even to take responsibility as part of the problem ("On behalf of all X, I'm really sorry.”)

Which attitude you take largely depends on who you are. If you're a member of the same oppressed group as the victim, you'll surely commiserate. And probably, if you're from a group that had suffered similarly, you'll probably also compare your struggles. On the other hand, If your life situation is quite different, you'll probably avoid comparison, and try to show sympathy from the outside.

As a straight, white, able-bodied cis-male, I'm generally restricted to that second approach. It's going to sound silly if I try to compare my experience to someone who has lived their life with systematic discrimination. ("I know what you mean, let me tell you about how long they're taking rebuilding the expressway interchange I use.") Or, to put it another way, I can't say "Stick it to The Man" if everyone knows I am The Man.

And in a society that is prominently white, many of the people I know are in the same boat. Generally, if I'm talking to someone who ticks any of the oppression boxes, it's a woman. That is, a straight, white, able-bodied cis-female. So how do they react when looking at someone else's struggle?

I've noticed that in these situations, they're pretty quick to go to that first reaction. They align themselves with the victim, and jump to a very negative view of society. This always makes me feel kind of awkward. Sure, I'm quick to acknowledge the unfairness of society, but in this case, I'm like, excuse me, The Man is right here, I can hear you.

But here's the interesting point: In recent years - thanks to social media - I've had the chance to see the perspectives of more people with many different backgrounds. And I've discovered that although white women may see themselves as part of The Oppressed, many others definitely don't see it that way. There's a widespread feeling that white women are hardly worse-off than white men, with a lot of pent-up anger aimed at them.

I don't know how fair that is. It often seems like a grass-is-greener situation, in which white women have taken on a mythical status among frustrated activists, envisioned as incredibly privileged, hardly different from folks like myself. That’s clearly inaccurate; domestic abuse and sexual assault are problems that are not easily dismissed.

But ultimately that just adds to my point: There’s a big divide there amongst progressives, and a lot of misunderstanding. So please realize that people don’t understand one another’s struggles as much as they think they do. You may not have the oppression-cred that you think, and it will look fake if you pretend you do. But conversely, you will look out-of-touch if you assume that another’s life is easy.

The Men They Couldn't Hang, Stepped To The Mic And Sang

Both Sides Now

There's been a lot of work parsing Trump's unwillingness to single-out the white supremacist groups in Charlottesville.  Most of the focus I've seen is on his administration's long history of playing footsie with the far-right.  But I think that's misguided.  Trump isn't trying to reach out to Neo-Nazis; he's trying to appeal to the people who don't really like the KKK and friends, but are also really uncomfortable with Black Lives Matter and many other activist groups. In short, they don't like people disrupting the status quo .

In A Mirror, Darkly

Trump did his best to establish false-equivalence between heavily armed fascists and those protesting them. Some in the media fell for it, replaying his press conference antics without noting whether his claims were true.  But I think journalists are slowly getting wise.  Or at least, they've started running with the "Trump is nuts" narrative instead of the usual "one side against the other" narrative.

But what really worries me is a relatively small part of the press conference.  Trump didn't merely draw a parallel between the side, but he labeled the counter protesters, giving them the name that seemed the natural counterpart to the so-called "Alt Right." It's a name no one was actually using, and doesn't really make sense, since there isn't really any new force on the left, just the usual groups working harder when fighting the new efforts associated with the Alt Right.

You notice I'm not saying the new name?  That's because I think it's going to be the most dangerous thing to come out of this whole event.  A lot of people are laughing at the name; after all, it's defined as anyone who opposes Nazis, so that would seem to be most of humanity. But the problem is, it's an invitation for false-equivalence.  It invites people to group those countering hate together as though it was one group with its own agenda, rather than what it is: people acting on what most of our society believes in. It makes it sound like they are as much a separate group outside the mainstream as the hat groups themselves are.  In short, it invites the sort of world view I described Trump encouraging in the first section. So I cringe every time I here someone repeat it, even if it is to ridicule it.  It's such a dangerous idea that you shouldn't be giving it any publicity.

Working For The Clampdown

One strange aspect of Charlottesville was the focus of the anger.  Throughout most of my life, whenever bigotry has bubbled to the surface in America, it's generally been pointed at Hispanics, Blacks, or Muslims.  Yes, I know, there's more to it than that, but those are the big targets that you hear about from race-baiting politicians and conservative media.

And yet, when you wade through the ground-level coverage of the hate groups present, they frequently jumped straight to Jews as their hated group of choice.  I really didn't see that coming, since the march was supposedly about a Civil War statue, and their hero in the White House has generally left them alone.  During the campaign, I mentioned that Jews were staying away from Trump, and one explanation given was that they understood that they would inevitably be targeted by the movement.  They sure called that right.

But why are the haters so angry at Jews, despite no coaching from the media or politicians? Recently, an explanation was proposed in the Washington Post: Because they have the privilege to fight back.

Say, remember when "haters" just meant people who were really negative?  Taylor Swift used to sing about them?  Innocent times.

This Used To Be My Playground

There's a dispute going on about how to see Charlottesville. On one side, you have (mostly white) people saying things like "everything has changed" or "this isn't America." On the other side, you have (mostly black) people saying, "this is nothing new."

To some extent, this is a misunderstanding of nuance.  If a person says, "this isn't my America," it's not clear whether they mean, "I refuse to believe this hatred exists here," or, "my vision of this country is a society that's better than this."  The first interpretation is naive and ignorant, while the second is just very idealized rhetoric, and not really a problem.

The trouble is that in recent years, a lot of the most egregious incidents of racism in the U.S. have been disguised within government and corporate policies, hidden in societal norms, or covered over by the justice system.  So activists have gotten used to pointing out that there have long been problems that most of the population just isn't seeing.  That's become enough of an instinctive reaction that even after an incident that seems like a game changer, they're still telling everyone that it wasn't that big of a deal.  I can understand why they would feel that way, but I don't think that's the best message to be putting out there right now.  At a time when white America is finally ready to believe that racism is a problem, you don't want to be telling them that no, it's business as usual.

Many Sides

All week I've been working on a post about the negative reaction to the newly announced TV show Confederate. I was examining the use of dystopia in modern storytelling, and the historical struggles of African-Americans, trying to understand all arguments being made, and agonizing over the subtleties of each perspective. Then the Charlottesville protest happened, as if to say, "fuck subtlety." Fine then.

• Even by the usual standards of the media, it was amazing how long it took to state what actually happened. First it was "violence broke out at a protest, one person was killed." Then it was a car hitting protesters, no mention of intentionality or which side. Then it came out that it was the counter protesters who were hit. Then we find out the car accellerated at the protesters. And finally, we find out that it was Black Lives Matter protesters who were intentionality hit. A massive story that took all day for them to admit.
• The person killed was local paralegal Heather Heyer
• Her death kind of eclipsed the brutal beating of Deandre Harris, whose life was probably saved by fellow protesters.
• There was the bizarre situation in which a hate group from Detroit co-opted the Detroit Red Wings' logo, and the team was forced to issue a condemnation. As many pointed out, they acted quicker and more definitively than Trump.
• Another point not lost on people: This is a University town, and the protesters chose mid-August, the time when there would be the fewest people to confront them.
• Trump hit a new low with the vaguest possible condemnation, implying that the violence came from "many sides." America's Neo-nazis were overjoyed that they didn't get condemned. Dog whistle received.
• By the way, this all started because of talk about removing a statue of Robert E. Lee. It's in the middle of "Emancipation Park."
• It also got lost that two police officers were killed in a helicopter crash on the way there.
• There were plenty of complaints about police inaction, with a mere three arrests (compare that to 30 the first night of Ferguson protests. ) However, it's also hard to blame them given how outgunned the police was compared to some of the militias on hand.
• I didn't even realize that Tiki Torch is a brand, but apparently they didn't appreciate being associated with white nationalism either, and issued their own condemnation. And I'm sure the makers of bland men's clothing will be for ways to distance themselves, now that they're quickly becoming the new white hood. I know the next time I shop for clothes, I'll stop and ask myself, does this make me look like a Nazi?

Negativeland

There have surely been many news stories lost in the United States in the midst of the Trump tumult. Different aspects of the main story are in danger of getting lost; what hope is there for other news?

One story that should be noted is the shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota. Of course, there have been many stories of innocent people killed by police in recent years. But this event is different.

Strangely, what sets it apart is not what happened, but what didn't. Police didn't defend their actions or deflect blame - the chief even resigned. The media didn't demonize the victim.

I'm sure you can see where this is going. In this case, the victim is white. Observing it is infuriating: it's provided confirmation of just how differently blacks and whites are treated by American police, media and politicians. So really, it's a big story, but only in the negative; the story here is that there is no story. Even if the media had both the inclination and space to report on it, it's hard to point to the absence of events.

And even if you are paying attention to it, it's hard to know how to take it. Seeing what's going on now might be anger-inducing, but it's important to remember that it's not the treatment this case is receiving that is the problem - after all, this is how it's supposed to be. Let's not forget that this woman's death is still a tragedy.

The situation is similar to that of Trayvon Martin. Defendant George Zimmerman was found not-guilty in large part because of lack of evidence. As I mentioned at the time, really that was the right verdict; the frustrating part was not that, but the knowledge that a black defendant would never have received the same allowance.

These inverted news stories are an obstacle for anyone trying to get the message out about poor treatment of African Americans. In order to really illustrate it, you need to call attention to these nothing-to-see-here-folks incidents. It takes some effort to try to demonstrate to a skeptical audience what is happening.

My Country Right And Wrong

Here's a little post-mortem on Canada's sesquicentennial.  In the middle of the Canada 150 celebrations, there has also been some dissatisfaction. Indigenous people have been at best nonplussed by the celebration. That's understandable, and it's left thoughtful non-native Canadians in a quandary about how to - and whether to - celebrate.

This article by Professor Idris Elbakri explains it pretty well, acknowledging Canada's faults while also revelling in successes. Ultimately it calls the country a work in progress. You could call that a cop-out, since it's essentially saying we've been bad, but I'm sure we'll get better, so yay us!

Reading about the anniversary from liberal intelligentsia, I found similar sentiments, once I dug through the too-cool-for-school detachment. I also found a few descriptions of the 150 celebrations as having fizzled out. I didn’t really think so; I’m taking that as further evidence that modern media is slowly making us all disappear up our own intellectual asses. Anyway, the interesting point people brought up was that much of what Canadians today value about their country dates back only to the sixties, with our tolerant, friendly, health-carey country built on top of a staid, kind of backwards country.

Now I know Canadian conservatives bristle at the idea that liberal/Trudeau values are Canadian values, but that's not really the argument I'm making here. For instance, the old Canada wasn't a leading proponent of free trade. And the new focus on individual rights is hardly a liberal monopoly; see Diefenbaker and his Bill of Rights.

This is an interesting line of thought. During the War of 1812 bicentenary I mentioned Canada's problem with having an origin story that doesn't mesh with today's values (it was essentially one of blind loyalty over freedom.) But this takes it much farther. It is essentially saying that we've built an entirely new country over top of the old one. And this new vision of Canada is only maybe fifty years old. It still isn't entirely concrete, nor has its actions caught up with its principles, as with the treatment of indigenous people.

So this is a fairly positive idea in the end. The idea of an unfinished country holds out hope that traditional patterns can change, and we won't necessarily repeat the cycle of abuse forever.

But ultimately, this is about the most Canadian thing I've seen in this oh-so-Canadian year: hand-wringing over whether it's okay to celebrate, followed by a grudging admission that yes, I guess it's okay as long as we don't get too full of ourselves. And then that most stereotypical of slogans. Canada: It's a Work In Progress. I say we get that translated into Latin and start etching it on our coins right now.

Sense And Sensitivity

It's Pride time again.  Or, as it currently is in Canada, "How Much Do You Hate Police?" Week.  Thanks to the Toronto Pride Parade's decision to grant Black Lives Matter's request to ban official police participation, that has become the big story this year.

There have been different reactions.  Black gay-rights activist Orville Lloyd Douglas condemned the move. Interestingly he also called out Black Lives Matter for demanding that Pride be more accommodating of blacks, while not doing anything to stamp out homophobia within their own movement.

Meanwhile Now magazine has an article about how the policy was accepted at Pride Toronto with surprisingly little resistance and a fair amount of enthusiasm. Apparently, the outside assumption that BLM turned the screws and Pride caved is not very accurate.  It's an interesting look at how people within the movements see the world and are motivated to act. If, like me, you find that understanding your political opponents makes them less frustrating, it may help even if it may not convince you.

Similar police bans - oh, I'm sorry, police in uniform bans; police are totally welcome as long as no one knows they're cops - have been enacted at Pride events throughout Canada.  I'm not sure they really know what they're getting into.  Sure, I realize that sometimes you have to play hardball.  But you also need to choose your battles, particularly when you're thinking about a tactic that is going to give your opponent a sense of isolation and siege mentality.

Whenever I hear Pride activists talk about the bans, they use language that's not nearly as aggressive as the action itself. For instance, I saw a report from Brantford Pride in which a committee member explains it as eliminating something - the uniform - that some people find "scary." I have no doubt that many do find police officers scary, perhaps with good reason.  But we are talking about picking a fight with a major societal institution full of largely innocent people just to eliminate some people's fears.  My first reaction was that it sounds like something out of conservative paranoia, in which the desire for a safe space overrules the fair treatment of others.  In this case, I have to agree that it doesn't seem like a fair compromise between people's rights. And, on a pragmatic level, it will ultimately do progressive movements more harm than good.

Sword Fight

There's this phenomenon I've noticed in activism, and I don't know if it has a name. It's when people waste their efforts on useless endeavours. There's a number of different reasons why:

• working harder to piss off The Man than on actual change
• fighting sectarian battles
• working for esoteric intellectual goals, not what actually helps
• laying the groundwork for idealistic concepts that will never come to be

The commonality in each of these is that they're overthinking the situation. It can be just a case of wasting effort, but what's really frustrating about it, is when people actually end up working against themselves. For instance, there was this case a few years ago when someone was trying to convince poor people not to vote as a protest. You'd think that voting would be a no-brainer for activists, but here you have people voluntarily forfeiting it, for no reason but their own over-analysis.

I've always had a theory that this activist tire-spinning is at its worst in times and places where liberal ideas are favoured. That's when activists are indulgent, and don't consider that they must eternally struggle against political enemies. When progressive ideas fall out of favour, activists are forced to fight for everything, and can't afford to waste effort. They think about what's truly important, fight for their priorities and compromise on those things that don't really make a difference.  It forces a rigorous efficiency.

I first came to this way of thinking in university. Universities are ripe for these problems to begin with, being filled with liberal intellectuals. And Canada is ripe for it, with our liberal leanings, and interventionist government traditions. People often take that for granted, and don't consider that others are working to roll back past progress. And this being the nineties, we'd had decades where the only conservative force was the Mulroney government, who in retrospect was hardly regressive. So an activist in this environment would feel quite unchallenged.

But there were plenty of hints that all was not well in progressive world. Newt Gingrich was trying to remake the American government. Here in Ontario, Mike Harris was handing out torches and pitchforks to angry suburbanites. And in pop-culture and word-of-mouth, it was clear that political correctness had become a lightning rod that was being used to demonize lots of positive actions.

I observed that this negativity seemed to be forcing American activists to think about what was important to them in a way that Canadians - particularly those around me on campus - didn't. I remember that when Bill Clinton's infidelities came out, Canadian feminists were ready to throw him under the bus, while American feminists defended him; they understood that a cad in the White House is a small price to pay to have a charismatic politician working against the conservative tsunami.

But now I think I may have to throw out the theory. It's because of what I'm seeing from African-American activists. You would think that if I'm right about political challenges forcing people to adopt a battle-tested robustness, then Black Americans in the alt-right era would be about as efficiently pragmatic as possible. And yet, I keep finding people disappearing into a spiral of opaque justifications of nonsensical actions.

The latest concerns a meme you may have seen recently. A white woman on the campus of Colgate University went around campus carrying a sword. Why she had a sword is a bit of a mystery - I thought Americans preferred guns. Anyway, her prancing around with a sword didn't seem to concern anyone, and was generally greeted as a whimsical prank. She goes on to report that months later, the campus was put on lock down after reports of a gunman. That turned out to be the result of someone seeing a black man with a glue gun and panicking. So now the woman is passing the story around as an example of white privilege: When people saw her they assumed the best, while they assumed the worst for that black man.

You would think that this meme would be welcomed by black activists. A white person finally understands white privilege! And she's explaining it to other white people! But no, in the upside-down world of activism, this woman's actions were criticized for... well - I don’t really know, but it sure has made the author of this article angry.

Obviously, you can understand why black activists would be frustrated by the circumstance. It’s unfair that this white woman gets credit for making point that blacks have been trying to make for years. But the writers of this article don’t seem to realize the unfairness is not her fault. I’m left wondering what exactly she should have done that would have been better. It’s telling that the author goes on to express frustration with white allies - a complaint I’ve heard a few times. If spreading your message for you leads to frustration, it’s hard to imagine how that relationship could work out better.

So here we are in an era of high racial tension, and people trying to fix problems are getting shouted down. It's not quite talking your own cohort into not voting, but it is the sort of  intellectual time waster I'd hoped we'd left behind.

Don't Tell Me 'Cause It Hurts

It's been a week since the election, and I've seen a lot of articles passed around social media from disillusioned liberals. A lot of them have been good: They explain people's perspectives and how the result affects them personally. It's informative, and can be emotionally healthy for people to share their burdens. And of course, they can show people how they can do constructive and/or cathartic things to help the causes they believe in.

However, I've seen a few themes that are not helpful. Please think before posting anything with the following ideas:

Bernie would have won

Yes I know, you have that poll from the primaries that showed he'd beat Trump. Well, there was also a poll showing Hillary would beat Trump. You know when it was taken? The day before the election!

We should run Michelle in 2020

A lawyer and ex-first-lady from a centre-left ideology who we look up to because she seems very intelligent and self-confident? I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...

First of all, note that she - like any famous person entering politics - benefits from the fact that she hasn't taken a stance on anything yet. She'll drop in popularity once she starts taking stands on things. And of course, see my write-up about how we only like strong women when they're not looking for more power.

At least the campaign is over

My fellow straight white able bodied cis males really need to stop saying this. I'm looking your way, Stephen Colbert. Yes, for us, it's over. But for many others, it's only starting.

It was a vicious campaign, we as a nation lost perspective

I'm still looking your way, Stephen. Actually, it was one ordinary campaign, and one over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign. And it was the over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign that won, so we're going to see more of that in the future. So once again, it's only beginning.

Let's remember, we're all Americans

That's kind of the point. One campaign was built around exclusion, and that was the side that won. So if you're now saying, "can't we all just get along?" the answer is no, Americans apparently don't want to get along. This appeal to work together is another example of a plea we hear a lot: "Let's put aside our differences, and work together to achieve the things my side wants."

Let England Shake

It history, they talk about the "Great Man" theory, which is the idea that most of history is guided by a few strong individuals. Given that no one has bothered updating it to "Great Person," You can surmise that it's not a very popular view anymore. Today, historians are more likely to see the path of history guided by big movements among many people. For instance, both world wars were, on the surface, triggered by individuals. But both wars were the result of much bigger societal and economic forces, and probably would have happened eventually anyway, even if they weren't triggered as they were.

But I still find it interesting to look for those times when an individual makes a decision that impacts history. I mean a situation where the decision is not pushed by outside considerations, but instead is an individual's judgement. I'd say one example would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy and Khrushchev could have taken any of a number of actions, and that could have had huge impacts on the course of history.

Another example would be Brexit. I know, that sounds like the complete opposite of what I'm taking about. It was a referendum of a large country, not an individual's decision. But it was an individual - Prime Minister David Cameron - who decided to hold the referendum. It wasn't because of a recent change in support for the European Union in Britain; it was a calculated strategy.

British politics in general, and the Conservative Party in particular, have always suffered from the distraction of euroskeptics, those who dislike and demonize the European Union. The intention with the referendum was to get the public to agree to remain in the EU, thus disarming euroskeptics in the future, since the country would have very publicly endorsed membership in the EU.

Of course, it didn't go at all according to plan. The public surprised everyone by voting to Leave. What I find interesting in this is that Cameron's gambit has changed the direction of modern Britain, and it's all due to nothing more than timing: young people were disproportionately in favour of staying in the EU, Britain's membership in the Union would get more popular. So if Cameron had chosen a different strategy for dealing with euroskeptics, there never would have been a referendum for another decade or two. That hypothetical vote would have gone the other way. Today's young people, who mostly wanted to Remain, will eventually be the majority. But they'll live the rest of their lives in a more isolated country outside the EU, even though that wasn't their choice.

This all comes to mind because the Brexit referendum seems to have changed the entire mood in Britain. You may have already seen the reports of a troubling increase in racist attacks since the referendum, as the nation's bigots seem to feel empowered. The country's already nationalist newspapers were all-too happy to make their biases more open. But on top of that, the new post-Cameron Conservative government has embraced the anti-foreigner feeling, with disturbing promises to name and shame companies employing non-Britons.

So essentially, Cameron's strategy not only failed, it actually worked backwards: instead of discrediting the euroskeptics, the referendum discredited those who believed in a more international, interconnected country. I don't know how long this new attitude will last, but for now it appears that the entire country is going quickly in a new direction. And it's a direction that it really didn't need to go.

It certainly seems hard to stop. While all this has been going on in government, the opposition Labour Party is having its own crisis. It's currently lead by Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to be Bernie Sanders without the endearing anti-charisma. He's not popular with fellow politicians or - according to polls - the general public. But he's super popular among left-leaning people, so they put him in the position, then confirmed him when his own caucus tried to kick him out.

Of course, this sort of situation comes up a lot in politics: should the party choose the middle-of-the-road candidate the general public will like, or the ideologically-pure candidate the party members want? Essentially, both American political parties struggled with the same choice in the primaries. Yet with Labour, there seems to be no one arguing for moving to a leader that's more palatable to the electorate. Of course I don't know all the nuances of the situation, but in the discussion online, I've noticed that when anyone argues for centrism, Corbyn's supporters are quick to invoke the name of Tony Blair.

Their view seems to be that Blair made the deal that if the party moved to the centre, they could get into power, even if they didn't get everything the membership wanted. That worked, until he made the uber-blunder of joining George W. Bush's war in Iraq. That move wasn't merely unpopular, it was everything the party membership hated. Honestly, it was worse to them than anything Margaret Thatcher ever did. So Labour Party members felt like they'd been tricked into electing a might-as-well-be-Conservative government. That's poisoned the concept of moving to the political centre, and it is a non-starter among party members. Every liberal party may have is hardliners who say that moderates like Hillary Clinton are no better than their conservative opponents, but at Labour, they appear to believe it.

So all together, it seems like the United Kingdom has really lost it. But really, the crumbling seems to be concentrated in England. Scotland had far less problems with post-referendum hate crimes. And they voted solidly to stay, so now they're eying the exits. And people started talking about Irish reunification. And you know things are bad when even Wales is talking about leaving. But that's where they make Doctor Who. Great, another British institution that could pay the price.

England's problems are deeper than politics and economics; it's beloved soccer team has been a sort of metaphor for the country recently, first getting booted from the Euros by small but united Iceland, then losing their new coach after just one match thanks to bizarre bragging about rule-breaking. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that England has Jumped the Shark. Or, whatever the national equivalent of jumping the shark is. Actually, this could coin a new phrase. I suspect that centuries from now, people will be saying that China is no longer the country it once was, and that maybe it's "Voted to Leave."

Surveying The Slightly Insulted

Lots of people, myself included, have called Donald Trump racist. I think that's reasonable, given his statements on Mexicans and policy statements about Muslims. Though to be honest, I'm not sure he himself is racist. More accurately, he doesn't mind saying racist things if it makes him popular. I really doubt he believes in anything but himself.

But on the race issue, I've been interested in how non-whites have reacted when they aren't the ones in the crosshairs. For instance, Asian-Americans are one of the few minorities that Trump hasn't insulted, but they are largely Democrat and getting more so, with a particularly poor opinion of Trump.

Jewish-Americans have been solidly against Trump, despite never being directly targeted. One person online explained that Jews never get behind such movements because they know that even if anti-Semitism isn't mentioned at first, it will be along soon enough. Essentially, it's principle of the First They Came... poem. And indeed, although Trump himself doesn't do it, a number of his supporters have targeted Jews.

And then there are African-Americans. There have been lots of stories marveling at their lack of support for Trump. He's scored literally zero among blacks in some state polls, and some national polls have him in fourth, with the meager support of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson edging-out Trump. And yet, Trump hasn't really attacked them. I mentioned once that he'd be in trouble if he overtly attacked them, and he has indeed avoided it. His you-have-no-hope-might-as-well-vote-for-me plea was pedantic, but groups have forgiven him for more than that. Although I've heard no one spell out the philosphy of Blacks on this, I'm guessing they see it the same way as Jewish Americans: when someone stakes their career on satisfying White America's worst impulses, they know where that's heading.

So that explains why Trump's attempts at outreach to the African-American community have fallen flat, even if they are about as sincere as he gets. I've seen many people online explain that Trump's appearances at Black churches is done for the benefit of Whites: to win the election, Trump needs the support of not just hard-core racists, but also hypocrites who like his fearful message but don't want to think of themselves as racist. So seeing Trump palling around with Blacks at a church will convince them he isn't so bad, and thus you can vote for him and not be racist. And this was underlined recently when Trump visited a Black church on Sunday, then called for nationwide stop-and-frisk the next day, thus nuking any African-American support he might have built up. So this strategy of tiptoeing around racism may win over more whites, but it isn't convincing anyone else.

Ally Advice

In the days following the killing of two more black men at the hands of police, I've seen several articles online that list things concerned white people can do. Since that seems to apply to me, I've been reading them. But I find they leave a lot to be desired.

The lists seem to fall into one of two categories: in the first, they're aiming at people new to the issue, and the list is just ten different ways of saying, "open your mind to the possibility that maybe perhaps there is still some racism in the world." That and, stop saying "All Lives Matter."

As for the second, this article from the Washington Post is a good example: There isn't a whole lot of practical advice, but there is denigration of people who aren't activists and suspicion of white progressives. This list, and others I've seen, hold the philosophy that caucasions have to change their behaviour, and shouldn't look to blacks to tell them what to do.

It may sound reasonable that black people don't have a responsibility to fix white people. But the problem that these activists are trying to change is the behaviour of whites. So if the activists are not working to change white people, then what exactly are they doing? I'm certainly not claiming that this is a fair situation: it obviously isn't. But that's what activism is: fighting an unfair situation.

So I've come away from this experience confused. I'd like to do something to help a huge problem, but it's not clear what to do. I make an effort to examine my own actions and reactions to be as fair as possible. I've also used the Internet to learn about the perspectives of people from different backgrounds. I guess I'm assuming that there must be a level of action that's beyond "don't be personally racist" and "march in the streets." I'm thinking that for major change to happen, there needs to be a wider movement, but of people doing more than just minding their own actions.

Anyway, Here's a much friendlier list. (Sorry it's a PDF.)

Pride And Prejudice

Toronto's annual Pride parade was this weekend, and it made news for a few reasons.  One was that it was the first one attended by a sitting Prime Minister.  Which brings up:

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33

The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.

                                 

Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.

But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest.  They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33.5

It's just assumed that police forces have floats in Pride parades.

                                 

Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise.  For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.

Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it.  We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance.  Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man.  I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street.  But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.

I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter.  I do think police have made mistakes.  But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them.  Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.

That's why this seems like a watershed moment.  There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits.  It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.

Gentleman PK

Canada finally made its contribution to the international bad decision competition: Rather than supporting crazy politicians or damaging our economic future, we went with what we know well: bad hockey trades. The Montreal Canadiens stepped up and traded star defenceman PK Subban to Nashville for star defenceman Shea Weber.

That's quite a headscratcher. It's pretty unusual to have a trade of two players at the same position, unless there are other players or draft picks thrown in, or the players have vastly different contracts. But nope, it's a one-for-one swap of offensively-gifted defencemen, each with several years left on expensive contracts. The biggest difference between the players is age: Subban just turned 27, while Weber is about to turn 31. Weber is making less money, but by the arcane workings of the NHL salary cap, the money they save will make little difference in their ability to sign new players. And there's the big problem that Subban's contract is for another six years, but Weber's is ten more years, until he's 40. So this must be one of those situations where the trade only makes sense with those newfangled advanced statistics that geeks and Brad Pitt believe in. Nope, turns out they agree the Habs got hosed.

So it's hard to avoid the simplified view of the trade: Montreal just traded a player entering his prime for a similar player who's just exiting his prime. And that's why the explanations turn to personalities. Word is that the team was in a the-player-goes-or-the-coach-goes situation. But again, you have to have a pretty special coach to choose him over a star player. But coach Michel Therrien is coming off a disasterous season in which the Habs had their best ever start to a season and still managed to miss the playoffs. One would think that he'd be gone as soon as management has the slightest excuse.

Thus, I've done my due dilligence, and I can't come up with any sensible reason for this trade. So let's talk about race. No, I'm definitely not saying the Canadiens traded Subban because he's black. But this trade is only the latest aspect of Subban's career that just doesn't seem to add up. Last summer, the Canadiens were looking for a new captain, and it seemed odd that not only did Subban not get the title, but didn't even get discussed among the media. Usually captancies go to a player which is some combination of the best or most commanding player, which would seem to be him. Then, there's all this talk about "personality" and "attitude" being disliked or problematic, but which never seems to be linked to any examples. Or if he does get criticized for actual actions, it's for something that rates about a one-out-of-ten on the scale of objectionable hockey behaviour.

His treatment seems to be a good example of modern bigotry, where most people don't have a negative view of that person from a different group, but they look at them a little differently. Behaviour that would normally be accepted without a thought gets seen through a negative lens. And hockey is a fertile ground for such mischaracterization: it's a culture in which there are a lot of not-so-socially-acceptable behaviours that we've learned to look the other way on. When you drop somone into that world who is going to be closely analyzed and criticized for any bad behaviour, it's inevitable that person is going to be seen negatively, even if they're no worse than their peers.

Hopefully things will work out better in Nashville. It may be in the American south, but at least it doesn't have the media fishbowl a Canadian team has.

Section Nine So White

You may have been confused by recent news reports saying that people are angry that Scarlett Johansson is not Asian. See, they're making a movie based on the classic manga series/anime movie Ghost In The Shell and she's going to be playing the lead role. But, like most anime, Ghost In The Shell is set in Japan, and about Japanese people. Coming on the heels of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, this whitewashed casting didn't sit well with many people.

I was prepared to write a post about this. I wasn't going to defend the casting, but just to point out that it isn't racism per se, but rather it's America's uneasiness with foreign stuff. (Remember that it was only by JK Rowling's insistance that the Harry Potter movies were actually as British as the books.) I would then claim that in the unlikely event that Canadians made a movie Hollywood deemed worthy of remaking, they would probably insist on re-setting it on their side of the 49th. Then I'd point out that I don't condone this sort of soft-xenophobia, but that it's not as serious a charge as racism.

But now I find out that the upcoming movie hasn't been transplanted to the U.S. It's still set in Japan, with Japanese characters. That is, they're making a movie whose main character is named "Motoko Kusanagi", but we're just supposed to accept that she looks like Scarlett Johansson. Yes, I know, the character is a cyborg, you could easily explain that she has chosen a body that looks caucasian because she felt like it. Aside from not being real true to the character, that's the sort of fake-sounding exposition that jams up the audience's suspension of disbelief. But the fact is, the issue is apparently not making the movie more American, but more white.

To explain the casting, many people have resorted to money. The phrase, "you don't know how the industry works" seems to come up a lot. The idea is that there aren't any famous (in the West) Japanese actresses. First of all, that's hardly an excuse, it's merely a deflection, like my aforementioned planned post. But that line of reasoning has a few problems:

• They originally cast the significantly-less-famous Margot Robbie in the role
• When a movie's main draw is either special effects or a pre-established franchise, Hollywood is okay with a little-known star.
• Most of the major supporting players are white too.

So I really can't buy the explanations. It's expecially bewildering given how global the movie business has become. Hopefully the desire to bring in a world-wide audience will change some attitudes in Hollywood.

Sub(stantial Con)fusion

Many people have observed that whenever someone starts a sentence with, "This isn't racist, but..." then you know that the rest of the sentence is going to be totally racist. But I'm hoping to be the first person to start a sentence that way and not be racist. Here it goes:

This isn't racist, but I've noticed that a lot of Subway® franchises are run by people of Indian heritage, or elsewhere in Southern Asia. What's up with that? Again, to emphasize: not racist, since I have no problem with anyone running a Subway. I'm just curious, since it seems surprising.

Of course, it's common for immigrants to set up a restaurant; it makes sense, since you come to a new land, and you don't know much about the customs and traditions. So you take advantage of what you do know, which is your own culture. That's a win-win, because they get established in their new home, and everyone around them gets to experience a new culture. But subs? Don't get me wrong; I enjoy both Subway and Indian food. But you've got to admit that on the spectrum of human food, they're at opposite ends. So I'm wondering how people say, "Let's introduce people to our marvelous culinary culture, with its elaborate language of spices... Nah, on second thought, let's make sandwiches with cold cuts."

I had always hoped this would lead to Indian influence in the subs, and at last, we have a butter chicken sub. So I rushed out and bought one. But I hadn't considered that of course this means I'm likely ordering it from someone intimately familiar with Indian culture, so I'm going to look like the Ignorant White Cultural Appropriator. Or at the very least, I'm going to break her heart when she realizes my sandwich will be such a mangled version of her culture. I mean, what appropriate toppings can you choose for a butter chicken sub out of what's available at Subway? You can't just put mayo on it. Raita isn't available as a sauce, so I chose Ranch dressing as the closest thing, and then felt very guilty over it (though it did go surprisingly well; I recommend it.) So it was weird, but we survived, both I and the Indian Subcontinent. I'll now feel confident ordering the butter chicken sub in the future, whoever makes it.
 
However it's become obvious that this is the direction that popular food is taking, where each culture is represented by one dish which becomes internationally famous. Then we think of that food as being the representative of its entire culinary culture. Don't sample all of Thai food, just try Pad Thai. And then we pick and choose combinations of those things and create new cosmopolitan abominations. For India, the dish is butter chicken. Sorry vindaloo, you're out of luck. For Canada, poutine is emerging as our representative. Want to put them together? Bam! There you go.

A Rush Of Blood To The Face

I have to admit, I feel sorry for Coldplay.  I've never been a big fan of them, though they do have some good songs.  But they seem to be nice, friendly people, and they've tried to do some good with their fame.  And you have to appreciate this:

So it bugged me when media seemed to revel in saying that Beyonce stole the show from them at the Superbowl halftime show. The fact is that Coldplay is an easy target with their laid-back sound and non-aggressive-male personae.

What's weird is that in the lead-up to the game, much of the media was referring to the show as being "Coldplay, with Beyonce" which was a weird way of presenting it, since, you know, she's the biggest artist in the world.  And the fact that they had Coldplay on first, leading up to Beyonce taking the stage in dramatic fashion, seems to indicate that the show's producers saw her as the main star too.  So all in all, it seems like Chris Martin and friends were set up for failure.

And yes, I know, I'm complaining about a vague slight against a bunch of rich white guys, when American right-wing media has been trying to demonize Beyonce for incorporating Black Power symbolism in her performance. But I'm just ignoring that because they find some aspect of everything to get angry at.  These are probably the same people who got angry at the Carolina Panthers themselves because their logo shows a black panther. It's not like mainstream Canadian politicians attacked her.  What?  They did? Oh, Toronto City council, how many Rob Fords are you hiding?

Two Rails Are Safe, Let's Try The Third

I figure that every country has an issue that just never goes away. It's an issue that somehow touches all other issues, and gets brought up in connection with things you'd never expect. It's something everyone tries to stay away from - not out of political correctness, but just because everyone knows that if you bring it up, you'll never hear the end of it. And this is why it's so hard to understand the politics of a country other than your own: there's this one issue everyone is thinking about and reacting to, but not mentioning.

In Canada, that issue is language. I've seen it trip up Americans, in the few times they try to talk about us. They know we have French people, and to them, The French are an easy joke target. So they say something in jest, and then wonder why everyone reacts like a war crime has been committed.

In Britain, the issue is class. And in the U.S., it's race. They try to ignore it out downplay it, but it never goes away.

But speaking of things that are controversial and never go away, Donald Trump. He's entered another iteration of his cycle of offensive statement/free publicity/more support. As usual, that middle step consists of the media asking if he's gone too far this time. Pundit Jeet Heer pointed out the folly of this question by pointing out that were asking if a guy sorted by racists will lose his support because he just said something racist.

Normally, I'd be as pessimistic as Heer on this, but I think that if Trump is ever going to lose his infallibility, this is it. Of course, is for the reason I outlined at the start: he's now taking on America's raw nerve of racial issues. Yes, overt racism against Mexicans and Muslims turn on his supporters and don't offend the mainstream to any significant degree. But now he's exaggerating black crime, and defending the attack on a black demonstrator by his supporters.

I don't think that's going to go over the same way, just because this isn't the same kind of issue. Yes, I know, politicians in the US have been using race baiting for years. But they've always dressed that up to make it palletable. Trump's modus operandi is to come right out and say what the bigots are thinking.
If he does that here, it may finally be the end. We'll likely find that many of his supporters are no longer comfortable as racist if it's what they think of as the "real" kind of racist, not just hating foreigners. Also, the relatively mainstream forces currently giving Trump tacit approval (big donors and cable channels) might dessert him. After all, we know from the past that overt hatred of African-Americans is one of the few things that money and Fox News will not defend you from.