Very interesting article. "Every man for himself" is the very worst way to respond to such threats, where collaboration at all levels is critical to an effective response. And yet this is increasingly the way we all do things, and not just in the United States, although they are ahead of us.

What you cite as racism is also inextricably interwoven with this, as we saw with Katrina, although I don't think it's overt racism as much as an ability to discount entire groups and communities not seen as relevant to us, as the circles of those whom we really care about become increasingly smaller, more specialized and/or like-minded.

Fear, stress and a socioeconomic structure where we are increasingly distanced from those whom we rely on for all of life's necessities simply fuels this, while ironically making us more vulnerable, both individually and collectively, at the same time.

The competitive model and "every man for himself" aren't helpful when one's fate is tied to that of "the weakest link", which is very much the case with pandemic flu and many other things.

I wonder what will be the influence of the Net on the next big pandemic. One would think that it should somehow help.

Hmm. Is it racism to think China is covering up flu cases when the WHO found just that with SARS? I don't think so. Also, some of what is called racism is in fact cultural bias and cultural ignorance, rather thanracism.

I think there is enough real racism that it is important not to label cultural bias, which all cultures have as a matter of being most comfortable within their own culture. (until one spends enough time with other cultures to understand and hopefully appreciate them)

Racism is ugly. It is I don't like you/think you are inferior/etc because of your race. Without a doubt San Francisco was teaming with racism at the time of the articles' commentary.

Cultural bias can be as simple as provincialism.

Public health is infrastructure. Good points about us all depending on the 'weakest link', Name and Crawford. The US is in real trouble if and when the next epidemic arrives and thus so are we.

I believe the increase in poverty has increased the chances of a major pandemic. It is only logical that over-crowding, lack of clean and safe housing and good food to aid one's immune system contributes not only to illness, but also North America's new bed bug infestation. Bed bugs, contrary to what the news has been saying, thrive in conditions of poverty. Yes, world travel etc have contributed to their rise, but it is our own increase in poverty that has enabled them to make such a comeback. (of course one can get them without being poor, but one doesn't keep them, unless one is)

I just want to make the point that in communist China, officials are often held accountable for things they haven't any power over. This has led to the covering up of certain events. Also, the Chinese gov't has often been secretive. (note the rise of our own gov'ts secrecy as they become more totalitarian) It isn't racism to observe this.

Oh, and Rumsfield has stock in Tamiflu. is it a coincidence that the flu and Tamiflu is having so much media attention? My guess is there is a multitude of potential biological epidemics and plaques that never materialize. Can this one? Of course. And, if the B admin cared they'd put money into public health infrastructure rather than giving the pharmacuticals a gift at public expense by as allowing vaccines etc to be put on the market without adequate testing.

And, of course, you remember during the SARs outbreak Canada was considered a country that one was not to go to and Canadians travelling were suspect. Again, not racism.

Racism is also the inability to really 'see' another person because of their race. No culture is without its racists.

I think many people would agree with you on the value of investing in a stronger international public health infrastructure (since illness no longer respects national borders), as it will serve us for any potential future health crisis, not just bird flu.

On the other hand, this is already a major concern for Hong Kong and most Asian countries, and I don't think that's being driven by Mr. Rumsfeld. Even if we never see a human pandemic, the social and economic costs of this outbreak in poultry has already been devastating to many in SE Asia and rural China.

And I think you're entirely right about the link to poverty. If 20% of us are consuming 80% of the world's resources, while billions in Third World countries in Asia and elsewhere are surviving on the scraps we leave over, it's an invitation for disaster. I read somewhere that 2005 may have been the year that we confronted this reality, even if we didn't "make poverty history", so that's a start, I guess.

"...we can't predict the time or manner of H5N1's mutation into a truly deadly disease."

The mutation of viruses remains a black box, so until studies conclude that stressors similar to those that caused the 1918 pandemic have become apparent, it's all mere speculation--and very rewarding for certain vaccine manufacturers. Deaths from avian flu seem more prevalent today because they are being reported.

Absolutely right, Crawford. A transparent hoax!

I've developed four questions concerning the HIV virus also:

1. Is there evidence that any healthy, well-nourished healthworker in America or Canada, who did NOT take pharmaceutical medications and who was accidently infected with the virus, has ever developed full blown Aids, and died?

2. Is there evidence that any Africans who died of full-blown aids were well-nourished, and did not take the pharmaceuticals?

3. Is there evidence that American homosexuals who contracted the virus, but who continued a lifestyle free from illegal drugs, and others such as "poppers" (amyl nitrites), and who continued a nourishing diet, and who DIDN'T TAKE THE PHARMACEUTICAL PROPHYLACTICS or cocktails, ever died from full-blown adids?

4. Is the following statement true: "Any starving person can be said to have AIDS because the immune system will be destroyed as starvation progresses?"

Until such questions are properly researched it cannot be taken for granted that the hiv causes Aids.

Very interesting story, Crawford.

http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/2006/panelist/aginam.htm

Well the article is correct about the historical racisms, you will find the average Chinese generally far more racist than the average North American (I know this is a generalization)

People who avoided Chinese restaurants were not being entirely silly. With the advent of air travel, the perfect vector for many diseases was created. A person could be infected in Guangdong Province, China and then eating in a restaurant in Vancouver 24 hrs later. This would still be an unlikely scenario, but certainly not impossible. I passed through Shanghai last month, the authorities there have infrared cameras scanning all of the passengers and also require you to fill out a health checklist. They realize the threat, but also don’t want to shut down international travel.

Don’t be surprised if International travel is suspended to certain areas to limit a epidemic, if fact any country could be hit with this. Recently no go areas were established in Central Africa to prevent an Ebola type bug from spreading.

you will find the average Chinese generally far more racist than the average North American

I'm not actually disputing the above, but I am wondering how it is relevant to a thread on this story, which is based in Canada and the United States. Chinese Americans are not more racist than other Americans, and that ought to be the issue here.

Also the average European is more racist than the average North American (read: Germany, France et al.). (But wait!..I know this is a generalization ;) )

It's funny to see such nice and seemingly open-minded folks go through such pains to avoid being seen as racist before saying anything that could be construed as racist. Note Redrivergirl's 3 short postings trying to qualify her statements. Good for you.

Then there is Colin's "I know this is a generalization" statement - mean to pre-empt any potential criticisms without deconstructing his point.

Look all - if you start from the premise that EVERYONE in the world is racist in varying degrees - life is much easier. Give me a few minutes and I can find the racist bone in anyone - it's natural and we cannot help it. It's not good and I don't condone it - but let's be realistic about it. Just because you champion redress for Chinese head-tax doesn't mean that you want the RCMP to allow officers to wear turbans.

I have racist thoughts - and I hate myself for them. But like any BIG concept involving so many stakeholders representing so many communities - we'll never be able to nail down a universal definition - and if we did - its implementation in policy, law and society would be disupted. Forgive me father, it's been 2 weeks since my last racist thought. . .

So everyone - just say to yourself: I am racist in some way and admit it. That's the first step to getting better. Nothing is more pernicious than a person stating: "I'm not racist at all" Ignoring that racism exists within us to some degree prevents us from dealing with it - but all of us are sliding down this moral slippery slope. . .and if I hear that tired old line about having friends of different races proving that someone's not racist I'm going to puke. BTW marrying someone of a different race doesn't count either.

On the balance, however, I do agree with Colin's observation that the Chinese - or Asians(those who live in Asia) - and why stop there, Latin Americans, Europeans, and Africans - hell everyone - are in general more racist than the average North American. We ain't perfect, but we're doing better than the rest of the world because both Canada and the USA were pilots of the immigration-based model of nation-building. Everyone - except for the first nations - are from somewhere else and so recognition - if not full acceptance of difference(ethnic and cultural at first before the more recent recognition of race) - is more ingrained is. We have more heterogeneous populations and very importantly - relatively historical baggage and a short timeline. The traditional model of a nation-state has been built largely on racial - but not necessarily cultural homogenity - aside from us - okay and maybe Australia (and Singapore) - what other countries have institutionalized multi-racial societies? Human beings tend to like those who look like them.

In countries where there is a dominant race and a large degree of racial homogenity and lower immigration rates - you are guaranteed to see more racism. This includes China - so COlin - good one. One last note - all of the SARS-stricken countries have maintained these infrared cameras in airports with mandatory health questionnaires since 2003 and they are likely to maintain them so what you saw in Shanghai is not all that recent.

Not much of a problem 'cause in general the Chinese restaurants in which white folk dine are usually NOT the same ones in which Chinese folks dine. . . rule of thumb: if there's Egg Foo Yung or Egg Roll on the menu - chances are there ain't too many Chinese people eating there. . . dang - that was kinda racist. . .but I have lots of white friends and have dated white people. Really.

While there is Chinese food and then there is Canadian-Chinese and that’s not a generalization (previously inserted to prevent huffing and puffing by some) ;)

Mind you the term Chinese is a totally generalization as the makeup of China is really quite diverse and they take their territory disputes much stronger than any Newfie or Quebecer.

A number of Chinese have commented that the province that bird flu originates from is well known as a place where the residents eat anything that moves.

Well, I've been a black person for all of my 61 years--and have lived in Surrey, Vancouver or Langley-- and I have to admit that you guys who claim that white people are the LEAST likely to be racist here in the lower mainland are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I'm not going to be very popular in certain quarters for saying it, but, yeah, that's what I think, too.

Actually, it's not even a close contest.

redrivergirl Tamiflu is produced by Roche Pharmaceuticals, who produce everything from HIV, cancer and heart medications to acne medicine. So to say that "Rumsfield has stock in Tamiflu" and try to create some sort of Bush administration conspiracy theory is conveniently leaving out a few important details and I'd say a bit misleading, I think.

For clarities sake, I was not trying to qualify my statements. I have a tendency to think very rapidly and to post quickly which is one reason I make so many copy errors. Usually when I qualify, I'll overtly say so.

My points are:

1,Racism is real and it exists in all cultures.(and thus people have suffered from it)

2, I think people should be careful not to label as racist, cultural bias, fear of deadly illness, etc as racist precisely because racism is so vile and it is important to make distintions if one is to be able to address the problem and heal this in our society. (the emotion behind racism is hate - there isn't any really intense emotion behind cultural bias although their may be a desire to remain in one's comfort zone etc)

Just as some people claim to be not racist are, some, maybe a lot of people accused of racism, aren't.

I remember an East Indian woman about ten years ago who was in a bad car accident and was saved by two white guys who independently stoppped to help her. She was being interviewed and so grateful. However, she was absolutely amazed that two white people would help her. She said she used to think they were so racist and now she has re-evaluated her beliefs. This is so sad. And, some responsibility really has to go to those who label as racist, things that are not, and/or who in their own anti-pathy to white people perpetuate their own hatred.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying.

Racism is very real and many people of colour have had to rise above the ignorance of stupid hateful people. I am not minimizing this at all!

I don't buy for reasons I stated in my earlier post that being afraid of recent travelers to China during the Sars break out is racist. In fact one could argue, (I won't) that to claim it is racist is actually racist, much as the claim of 'the spiritual 'Indian'' is when thinking about First Nations.

We really don't know what is in the heart of others. Anti-oppression and identity politics have a lot of merit, but imo has become bogged down in revenge rather than justice. I f you tell me because I'm white, I'm racist, as some anti-oppression people say, then I've stopped listening. There has to be a place at the table in Canada for all races, including white people. I now think strongly it is 'rainbow' people/politics where I want to put my energy. I think we need to come from the heart and develop more empathy for one another.

I believe no one race is any more racist than another. Some cultures are, but as Incredulous pointed out, in multi-cultural ones which presumably are more sophisticated because all races have contributed something of value to each other, no one race can hold the title of most racist. And the cultures that are usually can be traced to ignorance and provincialism. Now of course the race based majority of rule makers can and do set discrimatory policies, that result in systemic racism, but again, that's another distintion.

clarity's? I'm in a brain fog.

Poindexter, the admin does things like this all the time. Do I think it's possible that R and some of his cronies are sitting on tamiflu stock and manipulating the market? I think it is probable.

I wanted to make the point too, that a vital public education system is very important in our society so the next generation will be even more accepting of one another. This already has proven true in Canada, where racism in younger people is less frequent.

There is something on the horizan, I am worried about and that is the neo-con plan to flood the country with 'cheap labour' to drive down the wages - they're doing that right now in the US and apparently in Alta. I think Canadians are educated enough to recognize what they are doing and if things get economically tough will blame the neo-cons rather than the immigrant. But, it is potentially an artificially manipulated stress that could cause tension within our society.

Horizons...distinctions!
I have a lot of spelling errors in my above posts please ignore.

Okay, here's a qualifier. lol

Truman Green, my intent is not to deny your experience. I believe you are having the experiences you say you are. I wonder if you are experiencing this racism from 'new' Canadians who have yet to experience the benefit of a multi-cultural society? I am not suggesting that, I just was wondering.

Issues of race and race relations are complex, emotionally laden and take courage to talk about and to self-reflect on.

For me, I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up in a very diverse, stimulating environment where I was exposed at a very early age to the richness and value of diffent cultures. To me, it is more issues of culture that are taking the fore, rather than race.

Of course, we are all experiencing a huge backlash right now.

Redrivergirl, well, I don't think "issues of race relations are complex," as you say. It's just about thinking that members of the group to which you belong are somehow more imbued with the qualities of "humanbeingness" than members of another group, and perhaps, being willing to manifest this suspicion in your actions, or at least, wanting to.

I'm sure you didn't get me wrong. I could recount any number of very unpleasant incidents of a racist nature. But they all have one thing in commom: they happened before, say, 1980.

My feeling is just that, on the whole, Caucasian Canadians just don't seem quite as concerned with "special groupness" as MOST of our new Canadians, and I understand there are exceptions on both sides.

Well said.

One day - if we don't blow ourselves off the face of the earth first - people will look back on racism with amazement that we could be so stupid.

Dang Redrivergirl - your sure must write fast given the large number of echo posts you append to your original posts. . .I just to tend to really long posts that keep going on and on and on. . .

If we're talking scientifically - if there are any some scientists correct me if I'm wrong - the human race is composed of the following "races": Caucasoid (white), Negroid(black), Mongoloid(yellow) and Australian Aborigine(er. . . dark-ish). East Indian(brown) people are actually the earliest caucasoids - white people originated in Northern India(gasp!) - then again we all did originate from African Eve.

Of course, some would argue that these classifications themselves are "racist". . . like, what's up with Mongoloid!?!? Anyway I digress. . .

To say that there is a gene in us that makes us racist is extreme - I don't think that there are any physiological drivers of racism, ie. mongoloids are not genetically predisposed to racism more than caucasoids. Again, if there are any uber-anthro-geneticists around who can refute this - then go ahead. . .

All that to say - yes, strictly "no race is more racist than another" - but if you didn't mean it that way Redrivergirl - as I suspect you didn't - and what you meant to say was that white people are no more racist than black people or asian people - then I disagree. Strongly. But my reason for disagreeing is because I think that this statement is far too gross and overinclusive.

It's all about exposure, familiarity, integration and mixing among folks of different races over generations. I'll say it again: it's all about racial homogeneity of your home culture - a Chinese person who has never had familiar contact with a black person will default to whatever opinion they have of them - and they are usually quite negative and often dehumanizing - but not always.

"Positive" racial stereotyping is still racist. Racism doesn't have to be negative to be bad - though "positive" racism is a hell of a lot better than the negative variety, ie. while I may get yelled at for miscalculating the tip for a cab driver in New York since I'm asian and supposed to be good at math - at least a taxi will stop for me if I hail it - unlike if I were black. Of course, the cab driver is likely from South Asia. And no chance of me getting shot in a grocery store, or being pulled over by the police for driving a nice car, etc.

That said - a Chinese person who has little exposure to black people will default to a negative stereotype. So that means that the bulk of the country of China fits into that category. But then again, as Colin pointed out - the designation "Chinese" itself artificial and fraught with huge political baggage. There are hundreds of ethnically distinct "tribes" in China - some look positively caucasian and are muslim and want to separate from China. Heck, most of Russia east of the Caucasus Mountains is Mongoloid. So let's be more precise: Chinese Canadians who live in Vancouver are generally more racist towards black people than "white" Canadians as surmised by Truman Green.

OK - I agree with that. I think that would be accurate statistically if someone did a survey. Does my saying this make me racist? No - I don't think so. Guys - saying that someone is racist does not make you racist, but too often it is used a reason to defend your own racism, "You know, I try to be nice to these [place race here] people, but they themselves are so racist, and they don't reciprocate."

In most cases, the root of racism is ignorance and lack of exposure. The Indian woman saved by the white men had to re-evaluate her view of white people - great! That it took something like to happen to change her worldview is regrettable, but hey, that's how humans are wired. Some folks - even after that experience - would still harbour racist sentiments.

Re. Truman Green's point:

I think the reason for that Truman, is that white Canadians are the majority and so there is nothing to exclude them from fully-participating in society, in the economy and politically. Linguistically and culturally, they are at home here - except when they go to Richmond maybe - whereas increasingly with new Canadians who typically do not speak English as their mother tongue, they arrive in Canada and the linguistic and cultural barriers are such that they default to their own ghettos and network among themselves until their kids grow-up speaking English and thinking "Canadian" and rebel against the old ways and then bring home a white boy/girlfriend. The second generation of immigrants are less racist, and by the time the third generation has grown-up, why they're even less so and only as racist as the other white Canadians around them.

Heck, in a few generations the entire human race will look Philippino and the physical markers of race will be less important. . .but at least we'll still have oil, religion and sports to kill each other over. . .

I just wrote a huge post and erased it in error! Arg. I hit something on the keyboard when typing that sometimes erases the whole thing!

Suffice it to say...

No, I meant what I wrote. I was mentally responding to Truman's prior post. Of course, it is true, that I also believe that white people are no more inclined to be racist than any other race. When one travels that is readily apparent. It is here as well. But, later in your post you seem to agree as well. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Again, there is systemic racism in our society against people of colour. There is systemic racism that favours the dominant group in every country. We have to work to get rid of it in our own.

I don't believe we can know what is in anothers' heart. Sometimes it is easier to think that guy didn't like me, or I didn't get that job 'cause I'm a woman, when it could be something about my personality, the guys, or qualifications. But, because I'm a woman I'm too subjective to tell unless the guy is overtly sexist. In other words sometimes our perceptions aren't facts. Anyway, I'm very familar with anti-oppressive, racism activism and am aware of subtle racism. I just don't agree that it always is there in the cases it is claimed, for reasons I've gone into in my prior posts. I know it's easy to say that's cause I'm white, so I'll leave it here. And, there is some truth in that, just as the it is the same truth in what I am arguing, only in the reverse.

Are you American? It's the 'dang'.

Blessings.

Redrivergirl - yes, we bascially agree. Good points.

I choose to use lots of big words and fancy references which detract from the message. . . the tortuous logic doesn't help either.

I am not American - proud to be Canadian - but of Asian heritage and proud of that, too. The "dang" is an affectation I picked-up living in the States. I use it more in the hip-hop sense than the southern sense if that's any consolation. . .

This isn't rocket science, you guys.

Incredulous knows what I mean because he even admitted that a lot of Chinese people have an attitude toward black people that is, in his words, "negative and humiliating." And I think he is in a position to know about that which he speaks.

The key is feeling that your physical appearance puts you into a special club.

In some cases feeling that your culture puts you into a special club is so similar to racism that for all intents and purposes it is the same thing. This is quite rare in this part of Canada, but there are a few groups who are guilty of this nonsense.

Redrivergirl insists upon thinking that, "... there is systemic racism in our society against people of colour."

Well, I remember reading an article by ex Lieutenant-Governor David Lam in which he expressed pleasant surprise that the lower mainland had accepted so many Chinese immigrants in a short period of time, with very few problems--and admitted that he would be hard-pressed to come up with another society where this could happen. (Not that extrapolating from one person's opinion is usually productive, of course.)

This is hardly, "systemic racism against people of colour," redrivergirl.

As far as incredulous' definition of "race", I'd offer another one from Svante Paabo, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, printed in Science magazine, Feb, 13, 2001:

"Fortunately, from the few studies of nuclear DNA sequences, it is clear that what is called "race," although culturally important, reflects just a few continuous traits determined by a tiny fraction of our genes. This tiny fraction gives no indication of variations at other part of our genome. Thus, from the perspective of nuclear genes, it is often the case that two persons FROM THE SAME PART OF THE WORLD WHO LOOK SUPERFICIALLY ALIKE ARE LESS RELATED TO EACH OTHER THAN THEY ARE TO PERSONS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WHO MAY LOOK VERY DIFFERENT...From a genetic perspective, all humans are Africans, either residing in Africa or in recent exile."

There are racists in the world because there are a lot of stupid people in the world.

We really don't know what is in the heart of others. Anti-oppression and identity politics have a lot of merit, but imo has become bogged down in revenge rather than justice. I f you tell me because I'm white, I'm racist, as some anti-oppression people say, then I've stopped listening. There has to be a place at the table in Canada for all races, including white people.

Redrivergirl:
I completely agree with the above. However, I think another reason that people's hackles get raised is when white people expect to be present at all levels of dialogue and debate. And actually, I can completely understand this. Because many white people are friends and allies, people of colour tend to be reluctant to offend them or to create a temporarily disharmonious atmosphere as they sort through their experiences. As a result, stories don't get told, contentious or humiliating experiences aren't comfortably discussed, and the true shape of the issues that people of colour face cannot be articulated. Naturally, many white people react to this exclusion with hurt feelings.

Whenever something is secret or held back, people perceive a threat. Regardless of this, some people of colour have stopped justifying and reaching out so much because it is always the same debate every single time- their right to shape their issues and then to bring them to the table and agitate for change, alongside a number of terrific white people. Anti-oppression strategies may be a convenient place for a racist to hang their hat, but there are other interpretations as to what is happening here. So far, I have never met an anti-oppression person who felt that the world would be a better place without white people, or who hated them based on their race alone. Many of these people face an incredible pressure to rescind their politics by a vocal minority who actively hassles them. If they were to continually hold forth with people who have potentially conflicting agendas, then some of their realizations would not see the light of day. The point of anti-oppression narratives is to identify sites of oppression. As well intentioned as many white people are, they may not always agree with the conclusions that are reached because they haven't experienced life as a person of colour-or, and this is key, they have a certain investment in maintaining the status quo in which actively benefits them in certain circumstances.

I am glad that you mentioned systemic racism. Otherwise, I would really wonder: if you don't acknowledge it, will it go away? Personally, I don't think so.

If they were to continually hold forth with people who have potentially conflicting agendas, then some of their realizations would not see the light of day.

I am not saying that other people should not be able to debate against these issues when they are fully developed. It is the process of developing one's consciousness that I am defending here. It is then helpful to dialogue and to hopefully end up on a similar page.

Oh, I agree magnicity. And, I see anti-oppression to be very imporant. I also see how one day we have to be in a different place. Not because of a status quo that benefits me, but because really, I think racism/tribalism etc is not evolved. It needs to be transcended by society and those within it. Or, we truly won't survive. I remember reading "The Temple of my Familiar" It hurt a lot to read. I agree with a lot of what Alice Walker writes. I'm familar with some of what her critics say. But, I relate to her a lot. And, I would beg to differ that it is for the reasons that some anti-oppression people/workers would say. I respond a lot to her spirituality and the way she thinks and transforms experience into words. I relate (even though I'm not good at it) and admire how she really 'gets' our inter-connectedness. And, like it, or not on either side of the fence, there's no getting around it. I fall down here all the time. I dislike neo-con libertarian movement so and find it a challenge I don't often win to remember I am connected to Gordon Campbell etal. And, what that connection means in how I am to live my life with all my intentions. I'm not there. Yet.

I think where anti-oppression falls down is not fully acknowledging the human pain of rejection/hurt/grief that many people consciously feel (as opposed to blocking their vulnerability) which gives us a commonality of experience that has to validate white people too. If the thought that that statement evokes is, but they've been validated their whole lives, or now they know what exclusion is like then, it may be a necessary stage, but it isn't justice. And, it may not even be wholely true. It is true in the sense of the dominant group and the outcome of that.

Another place it falls down, in my view, is it too was designed by 'helpful' (yes, but still...) white social workers (and other people of colour too) who are saying to people of colour, this is your experience, you may not see it, or agree with it, but it is. In a way, Truman corrected me about this, if I understood you correctly Truman. Because, what I think about systemic structural racism is only my perception and opinion. As it is for all of us, but, I have to remember that.

I know anti-oppression says that to white people too. This is your experience. Well, it might not be my individual experience, even if it looks as though it is.

It's the same old, I'm okay, you're not okay, scapegoat game that must be trancended in the human race. As long as we have to have a scapegoat, or an enemy we haven't 'got' it yet, I think. I see it's value for reasons already stated, though. I think it's important to think of objectives and what they are, and how to achieve them and have that as a backdrop, but also view progress through that prism every so often.

I agree, it would be like having a man at a consciousness rising woman's circle. I have seen women's circles open to men after many years. I'm not there yet, as much as I love individual men in my life.

Also, I don't believe much good can come from guilt. It's not really a genuine consciousness.
There are healing actions though. And, guilt as a transitory feeling can motivate the beginnings of good things.

I want to add a qualifier. I really want to stress that I see and agree with the majority of your points. This medium can be harsh and my tone in not meant to be strident, but rather, gentle and thoughtful.

I also want to say that if the exclusion of white people so that people can get together and have the benefit of the experience you are talking about takes place on public property, I think it is wrong and there is a higher principal which must prevail. That of universality and inclusiveness in a public space. In a SW/Counselling etc program at a public university, it is wrong, and it does set apart the group in ways I don't think are healthy. After all the university social discipline experience isn't therapy, even if it does ideally (and must) involve personal growth and healing. Also, exclusiveness in that setting is hurtful and counter-productive. Where are those meetings appropriate? In a therapy group, specific treatment program, talking circle, workshop, private home etc.

Just my 2 cents.

A higher principal...(than promoting/facilitating the awakening of an individuals' personal experience of oppression)

I completely agree with this. But, white people, friends and allies, need to hear how racism has hurt people in a way that is authentic. Not blamed for it when they haven't done it, and in some cases weren't even born, but are blamed because they are white. They need to know. It can be 'safe enough' in a class setting, or workshop setting if the ground rules are clear and the faciliator skilled.

Your points re safety are well taken. And, that is why issues of shame and rage require a very safe setting, more aligned with a theraputic setting. But, then again, as I said earlier, I don't buy rigid anti-oppression work in some ways. (I know what they would say about that and knowing myself well I respectively disagree) I'm at a stage in my life where I want to put my energy more into 'rainbow relations', now. More specifically, in connection, empathy and creativity in healing myself, others and this planet. (I can't think of a better word than rainbow. It's so old I don't know if it's still in the vernacular)

I know the goal in identity politics and anti-oppression work in part is empowerment and equity. And, in my view, that is a worthy goal.

Oh dear. principle etc. Sorry for all the extra posting too, if it's tedius to read.

I also want to say that if the exclusion of white people so that people can get together and have the benefit of the experience you are talking about takes place on public property, I think it is wrong and there is a higher principal which must prevail. That of universality and inclusiveness in a public space. In a SW/Counselling etc program at a public university, it is wrong, and it does set apart the group in ways I don't think are healthy.

RedRivergirl: I'm not saying that your point is without merit, as I really need to think about it more. But I do think that you are splitting hairs if you say that a group that doesn't recruit white people, or men, into its space necessarily ought to be banished from a university setting. Universities provide funding to many faith based groups, such as Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious clubs, which are implicitly exclusionary, and let's face it, are political in some regard. For example, there are Christian clubs funded by universities in BC that maintain the belief that homosexual behaviour is a sin. There are Muslim groups protesting the war in Iraq (which I commend them for). No one can convert to Judaism (a beautiful, persevering religion) solely through personal choice, meaning that a Jewish Student Association is generally not relevant to those who were not born Jewish. German and Irish and Scottish clubs on campus are also popular. While anyone can theoretically attend a ceilidh or Oktoberfest, 99 percent of the people who were interested enough to go to these events in my university experience were white, and dialogue about their unique issues and experience at club meetings followed suit. There are quite a few fraternities on some provincial campuses (like UBC) that are exclusively male.

If you're white, you're in the majority. You can make a conscious decision to be surrounded only by people of our own race. If you want to, you can arrange never to have a deep conversation with someone of another race. And no one will call you racist for it. Meanwhile, people of colour don't have that choice. I doubt, and certainly hope that most would not want it if it was presented to them! Yet, if they want a few hours a month to talk about certain issues without having to face, in some cases, overt hostility, and that furthers their mental and psychological well being, then I don't think its a lot to ask. And if you want to yank their funding, why not object to all funding spent at universities that goes toward a political cause. Groups containing people of colour and women's groups represent singular occurrences within (in some cases) hundreds of groups on university campuses in BC.

In a SW/Counselling etc program at a public university, it is wrong, and it does set apart the group in ways I don't think are healthy. The problem that I have with this statement is that variables like race and gender affect a person's material experience, and when they are left out of the counseling experience, then you aren't getting a true picture of what is going on. My earlier points on people's comfort level are salient here, I think. Its rather like going to a woman physician if you're a woman. But I am not understanding what you mean, exactly. Is the class divided by race? I would find that odd, if so.

Many of your points did resonate with me, of course, just as you agreed with many of mine.

I have never been part of a university political group based on any race or gender. I guess I don't think of them as threatening, nor do I feel that the resources currently allocated to them are excessive. We disagree in that regard, but thank you for putting so much effort into building your position, and also for your stated efforts to be thoughtful and sensitive. The opportunity created by you to respond to your comments was appreciated.

people of our own race
* this ought to read, one's own race
cheers

I probably didn't make myself very clear, magnicity,

I am talking about the principle of inclusivity in a public space that has to take precedence over important, but secondary factors. I hear and agree with you that white people can go for a long time without engaging with someone of another race depending on where one lives. I can appreciate that it may be important for some people of colour (not all many people today are in bi-racial families and marriages) to be together. I am thinking of a story a while back where there was in one group a production made about 'white students being excluded', while funded by the student union. Some people have axes to grind. A white person could have been making an issue, or the group could have been inappropriate, I don't know.

I think clubs are fine with certain limits. For instance in this example,

[I]there are Christian clubs funded by

I see a difference between student of what ever background protesting a war and a group condemning another such as the group condemning gays. There are limits to this however. If the Muslim group is engaging in hate behaviour and discourse against American people, I think in a public space they should not be allowed to. In the Christian group the same applies. In other words it's fine to have your group but if you cross over into organizing and actions against another group of people, based on race, gender sexual identity or disability, the public space is not appropriate. If you specifically exclude another group the public space is not appropriate. This means that there is a risk that sometimes a meeting place will be invaded by someone with an axe to grind. It has happened. Usually, they get bored quickly if their attention seeking is ignored.

QUOTE]And if you want to yank their funding, why not object to all funding spent at universities that goes toward a political cause.

Oh, I wouldn't want to yank funding, and if I did, I would yank every ones! I would just have a lease expectation that a group may not engage in hate, or exclusiveness.

(I have to post this in two sections because of length)

Again, I must say, I am not saying the groups you are talking of are wrong, I'm saying in the public space a strick principle must be adhered to because today it is so people of colour can get together without any white people, perhaps for very valid reasons, but the question is what will it be tomorrow? That is why the principle has to stand. But, I know it doesn't. I don't find the groups personally threatening. I worry that ultimatelygroups based in an intended exclusivity in the public space(ie paid for by us all) can be threatening to our multi-cultural society. Because we can not predict where it will lead to in the future and therefore the principle of inclusivity must take precedence over the healing that may occur from those groups. Now, students can and should get together off school property and have the gatherings that they want to.

Anti-oppressive SW and counselling programs do require a lot of self-examination and inner work as they should. Anti-Oppression programs do separate by race. Not overtly, but the implicit task is for people of colour to discover how their oppression has effected them and for the white people in the class to understand their own racism. It is implied that because they are of the dominant culture ergo they are racist. It ignores that all people have the potential for racism and we all have to self-examine.

Having said that, there is a lot of positive and good work anti-oppressive SW is doing and has a lot of very valid points. For me, as I said before, I don't buy it 100%. Someone engaged in it would probably read what I'm writing and say it's because I don't understand my own racism and privilege etc. precisely because I am white, but I would say, I have self-examined and understand my own privilege. I don't deny it. I don't buy I'm racist because I'm white. I look at a new born baby and can't buy it. I know my own heart as well. Plus, I have a good sociological and psychological understanding of the human condition and that contradicts some of AO theory. I also know how we project onto other people and how difficult clear communication is and therefore, it is very difficult to a subjective me to attribute motive to you unless you behaviour is obvious.

Mostly though, I am fortunate to have grown up around other races from a very young age and part of my family is bi-racial. I've been the only white person at many events at gatherings of First Nation people, African, Jamaican and Chinese and Jewish, because I've had close relationships, both friends and family with people from these backgrounds. I think I may have been more integrated into a multi-cultural society than some.

As I stated before, I'm at a time in my life where I want to put my energy into healing, connection and creativity. Social Justice is very important to me. Perhaps there is more than one road that leads there.
I think a lot of this will disappear in the generations coming up. It's already been shown to be true. Eventually, we'll really 'see' each other. But, at this time that may take a lot of inner work. Which to the credit of AO work that AO SW really promotes. It has to be aware of some of the finer distinctions between justice and revenge at times. But, that is a process and a stage of development too.

I just want to add that one can convert to Judaism.

Take care, magnicity.

Gee, I don't know how clear my post is. And, I also, don't want to give the impression that my own inner work is complete and I haven't anything more to learn.

The conversation we're having is the type of conversation that take place in an anti-oppression SW program and I believe they are very important and one of the positives of AO work.