Defining today's "Racism" and the implications that come with it

The video below is from Steve Palikin's youtube channel and show. This video is interesting because they debate about the concept of "race" and "racism" and try to define it. A very interesting part of the video is when they start to talk about the word "racialize" and what it means.
     Dear readers,
                       I strongly encourage you to watch this video, especially from 24:30 to 26:27 and please pay attention to what Irshad Manji explains about a "pluralistic society"

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zUNt3ECtow

"No Trespassing"

If people could please divert their attention over to the photo please and realize the tragic humor expressed in Banksy's(the graffiti artist) painting.

For those of you who do not understand or know the historical meaning behind this painting. Allow me to illustrate some of the history of what some American’s might call “The Great White North”, also known as Canada, as briefly as possible.

In 1610 British colonies landed and settled within Canada in modern day Newfound land(52.6244° N, 59.6850° W) which triggered a large number of events that would allow the suffering and exploitation of the first nations people. Before the British landed within present day Canada, the indigenous population were either nomadic, bands or chiefdoms. 

In 1670 the British King Charles the II gave a large portion of line in present day Canada to the Hudson Bay Company. This land of which was not owned nor occupied by British rule. A company that is now known as “The Bay”. This land was called “Rupert’s land” and spanned from around the Hudson Bay to modern day Saskatewan. The Hudson Bay Company then brought traders from Great Britain to trade certain goods. Goods like, traps, tools and guns. This was the first time the first nations people’s culture has ever held or seen a gun before. 

The gun, some times known as the “weapon of the proletariat”, created such a change in aboriginal culture. Instead of old hunting methods like bows and arrows the first nations people would now use guns to hunt and kill their food. With the squeeze of a trigger, the first nations people became dependent on the gun over generations. Which in turn are generations of culture and tradition lost because of the globalization of the gun and what cultures and practices came with it.

The first nations people were so dependent on the gun it led to almost a full dependance on the British culture. With each generation the British moved deeper and deeper into the chiefdom lands. This land in which the British did not own. The Hudson bay company decided to write up a contract in english which states that the chiefdoms will give up their lands. The chiefs of the chiefdoms, not knowing english signed the paper under the understanding that it was allowing the hudson bay company to visit there cheifdom. With the signed document that sold the land to the Hudson Bay company, they decided to then sell it to the provence which in turn sold it to the crown. Forcing the aboriginals who wanted to keep their culture out of the land that they once occupied. Those who stayed within the lands that were now owned by the crown like to day would have given up their own aboriginal nationality and would have been considered British(Canadian in the present day).

If you asked a British man back in the 1600 how they justified their colonial conquest. He would probably reply in a relatively social darwinistic way. Possible something along the lines of "We are helping them become more civilized, like us".

But now I shall ask you....

                                   Who’s Trespassing now?


Sometimes I feel society just wants to say: "Lets just pretend that didn't happen".
          But Banksy wont.

Test, Test, Test.