This Really Beggars belief - Canada's 'adventure gap': Why it doesn't makes sense for the great outdoors to be such a white space

'There is a sense that the outdoors is a white space, that people of colour don’t belong in that space,' Jacqueline Scott said in an interview.

Why don’t black people ski? Or hike? Or camp?

They do, of course, but more as the exception than the rule, according to research to be presented at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Regina.

This observation has troubled Jacqueline Scott, an avid outdoorswoman whose experience of the wilderness in and around Toronto has led her to identify what she calls an “adventure gap,” which is the subject of her doctoral research in social justice education at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-adventure-gap-why-it-doesnt-makes-sense-for-the-great-outdoors-to-be-such-a-white-space

Here is a rebuttal to this leftist marxist babble

This is Lindsay Shepherd, who based on her treatment, by the PC Marxist Far left, has opened her eyes

You can see her story here

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/yw5dbg/wilfrid-laurier-exonerates-lindsay-shepherd-we-can-all-move-on-now

Here is her reply to this new warped and quite frankly invented bullshit from the Far left

What do you have to say on the subject?

Original Quill wrote:What do you have to say on the subject?

What did you fail to understand by me saying that this is invented bullshit by radical leftists?

Its as bad as the crap claimed regarding cyclists in London, made recently on another thread.

Its also again very racist to class this as a "white space problem"

Didge wrote:What did you fail to understand by me saying that this is invented bullshit by radical leftists?

I say: I think you're wrong about that.

Didge wrote:Its also again very racist to class this as a "white space problem"

Can you articulate why, or is it that anytime, anyone mentions racial matters, you assert that is racist?

If we cannot even talk about race, isn't that the proverbial sticking one's head in the sand?  Racism does exist.  Or, are you trying to give it the lowest profile possible so that it may continue unabated?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What did you fail to understand by me saying that this is invented bullshit by radical leftists?

I say: I think you're wrong about that.

Didge wrote:Its also again very racist to class this as a "white space problem"

Can you articulate why, or is it that anytime, anyone mentions racial matters, you assert that is racist?

If we cannot even talk about race, isn't that the proverbial sticking one's head in the sand?  Racism does exist.  Or, are you trying to give it the lowest profile possible so that it may continue unabated?

Well it is essentially racist to blame a group of people based on their skin colour. Espically, when they are not at fault

Racism does exist and this is another example of this by this marxist writer.

There are many reaons why people are not oudoor people, mainly as many people live in cities. Where in fact many do go and do outdoor activities, like going to the seaside. What we have here, is someone blaming people classed as white, for why a small number of people classed black do outdoor activities. Its got nothing to do with people classed white, why less people would do outdoor activities and even more so today, with the advent of technology.

People have many different interest and whilst I have no issue with people looking to have more ethnic minorities interested in such activities, it is not "white space" as claimed. As nobody is stopping ethnic minorities being a part of such activities. If you watch the video, even companies advertize with ethnic minorities

Its simple letist drivel and like I say based on identity politics, emphatically being racist. As it has nothing to do with whites why there is less ethnic minorities interested. Its hardly looking at people as Canadians, but segregating them by social constructs in black and white. Thus the thing to do is to encourage all people to the outdoors, as Canadian people.

Now stop wasting my time with your marxist bullshit and maybe you can explain why you also back such a racist view on white people?

Didge wrote:Well it is essentially racist to blame a group of people based on their skin colour. Espically, when they are not at fault

Not if it's true.  As I understand it, Ms. Scott is writing a doctoral dissertation with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, a most reputable institution of higher education.  She has data to show that blacks do not participate in outdoor activities, and seeks to find answers.

It's a standard 'cause and effect' analysis, done by doctoral candidates everyday.  You seem to be taking the position that there are "taboo subjects" that should not be studied:

Didge wrote:What we have here, is someone blaming people classed as white, for why a small number of people classed black do outdoor activities. Its got nothing to do with people classed white, why less people would do outdoor activities and even more so today, with the advent of technology.

You use the word "blame" to turn the discussion into a value judgment.  Ms. Scott is not blaming anyone, but trying to uncover institutional causes.  Nothing wrong with that, as it could lead to measures that encourage minorities to participate more in outdoor activities...thus, at a minimum, increasing revenue bases, public enjoyment, and enhanced recognition of the resources that Canada has to offer.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and inquiry. Your prejudgment of Ms. Scott's works does not even allow her to explain her own reasons. Ms. Shepherd’s comments (“poisonous institution”, and a “poisonous program”) are a precurser to your own prejudice. Both of you assume that institutional prejudice has some conscious agent pushing it. Institutional prejudice works along the fabric of societal assumption and normalcy. It is the ‘present effect of past discrimination’.

May I suggest that you are working off of a confirmation bias, seeking out stories that confirm your preexisting opinions, and ignoring contrary information that refutes your prejudice. In this case, you and Ms. Shepherd over-seek … you are looking for trouble, and if you don’t find it, you invent it.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Well it is essentially racist to blame a group of people based on their skin colour. Espically, when they are not at fault

Not if it's true.  As I understand it, Ms. Scott is writing a doctoral dissertation with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, a most reputable institution of higher education.  She has data to show that blacks do not participate in outdoor activities, and seeks to find answers.

It's a standard 'cause and effect' analysis, done by doctoral candidates everyday.  You seem to be taking the position that there are "taboo subjects" that should not be studied:

Didge wrote:No she does not have any data to back her assertion. All she has is a view that not many people do outdoor activities. Which we know is the same for many people absed on economics and time in the main. So she has no cause and effect and is making a very big leap based on zero data to support the view she claims, that Asian and Black Canadians are not welcome in the outdoors.

So is not even a study, but an opinion based on again a very racist view point that this person clearly holds. She offers no evidence or examples to back her claims. The view that the outside activities should be seen also as as safe space, is so ridiculous, as the outdoors is certainly not a safe space for "anyone" in Canada. 

I am rightly taking the position, that she is taking this from a racist view she holds towards white people. As seen, there is nothing stopping people Black and Asian Candians participating in such activities. She herself being such an example who does participate. She offers nothing that has stopped her from doing so either.

You use the word "blame" to turn the discussion into a value judgment.  Ms. Scott is not blaming anyone, but trying to uncover causes.  Nothing wrong with that, as it could lead to measures that encourage minorities to participate more in outdoor activities...thus, at a minimum, increasing revenue bases.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and inquiry.  Your prejudgment of Ms. Scott's works does not even allow her to explain her own reasons.  May I suggest that you are working off of a confirmation bias, seeking out stories that confirm your preexisting opinions, and ignoring contrary information that refutes your prejudices.  

Yes she is blaming white people, when she makes the following claim

“There is a sense that the outdoors is a white space, that people of colour don’t belong in that space,” Scott said in an interview. “People of colour want to do it, but they need a bridge to get them there.”

As the only black woman in her many outdoor clubs, sometimes the only person of colour, she said she has come to realize that the barrier is not mainly economic, or logistic, but somehow cultural. Athletic pursuits are being streamed by race, such that even in the Olympics, at the highest end of the athletic spectrum, skiers are almost always white and sprinters black.

As an example of this pattern closer to home, she points to the wooded ravines of Toronto, which she frequently hikes and bikes. They are a point of civic pride and easily accessible by transit, but as a place of recreation, they are populated mostly by the same sort of person.

“You look at who’s in the ravines, it’s mostly white people. So even though we can get to the ravines from the subway, from many people of colour communities, there’s something about the outdoors where they get a consistent message that we don’t belong there.”

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

There is no such thing and is a perception by her, that because many white people do such activities, this to her means, blacks are not welcome. That has to be the biggest load of racist babble going. Is she now saying that if there is more white kids at a school, this means she is not welcome? How about the rube or train? You see, her whole argument hingers on her own invented paranoia, born from a very prejudice racist mind towards white people.

You see, she is coming to have formed her view, from her beliefs. There is nothing credible here and going off an argument from authority, basing this on your claim the institute is good, is null and void. It does not matter how good or bad the institute is, but whether she has any validity to her arguments. She is even disingenuous about advertisement for the out doors, which if you had bothered to watch the video. Provides examples showing ethnic minorities in outdoor publications.

So you claim this piece of racist written rubbish is credible, based on no actual evidence, but you taking for granted another poor reason. Based on where she attends as a student.

That is laughable to say the least

Didge wrote:She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Ms. Scott is making no such accusation.  She is talking about institutional racism, and you take the position that there must be an evil agent in her premise.

As I said, you are aggressively seeking a misinterpretation of her work that confirms your own biases.  It's what is known as a red herring...the old trick of dragging a dead fish across the trail to confuse the hounds during the hunt.

While Ms. Scott explores institutional racial biases, you (and Ms. Shepherd) falsify the picture to claim she is speaking of intentional racism.  Shame on you.

What you are doing--twisting the words of another--is the equivalent of a lie.  Accordingly, I will call you out as a liar.  We haven't got a legitimate debate going on here, only your mendacity.  I suggest we close this thread and move one to something important.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Ms. Scott is making no such accusation.  She is talking about institutional racism, and you take the position that there must be an evil agent in her premise.

As I said, you are aggressively seeking a misinterpretation of her work that confirms your own biases.  It's what is known as a red herring...the old trick of dragging a dead fish across the trail to confuse the hounds during the hunt.

While Ms. Scott explores institutional racial biases, you (and Ms. Shepherd) falsify the picture to claim she is speaking of intentional racism.  Shame on you.

What you are doing--twisting the words of another--is the equivalent of a lie.  Accordingly, I will call you out as a liar.  We haven't got a legitimate debate going on here, because of your mendacity.  I suggest we close this thread and move one to something important.

Oh I see, so now you have changed this to something else, which she never even claimed or argued.

Institutional racism. So again, you want to turn this about me and now deny free speech, because I easily rubbished her paper. You want to have this thread closed, because you know you look utterly silly defending this appalling racist crap paper. It is the right of people to rightly be critical of anything promoted or like here published and that means she is open to criticism and ridicule, for her racist beliefs.

I am taking the view point she is has been educated poorly, clearly to come to such a ridiculous view point based on zero data.

I mean, for a start, where is the stats on who actually uses the outdoors?

Sorry, where is this in her dissertation?

There is no such stat for a start and is thus based on again her perceived view, based around her being the only member who is ethnically black.

Where also is the evidence for this?

There is none and again this is down to simple believing her, hence hearsay.

Next where is the collective data, where she again presumes, this is being driven by marketing?

Sorry, but I must have missed this also reading her dissertation, did you see this at all?

How about the stats, who is actually represented in advertising?

Sorry, again I see, absolutely zero presented by her and you call this a dissertation?

Its laughable and I shall save the best for last.

Where is the many views of other Black and Asian Canadians on this backing up her claim, that they feel they are not weclome in the outdoors, based on her warped and clearly paranoid view?

Errr, did she leave out that also?

Now she has my blessing to encourage any person in Canada to the outdoors. As its not based on skin colour and never should be to encourage people to do outdoor activities. The fact she argues off this, based on no evidence but an opinion, shows how poorly this paper was written

What I am doing is easily rubbish her racist views. So the shame is on you, backing such racist drivel presented here.

Now not once have you countered my first reply, but ignored most of my views, Quelle surprise

The fact you simple take her word for granted, and not based on any stats whatsoever presented, shows how in effect you are the gullible fool here.

I mean how is it that Black Canadians can go to clubs, bars, shops restaurants, where there can be far more white people, based on the fact blacks only represented 2.5% of the population? I mean based on her warped paranoia and the fact they are a minority. Where many places would have far more white people. How is it, this does not apply in any other given situation?

Didge wrote:Oh I see, so now you have changed this to something else, which she never even claimed or argued.

Institutional racism.

That's what it has always been about.  You know that, and I know that.

Diidge wrote:So again, you want to turn this about me and now deny free speech, because I easily rubbished her paper. You want to have this thread closed...

Free speech is the least of your transgressions, though it is a factor.  Basically, what you want to do is shut down her voice by misinterpreting her work.  What else are you suggesting if not censorship?

But that is a negligible issue, given your knowing mendacity.  Nowhere do you pro-offer one statement of Ms. Scott's, that some person or agent is denying minorities access to the outdoors.  So, it's a non-issue...a red herring.

Don't take it personally.  The fact that you have nothing to say is tangential to the fact that there is nothing to say about the issue.  You misinterpreted your subject.  There is no news item to be discussed.

Just say 'I'm sorry' and ask the thread to be closed.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh I see, so now you have changed this to something else, which she never even claimed or argued.

Institutional racism.

That's what it has always been about.  You know that, and I know that.

Diidge wrote:Really? I think you have been brainwashed to think so and clearly so to invoke it here, when no such claim was even made

Free speech is the least of your transgressions, though it is a factor.  Basically, what you want to do is shut down her voice by misinterpreting her work.  What else are you suggesting if not censorship?

But that is a negligible issue, given your knowing mendacity.  Nowhere do you pro-offer one statement of Ms. Scott's, that some person or agent is denying minorities access to the outdoors.  So, it's a non-issue...a red herring.

Don't take it personally.  The fact that you have nothing to say is tangential to the fact that there is nothing to say about the issue.  You misinterpreted your subject.  There is no news item to be discussed.

Just say 'I'm sorry' and ask the thread to be closed.  

So yet more copouts and again talking about me lol


Her views are in her paper, wherew she invokes her own racist beliefs, claiming blacks are not welcome in the outdoors, based on her own prejudiced beliefs


So again my points presented that you shit your pants trying to answer   

Take as long as you like to try and answer 

Oh I see, so now you have changed this to something else, which she never even claimed or argued. 

Institutional racism. So again, you want to turn this about me and now deny free speech, because I easily rubbished her paper. You want to have this thread closed, because you know you look utterly silly defending this appalling racist crap paper. It is the right of people to rightly be critical of anything promoted or like here published and that means she is open to criticism and ridicule, for her racist beliefs.

I am taking the view point she is has been educated poorly, clearly to come to such a ridiculous view point based on zero data.

I mean, for a start, where is the stats on who actually uses the outdoors?

Sorry, where is this in her dissertation?

There is no such stat for a start and is thus based on again her perceived view, based around her being the only member who is ethnically black. 

Where also is the evidence for this?

There is none and again this is down to simple believing her, hence hearsay.

Next where is the collective data, where she again presumes, this is being driven by marketing?

Sorry, but I must have missed this also reading her dissertation, did you see this at all?

How about the stats, who is actually represented in advertising?

Sorry, again I see, absolutely zero presented by her and you call this a dissertation?

Its laughable and I shall save the best for last.

Where is the many views of other Black and Asian Canadians on this backing up her claim, that they feel they are not weclome in the outdoors, based on her warped and clearly paranoid view?

Errr, did she leave out that also?

Now she has my blessing to encourage any person in Canada to the outdoors. As its not based on skin colour and never should be to encourage people to do outdoor activities. The fact she argues off this, based on no evidence but an opinion, shows how poorly this paper was written

What I am doing is easily rubbish her racist views. So the shame is on you, backing such racist drivel presented here.

Now not once have you countered my first reply, but ignored most of my views, Quelle surprise

The fact you simple take her word for granted, and not based on any stats whatsoever presented, shows how in effect you are the gullible fool here.

I mean how is it that Black Canadians can go to clubs, bars, shops restaurants, where there can be far more white people, based on the fact blacks only represented 2.5% of the population? I mean based on her warped paranoia and the fact they are a minority. Where many places would have far more white people. How is it, this does not apply in any other given situation?

Didge wrote:Sorry, again I see, absolutely zero presented by her and you call this a dissertation?

I haven't read her specific dissertation; nor have you. That's the problem with you're working off secondary sources. All of your feed comes from Ms. Shepherd, who is equally vacuous.

You see "absolutely zero" yet you dare to characterize Ms. Scott's work as claiming intentional discrimination in national recreation areas. That's an affirmative statement about something you see in her work. What part of "absolutely zero" do you not understand?

You're the one who is making the affirmative assertion about what Ms. Scott says in her dissertation. If you can't point it out directly, it doesn't exist and you have nothing to write about.

Shut down the thread. There's no issue here.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry, again I see, absolutely zero presented by her and you call this a dissertation?

I haven't read her specific dissertation; nor have you.  That's the problem with you're working off secondary sources.  All of your feed comes from Ms. Shepherd, who is equally vacuous.

You see "absolutely zero" yet you dare to characterize Ms. Scott's work as claiming intentional discrimination in national recreation areas.  That's an affirmative statement about something you see in her work.  What part of "absolutely zero" do you not understand?

You're the one who is making the affirmative assertion about what Ms. Scott says in her dissertation.  If you can't point it out directly, it doesn't exist and you have nothing to write about.

Shut down the thread.  There's no issue here.

ha ha ha, look at how desperate you are, again wanting to shut down the thread, because you are shit scared to answer my questions.

I see no links to any data, do you?

I mean do you not think that is important?

I am pointing out, she has presented zero evidence, no stats or data, even in this interview

Ahhh pooor little Quill, upset he cannot answer and questions and backs this clearly maxist racist idiot



How dare I?

Ahhhh, her study is on Social Justice education

One moment



That has to be one hell of a snowflake course

I even posted an article from her website, which shows even she clearly does not get out enough and why her views are based on her own opions

No links or date to back her claims, then she is a racist leftist extremism and nothing more than pure scum, like any racist

Didge wrote:How racist of this charity, to have so many ethnically diverse children enjoying the outdoors.

It's an example of what could be...but is not. It's an illustration of her topic. There is nothing racist to illustrating that kids enjoy the outdoors, but for the preventative institutional barriers that are at work unbeknownst to the public.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:How racist of this charity, to have so many ethnically diverse children enjoying the outdoors.

It's an example of what could be...but is not.  It's an illustration of her topic.  There is nothing racist to illustrating that kids enjoy the outdoors, but for the preventative institutional barriers that are at work unbeknownst to the public.

Its an illustration that made her look stupid and also you

The only thing racist is people casting a group based on their skin colour as a problem to something.

That is emphatically racist, as there is nothing stopping any Canadian enjoying the outdoors

Just as there is nothing stopping any Canadian enjoying eating out, going for a drink etc and many other social events

Hence the horseshit racist bable presented here, where of course a snowflake would simple take her word for granted it was true.

Didge wrote:I see no links to any data, do you?

That's because I need none.  My argument is purely logical and quite plain: you deliberately misinterpreted Ms. Scott's dissertation to score a cheap, groundless point.

There are plenty of links to what you say, and how groundless and illogical it is.  Go back and look at them all.

If you have nothing to add to your gratuitous thread in the first place...I'll be pushing on.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I see no links to any data, do you?

That's because I need none.  My argument is purely logical and auite plain: you deliberately misinterpret Ms. Scott's dissertation to score a cheap, groundless point.

lol I asked you many valid questions, which you should be able to present, without reading her paper.

That is the whole point and all you did was back this extremist racist, because she has been brainwashed by marxist idiots that teach some bullshit course called social justice education

So you take her claims based on faith and not facts

Just like any other brainwashed religious radical idiot

Sounds about right with you

Priceless

So post up the links, that have this data you claim?

I see you again avoiding to do so

Go back to my questions and back them up with data dummy

Taken from a post made by didge above:

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

eddie wrote:Taken from a post made by didge above:

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

Indeed Eddie and its very clear in the article. She is claiming the oudoors is a "white space". Where its clear as day, she claims blacks are not welcome

Its easy to see what the real problem here actually is and its easily proven by the fact she has an outdoor Black club herself. Which has only attracted 3 Black women to join

That is it, 3 women.

Which there could be no possible claim to racism here for black people to join such a club. So the question to ask is why? When there would be nothing stopping many. Its clear to me, many people who come from parents that were immigrants. From places like Africa espcially. Would be seeking sanctury from living in the harsh outdoors of Africa itself. If they did not and live in cities, many would have come for the chance of a better life also. Even living in African towns and cities is also a hard life for many Africans. Thus those who lived in the outdoors of Africa and struggled, would see cities in places like Canada, as paradise compared to how they formely lived. So most parents would not invoke a view to the Canadian outdoors, as it would not be something they had experinced.

Clearly schools encourage all pupils, no matter what ethnic group to outdoor events and to me. Most children are more drawn to social media, computer games etc, than they are to the outdoors. There is even surveys to show many children, are less interested in the outdoors. So this is clearly playing a factor why less youth are interested. On top of that you have the money it costs and the distance to such sports and events in the outdoors. Skiing, is certainly not cheap.

So this woman is clearly not factoring the actual reasons why many people simple are not using the outdoors. Its clearly something that has little interest for many people. Which means its then down to people to help people and more so the next generations be interested.

The reality is. If you do not come from a family that knows, loves and actually enjoys the outdoors. Its unlikely, many children from families who do not do this, will become interested. Hence why its more likely that immigrant families will not come from families that had social outdoor hobbies. This is more so with people in the city growing up.

Here is a survey to help guage this

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/news/2017/wild-night-out-survey-traditional-outdoor-activities.html

I agree with you. I think she has made trouble unnecessarily.

eddie wrote:Taken from a post made by didge above:

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

If that is what Ms. Scott is saying--that this in "intentional" discrimination--quote it in her own words.  I want to see it.

If it can't be produced empirically, let's be done with this invented issue.

eddie wrote:Taken from a post made by didge above:

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

Except she is not making such an accusation at all.
It Didge just making up Shit, pulling stuff out of his arse to Argue since he can't hold a sensible debate without more boring and pathetic Strawmen.

she is using Science methodology and put forward a hypothesis as to WHY there is the Factual measure of Less Blacks being involved with Winter sports.
Didge is Just Doesn't understand the BASICS of scientific methodology which is why he is incorrectly suggesting Blame, Blame is not what people are trying to determine and Racism doesn't need to have some on to blame for it for it to exist. A point Didge continually fails to understand which is why he has such a warped and deluded outlook.


Where are the images of the Black Family Skiing?
why is all the advertisement geared towards White upper middle class?
where are the Black role models in winter sports?

as Quill said it is institutional racism, which is not what Didge is making it out to be it is NOT someone having a sign saying no blacks.

it in this case is Primarily Advertising and the Existing Ski institutions are geared towards Whites as the traditional target market for Cold weather outdoor activities and with Suitable Economic standing to afford Ski holidays and the expense of Outdoor sports both initial outlay for equipment cost to participate like ski lift passes etc(this also effects poorer people of any colour)

When presented with a similar issue down here, where minorities were not really involved in Beach sports and the surf lifesaving clubs, rather than having some wanker say "they're allowed to join, that's good enough" the Surf life saving Community released a series of Advertisements Targeting the Minorities to promote Participation by Minorities.

eddie wrote:I agree with you. I think she has made trouble unnecessarily.

Of course Eddie, its just another example of what is being taught by the lefty agenda and as see by my views, it has nothing to do with the skin colour of people what so ever.

It has nothing to do with advertising as seen, as within the video, in Canada, this is advertized diversity.

It has everything to do with backgrounds and how or what people know about the outdoors growing up

Aws seen less and less children are interested and of course the left wish to ignore all this evidence and instead again blame collectively white people who do enjoy the outdoors for this.

Its pure racism plain and simple to collectively blame a group of people for their skin colour

The hilarity by the fourm village idiot that sciencitific methodology was used here, was priceless, as he does not even explain what this methodology is or any data to back up a view, which cast the problem on white people. Claiming that black people feel they are not welcome in the wild. Espically in a country so vast, there are areas where there is hardly any people. Shows such a statement is not only absurd, but is again looking to seek to blame white people for the failure of this women to entice black people to be interested in the outdoors

As seen she has attracted 3 people. Where in the US others are far more successfful attracted african Americans to the outdoors, mainly as they do not play the racist card.

These are Canadian stores for the outdoors, look at how ethnically diverse the advertising is Eddie

This one the first picture is of ethnically Asian people and if you look through, you see many different ethnic groups

https://www.mec.ca/en/

Another Canadian outdoors retailer and wow what do we see here?

Ethnically diverse

https://www.cabelas.ca/

And more

https://www.canadagoose.com/ca/en/home-page

This took me a few minutes to find and easily again rubbsh the claims made on advertisement

It also proves the author of the paper, was emphatically lying

So, you have no substantiation of 'intentional' discrimination in any of Ms. Scott's own words.  I thought you wouldn't find any.

Nothing here.  The whole case (and that of Ms. Shepherd) is predicated on institutional racism.
You can't find any statement of intentional discrimination because it doesn't exist...nor would one expect to find any such evidence, as there is no claim of intentional action involved.

Time to move on...

Original Quill wrote:So, you have no substantiation of 'intentional' discrimination in any of Ms. Scott's own words.  I thought you wouldn't find any.

Nothing here.  The whole case (and that of Ms. Shepherd) is predicated on institutional racism.
You can't find any statement of intentional discrimination because it doesn't exist...nor would one expect to find any such evidence, as there is no claim of intentional action involved.

Time to move on...

All I see is yet again another useless idiot, who has failed to address my points, questions and now data on this

As seen in my last post, her claims on advertisement in Canada are based on a lie

These are Canadian stores for the outdoors, look at how ethnically diverse the advertising is?

This one the first picture is of ethnically Asian people and if you look through, you see many different ethnic groups

https://www.mec.ca/en/

Another Canadian outdoors retailer and wow what do we see here?

Ethnically diverse

https://www.cabelas.ca/

And more

https://www.canadagoose.com/ca/en/home-page

This took me a few minutes to find and easily again rubbsh the claims made on advertisement

It also proves the author of the paper, was emphatically lying


Now Quill, you can continue to avoid my points, which shows you again place your view to back this leftist marxist racist based on faith alone

As seen, the more research people do, the more it is easy to see she is empahtically lying, but lets leave the best for last shall we?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/eritrea-skier-calgary-1.4466978

@Quill
it's so sad that basic things go so far over didge's head that he is capable of following.

So obsessed with Blame, not even looking at the fact the OP Seeks to Blame no body, Just his hate filled being coming to surface again.

like you said time to move on, he is just not smart enough to understand

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Taken from a post made by didge above:



He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

If that is what Ms. Scott is saying--that this in "intentional" discrimination--quote it in her own words.  I want to see it.

If it can't be produced empirically, let's be done with this invented issue.

The words have been quoted for you and I love how you continually want to duck out of this.

Its easy to understand why, because throughout, its you that has had no answer to the points at hand or my questions, data and now evidence from me.

Re: theO/P --

What I find a bit telling about the projected thesis by that reports author, and the video clip by some obfuscating non-outdoorsy personage ==

They are both ignoring the salient fact that the first and original "outdoorsmen" in Canada were its First Nation/Innuit/eskimo native inhabitants..

Pre: those present day "white skinned" wannabees, like that girly-girl in the YouTube clip.

     

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Taken from a post made by didge above:

She is making a flat out accusation that Black people are not welcome and again not based off any evidence.

Where is the evidence of black people being turned away?

Where is the "No blacks allowed signs"

He’s right. That’s it, in a nutshell...surely?

Except she is not making such an accusation at all.    
It Didge just making up Shit, pulling stuff out of his arse to Argue since he can't hold a sensible debate without more boring and pathetic Strawmen.

she is using Science methodology and put forward a hypothesis as to WHY there is the Factual measure of Less Blacks being involved with Winter sports.
Didge is Just Doesn't understand the BASICS of scientific methodology which is why he is incorrectly suggesting Blame, Blame is not what people are trying to determine and Racism doesn't need to have some on to blame for it for it to exist. A point Didge continually fails to understand which is why he has such a warped and deluded outlook.


Where are the images of the Black Family Skiing?
why is all the advertisement geared towards White upper middle class?
where are the Black role models in winter sports?

as Quill said it is institutional racism, which is not what Didge is making it out to be it is NOT someone having a sign saying no blacks.      

it in this case is Primarily Advertising and the Existing Ski institutions are geared towards Whites as the traditional target market for Cold weather outdoor activities and with Suitable Economic standing to afford Ski holidays and the expense of Outdoor sports both initial outlay for equipment cost to participate like ski lift passes etc(this also effects poorer people of any colour)

I don’t see any adverts with Chinese people skiiing or Pakistanis skiing either, but I bet those that can afford it and like it, go.

By the by, I never see poor white people going skiing - is that because they can’t affird it?

Why do we need to ask why there are no role models of whatever colour, what's wrong with someone being a role model whatever colour they are even if its different to your particular colour, when you keep emphasing colour and have clubs for one colour or another isn't that making the differences more extreme and keeping people apart? I tend to agree with Didge and Eddie on this.

Didge wrote:The words have been quoted for you and I love how you continually want to duck out of this.

No my friend, the words of Ms. Scott (alledegly claiming intentional discrimination) have not been produced by you.

Their absence rather tends to show you are wrong...else you would highlight them, and produce them over and over with a rousing sense of victory.  Lesson No. 1, you don't go into a gunfight with and unloaded gun.

 

eddie wrote:I don’t see any adverts with Chinese people skiiing or Pakistanis skiing either, but I bet those that can afford it and like it, go.

By the by, I never see poor white people going skiing - is that because they can’t affird it?

Taking your second point first, I have seen plenty of poor white folks skiing.  I was one of them, when I was a student.  

On Friday evening, some friends and I would pool money for gas and head off to Squall Valley for a little powder run down KT-22.  We ate 19-cent cheeseburgers and, unless there was a blizzard, slept in the car and motored home Sunday evening.

On your first point, I have skied with both Pakistanis and Asians, indifferent to the fact.  They are all over the slopes in California and Colorado.  But it is a fact that you rarely see blacks.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The words have been quoted for you and I love how you continually want to duck out of this.

No my friend, the words of Ms. Scott (alledegly claiming intentional discrimination) have not been produced by you.

Their absence rather tends to show you are wrong...else you would highlight them, and produce them over and over with a rousing sense of victory.  Lesson No. 1, you don't go into a gunfight with and unloaded gun.

 

I suggest you go to specsavers, as clearly others see the fact you are blatantly lying to the fact she is collectivelly blaming a group based on skin colour.

If the shoe was on the other foot and blacks were being blame, you would have called for a nuke strike on the claimers

So you can continue to avoid all my points alll you like

It just means you have made yourself redundent in this debate, as a complete copout

Interesting article from 2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/nyregion/ny-ski-club-adds-black-faces-to-slopes.html

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:I don’t see any adverts with Chinese people skiiing or Pakistanis skiing either, but I bet those that can afford it and like it, go.

By the by, I never see poor white people going skiing - is that because they can’t affird it?

Taking your second point first, I have seen plenty of poor white folks skiing.  I was one of them, when I was a student.  

On Friday evening, some friends and I would pool money for gas and head off to Squall Valley for a little powder run down KT-22.  We ate 19-cent cheeseburgers and, unless there was a blizzard, slept in the car and motored home Sunday evening.

On your first point, I have skied with both Pakistanis and Asians, indifferent to the fact.  They are all over the slopes in California and Colorado.  But it is a fact that you rarely see blacks.

Maybe you went to the wrong places

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/nyregion/ny-ski-club-adds-black-faces-to-slopes.html

By the way I didn't write that which is 'credited ' to me. Re chinese people skiing etc

I have never seen a Black person Fishing or Shooting , [not the Gangster type] Clays or Vermin !

Vintage wrote:Why do we need to ask why there are no role models of whatever colour, what's wrong with someone being a role model whatever colour they are even if its different to your particular colour, when you keep emphasing colour and have clubs for one colour or another isn't that making the differences more extreme and keeping people apart? I tend to agree with Didge and Eddie on this.

The segregation of blacks as 'others' has a long history in North America. Slavery started in America in 1619, when a Dutch ship transported the first African slaves to Jamestown, VA. The slaves were brought to work the New World's crops. The first slave laws in America were enacted in 1641. Most slaves were purchased by landowners in the Southern colonies where the economy centered around indigo, rice and tobacco crops until the late 1700's. Slavery in the US lasted until 1863, when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation white America has continued to regard Africans as second-class citizens. Immediately following the Emancipation Proclamation, southern states enacted a number of Jim Crow laws, by which former slaves were limited when it came to voting, marriage, working, education, and other fundamental rights. Up intil the late 1954, a system of separate but equal prevailed. Rather than mandating it by law, separate but equal allowed social separation. This transitioned into a system of segregation.

Over these some 160-years, institutions, both social and legal, came into existence that perpetuated the continuation of American apartheid. Such institutions informally and formally continued the discrimination of whites against Africans. This practice is known as 'institutional discrimination" in that it is sewn into the fabric of institutional life in America. It is habit, not thoughtful agent intention. It continues up to the present day, as evidenced by segregated ghettos, segregated educational institutions, and segregated recreation as exhibited in the thesis being written by Ms. Scott.

This is not to say that institutional discrimination has replaced intentional discrimination. Intentional discrimination is alive and kicking, as evidenced by the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville VA, on August 17, 2017, in which a person was brutally murdered. In and around this event, we see in the brutal genocide of black American males by police, particularly in the south, but elsewhere too.

So, it's clearly not enough to say, ‘just be a nice person and good role model’. It is a force that must be countered. Thus, the legitimacy and value of Ms. Scott's efforts to acclimate people of African origin to the beautiful outdoors of Canada, and enjoyment thereof.

Vintage wrote:By the way I didn't write that which is 'credited ' to me. Re chinese people skiing etc

You're right. It was eds. I have corrected it.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Taking your second point first, I have seen plenty of poor white folks skiing.  I was one of them, when I was a student.  

On Friday evening, some friends and I would pool money for gas and head off to Squall Valley for a little powder run down KT-22.  We ate 19-cent cheeseburgers and, unless there was a blizzard, slept in the car and motored home Sunday evening.

On your first point, I have skied with both Pakistanis and Asians, indifferent to the fact.  They are all over the slopes in California and Colorado.  But it is a fact that you rarely see blacks.

Maybe you went to the wrong places

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/nyregion/ny-ski-club-adds-black-faces-to-slopes.html

Which would suggest that segregation (wrong place??) is real.

I was just about to comment on your New York Times article.  Notice the Times does not claim that flocks of black people are crowding the slopes.  Rather, it purports to show that the claim that blacks don't like the slopes is a myth.  In other words, it is evidence that blacks would like to be invited to the slopes...however, institutional discrimination dissuades them.

The article says:

NY Times wrote:When skeptics tell them “black people don’t ski,” Ms. Cooper notes that the National Brotherhood of Skiers, a black organization that formed in 1973, has 3,000 members. It has 59 member clubs, including three in New York City.

Blacks, once included, take great pleasure in outdoor activities.  Only institutional discrimination keeps them away.  I believe that is what Ms. Scott is writing her dissertation about.  One hopes that the Canadian government will listen.  Canadians are a lot more tolerant and pleasant than US Americans...bless their souls.

Are there many black people who have made it ie lawyers, doctors etc
do they live in the exclusive areas like the Hamptons, the place in New York is it overlooking Central Park and where ever else the rich like to park themselves ? In other words are well to do black people regularly discriminated against by their peers or is it provided you are rich enough you are one of the favoured group.

Vintage wrote:Are there many black people who have made it ie lawyers, doctors etc

Very few, but only because of liberal opportunities afforded them in the last 40-years.

Vintage wrote:do they live in the exclusive areas like the Hamptons, the place in New York is it overlooking Central Park and where ever else the rich like to park themselves ?

Are they silk stocking New Yorkers? No. Social status is a two-way street, and many of the African-Americans still confront rejection and the sense of white hostility...particularly out on the island. Leisure areas, like recreation, are places and activities one enjoys with those close...blacks are kept at a distance.

Vintage wrote:In other words are well to do black people regularly discriminated against by their peers or is it provided you are rich enough you are one of the favoured group.

African Americans never achieved "favored" status. Decades ago it was recognized that the 'melting-pot' thesis never applied to blacks. As Germans, Swedes, Poles, Italians and Irish immigrated into the US, they blended in, so that we called America the melting-pot. Only, Africans have been here since 1619, and they have never been accepted.

Take a look at Charlottesville. Hell, take a look at Trump. The system stalls on the institutional level.

Let me be clear, I don’t know why black people don’t go skiing (or whatever) - perhaps it’s not something that many black people like? I have no idea.
My point is this: they aren’t told NOT to ski (or whatever), or that they’re NOT welcome at any outdoor activity resorts...so one would have to assume that it’s not something that many black peoples like?

IF it’s proven to me that black people aren’t really welcomed then I’d agree it’s a race issue.

[quote="eddie"]

eddie wrote:Let me be clear, I don’t know why black people don’t go skiing (or whatever) - perhaps it’s not something that many black people like? I have no idea.

Read your article from the New York Times. Black's are delighted participating in outdoor sports and winter sports especially.

eddie wrote:My point is this: they aren’t told NOT to ski (or whatever), or that they’re NOT welcome at any outdoor activity resorts...so one would have to assume that it’s not something that many black peoples like?

Oh yes they are. 'Shunning' takes many forms. Weren't you ever a victim in grade school? You know...people don't invite you to their lunch table, they don't choose you for their clubs, they don't even speak to you, etc., etc.

eddie wrote:IF it’s proven to me that black people aren’t really welcomed then I’d agree it’s a race issue.

Do you look? Do you even care? Ms. Scott cares, and is doing something about it...and look at the venom she is getting. There's definite resistance, and where there is such push-back, there is racism.

I take umbrage to your statement “Do you care?”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you know full well where I stand on racism, I’ve fought against it my whole life Quill, as Iv’e said many times before, due to being born, raised and living in a very multicultural area. I could list so many, many things about my life loving and living with black men and their families and the fact my own father was heavily into “true” reggae and so were both my brothers, and many of my fathers and brothers friends were black.

You can’t tell me one single thing about black lives and black people that I haven’t experienced first hand.

So I take umbrage to your assumption that I don’t care.

If I don’t care, I’m sure I wouldn’t be replying to this thread and many others on this subject

Please don’t quote this post with indifferent waffle, Quill, don’t underestimate my emotional intelligence.
A simple apology will do, to be honest, if you can honestly and truly believe my post.

eddie wrote:I take umbrage to your statement “Do you care?”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you know full well where I stand on racism, I’ve fought against it my whole life Quill, as Iv’e said many times before, due to being born, raised and living in a very multicultural area. I could list so many, many things about my life loving and living with black men and their families and the fact my own father was heavily into “true” reggae and so were both my brothers, and many of my fathers and brothers friends were black.
 
You can’t tell me one single thing about black lives and black people that I haven’t experienced first hand.

So I take umbrage to your assumption that I don’t care.

If I don’t care, I’m sure I wouldn’t be replying to this thread and many others on this subject

Please don’t quote this post with indifferent waffle, Quill, don’t underestimate my emotional intelligence.
A simple apology will do, to be honest, if you can honestly and truly believe my post.

Don't be offended. It was a question addressed to the sky, not particularly to you. A lot of institutional discrimination goes unnoticed, because people have other concerns. So, lack of caring >>> lack of noticing >>> the reason why the discrimination is not intentional, but simply unnoticed.

That's why we call it institutional...it's habit, not intentional practice.

So...seriously, asked yourself, do you care? Because the process begins with caring. Or is it one of those things that you shrug off in a busy day, and later when it comes up you don't realize it has happened.

That's how institutions (or, call them: conventions) work. Most of the time they go unnoticed. Put the two together and you have a phenomenon: institutional racism.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I take umbrage to your statement “Do you care?”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you know full well where I stand on racism, I’ve fought against it my whole life Quill, as Iv’e said many times before, due to being born, raised and living in a very multicultural area. I could list so many, many things about my life loving and living with black men and their families and the fact my own father was heavily into “true” reggae and so were both my brothers, and many of my fathers and brothers friends were black.
 
You can’t tell me one single thing about black lives and black people that I haven’t experienced first hand.

So I take umbrage to your assumption that I don’t care.

If I don’t care, I’m sure I wouldn’t be replying to this thread and many others on this subject

Please don’t quote this post with indifferent waffle, Quill, don’t underestimate my emotional intelligence.
A simple apology will do, to be honest, if you can honestly and truly believe my post.

Don't be offended.  It was a question addressed to the sky, not particularly to you.  A lot of institutional discrimination goes unnoticed, because people have other concerns.  So, lack of caring >>> lack of noticing >>> the reason why the discrimination is not intentional, but simply unnoticed.

That's why we call it institutional...it's habit, not intentional practice.

So...seriously, asked yourself, do you care?  Because the process begins with caring.  Or is it one of those things that you shrug off in a busy day, and later when it comes up you don't realize it has happened.

That's how institutions (or, call them: conventions) work.  Most of the time they go unnoticed.  Put the two together and you have a phenomenon: institutional racism.

Didn’t I just tell you that I cared?

“So...seriously, asked yourself, do you care? Because the process begins with caring. Or is it one of those things that you shrug off in a busy day, and later when it comes up you don't realize it has happened.”

Am I walking about with placards? No
Are you? No.

I could say I care as much as you or that you care as much as me. Right?

eddie wrote:I could say I care as much as you or that you care as much as me. Right?

Yes, of course. As long as you get the point.