VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN THINKING

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

For secession of the Union and to obliterate the confederacy of course. What the fuck do you think it was about? Freedom of slaves!? Haha, what a tool you are, Robert. Do you believe in 6 day creationism too?

Why do you think the confederacy started

[Robert]

The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction". Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories. All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that the slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s. Sectional disagreements over the morality of slavery, the scope of democracy and the economic merits of free labor vs. slave plantations caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse, and new ones to arise (the Free Soil Party in 1848, the Republicans in 1854, the Constitutional Union in 1860). In 1860, the last remaining national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.

Both North and South were influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Southerners emphasized the states' rights ideas mentioned in Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Northerners ranging from the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to the moderate Republican leader Abraham Lincoln emphasized Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal. Lincoln mentioned this proposition in his Gettysburg Address.

Historian Kenneth M. Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens as an example of a Southern leader who called slavery "the cornerstone of the Confederacy" after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.

All but one inter-regional crisis involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Other factors include sectionalism (caused by the growth of slavery in the deep South while slavery was gradually phased out in Northern states) and economic differences between North and South, although most modern historians disagree with the extreme economic determinism of historian Charles Beard. The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846), the Gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850. The Wilmot Proviso was an unsuccessful attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. There were unsuccessful attempts to end controversy over slavery in the territories through popular sovereignty and Southern attempts to annex Cuba (including the Ostend Manifesto) and Nicaragua as slave states. The extremely popular antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[18] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). In Congress arguments over slavery became violent when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner's "Crime against Kansas" speech.[19] Even rival plans for Northern vs. Southern routes for a transcontinental railroad became entangled in the Bleeding Kansas controversy over slavery. The old Second Party System broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. The Dred Scott Decision and Lecompton Constitution of 1857 were Southern attempts to admit Kansas to the Union as a slave state. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, John Brown's raid in 1859 and the split in the Democratic Party in 1860 polarized the nation between North and South. The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final trigger for secession. During the secession crisis, many sought compromise. Two of these attempts were the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise." All attempts at compromise failed.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln[20] because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.

[Dom182]

The South had little to no industry aside from agricultural. Most of this was plantation based and relied heavily on slave labor. These slave owners controlled politics and economics. Then the north began to grow. Through both a high Birthrate and heavy immigration from European countries. There population grew much faster than the lightly settled south. Making it difficult for the slave holders to maintain control over the political system. At first politicians had mostly moderated opposition to slavery, this resulted in compromises such like Missouri Compromise of 1820 there admission as a slave state allowed the slave owners to maintain control of the senate.. Later, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. Which sidestepped immediate political crisis. The next crisis over slavery resulted in the Kansas-Nebraska act, again allowing slavery in those states. This sparked the initial fighting and is the precursor to the war. Theree was an outpouring of anger following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Large public meetings were held in numerous Northern communities, some of which used the term “Republican.”
WIth comprimisers like Clay and Webster gone the Whig party had tried to take the lead but had no leader. They united with Northern Democrats to form the republican party. Almost overnight the party was successful, winning control of the House of Representatives in the fall of 1854. One of their main goals was to Repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act—the Republican opposition to the extension of slavery was based as much on economic concerns as moral ones. While being people of their times they were racists as we would define it, they wanted and end to slavery. Losing political clout was a blow to the south and they began grumbling. Then Lincoln, a republican, was voted into office and gave his house divided speech. He expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction". All of the new territories were to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.



Now this is the true history of the civil war. Not your revisionist version. Your initial post was that the republicans were on the wrong side of freeing the slave. As for the Native Americans that is not what the post is about. As for the occupation of CHina, that is a laugh. Talk to the Japanese about that. While you are at it talk to the tibetans. I asm sure if you go back far enough, about 50 years works for me but feel free to go back futher, they were once a free country.

You know what is funny. You spout this crap about revisionist history etc. If you were in CHina you would not be able to spout it at all.

As for my experience in a history class, it is accurate. I find it alarming because it was a history class. One thing is immutable, that is history. Now while I will concede that history is written by the victors, just look at any communist history, ours is pretty close to accurate when it comes to facts. FUrthermore we see it happening today. When I was in college in the early 90's we still had the cohones to call our teachers on it and or walk out. Today not so much.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Robert

The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction". Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories. All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that the slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s. Sectional disagreements over the morality of slavery, the scope of democracy and the economic merits of free labor vs. slave plantations caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse, and new ones to arise (the Free Soil Party in 1848, the Republicans in 1854, the Constitutional Union in 1860). In 1860, the last remaining national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.

Both North and South were influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Southerners emphasized the states' rights ideas mentioned in Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Northerners ranging from the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to the moderate Republican leader Abraham Lincoln emphasized Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal. Lincoln mentioned this proposition in his Gettysburg Address.

Historian Kenneth M. Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens as an example of a Southern leader who called slavery "the cornerstone of the Confederacy" after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.

All but one inter-regional crisis involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Other factors include sectionalism (caused by the growth of slavery in the deep South while slavery was gradually phased out in Northern states) and economic differences between North and South, although most modern historians disagree with the extreme economic determinism of historian Charles Beard. The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846), the Gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850. The Wilmot Proviso was an unsuccessful attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. There were unsuccessful attempts to end controversy over slavery in the territories through popular sovereignty and Southern attempts to annex Cuba (including the Ostend Manifesto) and Nicaragua as slave states. The extremely popular antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[18] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). In Congress arguments over slavery became violent when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner's "Crime against Kansas" speech.[19] Even rival plans for Northern vs. Southern routes for a transcontinental railroad became entangled in the Bleeding Kansas controversy over slavery. The old Second Party System broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. The Dred Scott Decision and Lecompton Constitution of 1857 were Southern attempts to admit Kansas to the Union as a slave state. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, John Brown's raid in 1859 and the split in the Democratic Party in 1860 polarized the nation between North and South. The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final trigger for secession. During the secession crisis, many sought compromise. Two of these attempts were the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise." All attempts at compromise failed.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln[20] because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.

I'm not here to play the game of who can "copy and paste" the best.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

The South had little to no industry aside from agricultural. Most of this was plantation based and relied heavily on slave labor. These slave owners controlled politics and economics. Then the north began to grow. Through both a high Birthrate and heavy immigration from European countries. There population grew much faster than the lightly settled south. Making it difficult for the slave holders to maintain control over the political system. At first politicians had mostly moderated opposition to slavery, this resulted in compromises such like Missouri Compromise of 1820 there admission as a slave state allowed the slave owners to maintain control of the senate.. Later, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. Which sidestepped immediate political crisis. The next crisis over slavery resulted in the Kansas-Nebraska act, again allowing slavery in those states. This sparked the initial fighting and is the precursor to the war. Theree was an outpouring of anger following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Large public meetings were held in numerous Northern communities, some of which used the term “Republican.”
WIth comprimisers like Clay and Webster gone the Whig party had tried to take the lead but had no leader. They united with Northern Democrats to form the republican party. Almost overnight the party was successful, winning control of the House of Representatives in the fall of 1854. One of their main goals was to Repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act—the Republican opposition to the extension of slavery was based as much on economic concerns as moral ones. While being people of their times they were racists as we would define it, they wanted and end to slavery. Losing political clout was a blow to the south and they began grumbling. Then Lincoln, a republican, was voted into office and gave his house divided speech. He expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction". All of the new territories were to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North.



Now this is the true history of the civil war. Not your revisionist version. Your initial post was that the republicans were on the wrong side of freeing the slave. As for the Native Americans that is not what the post is about. As for the occupation of CHina, that is a laugh. Talk to the Japanese about that. While you are at it talk to the tibetans. I asm sure if you go back far enough, about 50 years works for me but feel free to go back futher, they were once a free country.

You know what is funny. You spout this crap about revisionist history etc. If you were in CHina you would not be able to spout it at all.

As for my experience in a history class, it is accurate. I find it alarming because it was a history class. One thing is immutable, that is history. Now while I will concede that history is written by the victors, just look at any communist history, ours is pretty close to accurate when it comes to facts. FUrthermore we see it happening today. When I was in college in the early 90's we still had the cohones to call our teachers on it and or walk out. Today not so much.

Well, I totally agree with what you have wrote, Dom. But you wrote that it was mainly an economical battle as well as a political one. The PEOPLE of the north cried out for freedom of slaves or to halt the expansion of slaves, NOT conservatism ok? To say that conservatives lobbied for freedom of slaves is a silly and gross exaggeration. I totally agree with everything that you wrote in the first paragraph. That is what I learned as well, but you seem to interpret that as if Conservatives were so moral that they had to free the slaves out of the goodness of their heart. The Confederates were the conservatives of those days that did not want progressive change.

As for China, you're absolutely wrong. You still seem to be stuck in the Maoist era view of China. You can absolutely do anything you want except threaten to overthrow the government. China is more capitalistic than the U.S.. If you have the money, you can do anything. Study what China has been doing after 1978 and especially after 1989. People protested and were not squashed by tanks as western propaganda claimed. There hasn't been many protests because it's hard to complain when the economy is growing at 11% annually. The only protests were illegal protests of religious groups such as the Falun Gong and the Dalai Lama that threatened to have too much political power and overthrow the government. Imagine The Church of Scientology taking over the white house. I'm sure we would set up laws to prevent that.

China is actually the country headed towards a democratic federalism with strong capitalistic values while America is steering towards socialism.

By the way Dom. You seem like a very bright guy with a good education. How come you ended up working at Enterprise?

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Well, I totally agree with what you have wrote, Dom. But you wrote that it was mainly an economical battle as well as a political one. The PEOPLE of the north cried out for freedom of slaves or to halt the expansion of slaves, NOT conservatism ok? To say that conservatives lobbied for freedom of slaves is a silly and gross exaggeration. I totally agree with everything that you wrote in the first paragraph. That is what I learned as well, but you seem to interpret that as if Conservatives were so moral that they had to free the slaves out of the goodness of their heart. The Confederates were the conservatives of those days that did not want progressive change.

As for China, you're absolutely wrong. You still seem to be stuck in the Maoist era view of China. You can absolutely do anything you want except threaten to overthrow the government. China is more capitalistic than the U.S.. If you have the money, you can do anything. Study what China has been doing after 1978 and especially after 1989. People protested and were not squashed by tanks as western propaganda claimed. There hasn't been many protests because it's hard to complain when the economy is growing at 11% annually. The only protests were illegal protests of religious groups such as the Falun Gong and the Dalai Lama that threatened to have too much political power and overthrow the government. Imagine The Church of Scientology taking over the white house. I'm sure we would set up laws to prevent that.

China is actually the country headed towards a democratic federalism with strong capitalistic values while America is steering towards socialism.

By the way Dom. You seem like a very bright guy with a good education. How come you ended up working at Enterprise?

My talents lean towards the defense industry. I am an engineer by education, but I have a, and this is quoting my boss, exceptional knack for both logistics and statistics. Anyway after being RIF'ed out of the air force, thank you Clinton, I worked for several aerospace firms. Clintonomics made it very difficult to keep a job. I would get hired for a contract and when it was completed we would all be laid off. Each time I was laid off I would go find a job, any job, that I could make money at while I looked for a "real" job. I started for ECRAP and moved up fast. Within 2 years I was making about 70k and looking to make a lot more. I weighed the opportunities in aerospace, most engineer jobs cap at about 120k and thought I could make more with erac. I figured I could put up with the shit. Then I was offered my current job. We contract to do various jobs for our government and others. I mainly work in aviation, and aviation logistics. When I got this I told erac to suck my hairy balls and walked out.

Now on to what we were talking about. I thought you understood I am not a conservative. Hell I am an agnostic, they would shit their pants if they thought I called myself conservative. I tend to lean right on taxes, immigration, spending, and the military. Many of my other views are very centrist. I still consider myself a republican because on the issues I care most about are more aligned with them. And if I didn't wifey would kick me, kidding.

Listen here is my life in a nutshell and how three poor kids became republicans. I grew up poor, so did my wife and my best friend. Growing up all the dems would offer us is food stamps, welfare, and other payments we didn't want. We looked around us and saw losers that just wanted an easy life, and no responsibility. What we wanted was a chance to get out of there. The republican's believed in earning your lunch and that by working hard you could make it out. Posleen and I both studied, graduated with honors, and passing up 1/2 ride scholarships because we couldn't afford the other 1/2 , went into the airforce. His sister, my wife, got a full scholarship. We all made our way. Pos and I used Tuition assistance and later the GI bill to get degrees and both of us earned commissions. Pos is still in but I got RIF'ed. THe rest you know.

What this all left us with is the belief that anyone can do this, and placating the masses, making it easier for them to do nothing is just wrong. The only people who should ever get a free ride are those who can't work, the elderly and children. Everyone else gets exactly what they deserve.


That said, now is the time to get any digs you want to in because as of next Tuesday, I will be gone for about 5 weeks.

[Grover]

Lies my Teacher told Me - interesting book about History class.


The Homepage of James Loewen: Author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, Lies Across America, and Sundown Towns

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

Originally Posted by Dom182

My talents lean towards the defense industry. I am an engineer by education, but I have a, and this is quoting my boss, exceptional knack for both logistics and statistics. Anyway after being RIF'ed out of the air force, thank you Clinton, I worked for several aerospace firms. Clintonomics made it very difficult to keep a job. I would get hired for a contract and when it was completed we would all be laid off. Each time I was laid off I would go find a job, any job, that I could make money at while I looked for a "real" job. I started for ECRAP and moved up fast. Within 2 years I was making about 70k and looking to make a lot more. I weighed the opportunities in aerospace, most engineer jobs cap at about 120k and thought I could make more with erac. I figured I could put up with the shit. Then I was offered my current job. We contract to do various jobs for our government and others. I mainly work in aviation, and aviation logistics. When I got this I told erac to suck my hairy balls and walked out.

Now on to what we were talking about. I thought you understood I am not a conservative. Hell I am an agnostic, they would shit their pants if they thought I called myself conservative. I tend to lean right on taxes, immigration, spending, and the military. Many of my other views are very centrist. I still consider myself a republican because on the issues I care most about are more aligned with them. And if I didn't wifey would kick me, kidding.

Listen here is my life in a nutshell and how three poor kids became republicans. I grew up poor, so did my wife and my best friend. Growing up all the dems would offer us is food stamps, welfare, and other payments we didn't want. We looked around us and saw losers that just wanted an easy life, and no responsibility. What we wanted was a chance to get out of there. The republican's believed in earning your lunch and that by working hard you could make it out. Posleen and I both studied, graduated with honors, and passing up 1/2 ride scholarships because we couldn't afford the other 1/2 , went into the airforce. His sister, my wife, got a full scholarship. We all made our way. Pos and I used Tuition assistance and later the GI bill to get degrees and both of us earned commissions. Pos is still in but I got RIF'ed. THe rest you know.

What this all left us with is the belief that anyone can do this, and placating the masses, making it easier for them to do nothing is just wrong. The only people who should ever get a free ride are those who can't work, the elderly and children. Everyone else gets exactly what they deserve.


That said, now is the time to get any digs you want to in because as of next Tuesday, I will be gone for about 5 weeks.

Where are you going for five weeks?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Grover

Lies my Teacher told Me - interesting book about History class.


The Homepage of James Loewen: Author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, Lies Across America, and Sundown Towns

Sounds like he's jealous. You Canadians should focus on your own dirty laundry, you have treated blacks like shit for 200+ years!

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Grover

Lies my Teacher told Me - interesting book about History class.


The Homepage of James Loewen: Author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, Lies Across America, and Sundown Towns

In spite of ongoing efforts to eradicate it, racial intolerance is still a major problem in Canada. As witness to this assertion, it would be a rarity to find among Canada's people of colour an adult who cannot recall a recent experience of being physically or verbally abused because of his/her race. Further, barbarous criminal acts, including murder and rape, have been committed in recent times against members of these races by white supremacists.

Unfortunately, one of the most deplorable fallouts from white racial discrimination is that many Canadians of colour have also become racially intolerant. However, for this commentary, the focus will be on how white intolerance towards people of colour is sustained in Canada. In a future column, I'll address the problem of racial bigotry now found among many Canadians of colour.

Historically, the unleashing of white supremacist racial discrimination in the Americas dates back to the arrival of Columbus. Thus, white supremacist attitudes are deeply engraved in the sub-conscience of white North Americans. Denial of this fact among Canadians of European descent is widespread.

Because of this denial, efforts to eradicate racism from our society are greatly hampered. For instance, because of it, our children are not taught in school about how legal means, as well as many other unsavoury methods, were used by our country to persecute its citizens of colour. An example: In the legal field, laws such as the Indian Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act, which were enacted specifically to legalize discrimination, are not subjected to discourse in most education facilities.

Denial is also exhibited in this manner: In spite of abundant proof to the contrary, dominant society apologists still try to deny that the majority of their forebears were racist. They try to exonerate them by citing historical events, such as the fact that Canada was the destination of Blacks fleeing slavery in the Southern United States, and by stating that Natives were well treated. In response, lets take a quick look at what really happened to the vast majority of ex-slaves and their descendants, and briefly examine the fate of Natives.

First and foremost, ex-slaves were not welcomed as equals in Canada and were not permitted to reside in white neighbourhoods. Up until recent times, their descendants were all but denied education and other essential services, and employment for them in high paying vocations was mostly a dream. And further, unlegislated segregation was so blatant that the use of most public places by Blacks and Natives was severely restricted, and abuse by degrading racial slurs was commonplace. During the First World War, racial discrimination against Blacks was so widespread that many white soldiers, including high ranking officers, refused to serve with the patriots among them who wished to serve their country.

This quote from a letter written by Lt. Col. George W. Fowler in 1915 to the Acting Adjutant General of the 6th Division in Halifax, exemplifies the level of discrimination Blacks faced: "I have been fortunate to have secured a very fine class of recruits, and I did not think it fair to these men that they should have to mingle with Negroes" (Source, Canada's Black Battalion, by Calvin W. Ruck, 1986). To cater to these segregationist attitudes, the Black Construction Battalion was created and located at Pictou.

Turning to First Nations: I've often cited examples of racial persecution endured by our peoples in my columns, therefore, I'll just recite two to refresh memories: Natives were denied by law the right to vote until 1960, and couldn't legally buy a six-pack of beer or other alcoholic beverages until the mid-1970s. Today, Native inmates make up an unacceptable high proportion of the prison population, and our exclusion from the political and social life of the Nation is routine. Many other discriminatory practices, such as store personnel following Native and Black clients around while they shop, are still endured on an ongoing basis.

In addition to the open racism endured by Natives, systemic racism is suffered. This form of racism has its roots in this centuries-old European racist line: "Prior to European settlement, the Americas were occupied by savages." Very little effort is being made today to refute this maliciously false statement, or to enlighten the country to the fact that Canada was actually founded upon the ruins of complex and viable non-white civilizations.

An African acquittance of mine once told me: "Canada is a Nation which likes to pontificate about the unacceptable human and civil rights records of other Nations. It does so while studiously ignoring the multitude of racial problems that exist, or have existed, in its own backyard."

Lets admit it: Since Europeans occupied what is today Canada, appalling and barbarous inhuman acts, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, slavery, separation of peoples by law, internment, imprisonment without cause, forced relocation, etc. have been committed by whites and their governments against people of colour. When it comes to race relations, we are not a Nation with a saintly past. Therefore, lets open our minds and acknowledge this: Canada was and still is to an unacceptable extent, a white supremacist Nation. With the denial ended, we might be able to eradicate from our society the sickness called racism!