White Thief Disguises Himself As Black Man To Rob 6 Banks

This video shows how quickly it was believed that a bank
robber was African American, especially being based on
stereotypes this would naturally be the assumption anyways.

The criminal who did in fact commit the crime used
the misconceptions about race in modern society for
his own benefit - and to an extent it worked.

What does this say about how people of differing
nationalities are either critically examined or assumed
to have behaved in certain ways?

The media plays a huge role in filtering those who are presented as committing crimes and being dangerous to society. How many times has the opening criminal description of a suspect been “a tall black man ...” or “a Hispanic expected to be escaping to his home land...” on the evening news? The norm of describing and grouping criminals primarily by their race perpetuates who is assumed to be more likely of acting in categories of deviant ways.

The first line of the above post seems to sum up modern North American attitudes very well, nobody wants to be accused of being racist, or have their opinions on race viewed as being discriminatory instead of political. But by the media delivering evidence and language that isolates minorities as being the “visibly dangerous members of society,” people are continually being classified by their nationalities and racial appearances. Pertaining to crime, the content that media outlets surround society with don’t just create stereotypes - they cause entire races to be victims of propaganda and fabrication.

Throughout this year I have written a number of critical reflections about diversity issues and stories. Analyzing various topics including the relation between poverty and race, the danger of not letting immigrants in danger receive citizenship, how temporary workers are in many cases unfairly treated and how culture is viewed in relation to terrorism has allowed me to learn about specific topics in detail and apply the knowledge I have gained in studying diversity.

All of these small reflections do not relate directly to my blog, but they are topics that individually have roles in my overall argument of how there is discrimination in modern society that needs to end. A lot of the basic knowledge I needed to understand different perspectives and fundamental information about the nature and importance of diverse studies have been learned and applied in each of these reflections.


It is my hope that by including my perspectives on these issues others will gain insight and personally reflect and share what they think needs to be changed in order to improve society.

Reflection #1

September 30, 2010

This video forced me to raise several questions concerning the amount of racial poverty that exists in Ontario’s capital, Toronto and Canada in general. When reading the statistics that were posted on the screen throughout the video, I found myself constantly rewinding and pausing to make sure that I had read them right – concepts including “how racialized poverty rates went up 361% between 1980-2000” (“Understanding the Colour of Poverty in Ontario – Part One,” 2007) anywhere in Canada seemed so shocking I figured I must have misread the fact. Why are people in racialized groups at a higher risk for poverty? The only suggestion I thought of that could even begin to answer this question is circumstance. The only real difference between people who immigrate to Canada and those who don’t is where we were born. It does not mean one group is more highly skilled or harder working than another, some people are born into privilege and some are simply not. It is a common stereotype that immigrants or specific racial groups are poor because they don’t work at jobs that require intelligence that is adequately paid for. It was stated in (“Understanding the Colour of Poverty – Part One,” 2007) that “the hardest part of settlement for immigrants is getting a job.” It is the thinking of many that the majority of Caucasians and Canadian born people simply have the work ethic to get hired for skilled jobs and maintain them and that is why our poverty levels are less than other racial communities. But if this is the case, why in this video did we see an immigrant who was a qualified accountant driving a taxi because the reality was that he could not get hired to work at the accountant job he wanted to do. It is unlikely that he has not been employed for the job he is primarily qualified for due to any other factor than his race. As I watched him explain how he sometimes feared for his life while working I wondered, is the Canadian governments idea of resources for immigrants really as pathetic as offering them safety for dangerous jobs such as being a cab driver in the form of a camera that can only do as much as aid in the capture of a potential murderer that enters their taxi?

In class we discussed the reality of how open to the idea of immigrants Canada actually is in comparison with the perception of how we are seen to view those who come to our country to live from other areas of the world. Canada has a reputation that includes the idea we welcome multiculturalism and diversity however, documentaries like (“Understanding the Colour of Poverty – Part One,” 2007) bring forth the inconvenient truth that several racial groups are suffering treatment of inferiority in silence. How can Canada ever expect to evolve from this disgusting behaviour if we do not even admit it happens and recognize how much change still needs to take place? I suggest that although poverty is an extremely difficult problem to find solutions to, and it is inevitable that it will always exist – it should not be categorized by a discriminative ways of thinking such as racism. The geography of where someone was born and their skin colour should have nothing to do with what occupations they attain in the country of Canada.

Living in poverty, in my opinion, is not living at all – it only existing. People who require the governments resources for those living with little to no money are not a burden on “the system,” they are “the system.” Canadian immigrants are just that – Canadian. They are entitled to the same equal treatment and opportunities as any Canadian born individual and one racial group being more acceptable than another is a ridiculous concept that forwards nothing but ignorance and negativity. I believe strongly that occupations should not be reserved for only those who are “worthy” to have designated roles in society because of the circumstances of their birth or specific opportunities they have been given in their lifetime. Working unreasonably long days in order to make enough money to barely support oneself or family is unnecessary suffering that undoubtedly affects the quality of life of many people living in this Canada. I suggest that this video’s main objective was to educate people about the shocking level of poverty in Toronto (which is a place that I assume was chosen to accurately represent other areas of Canada as well). The visuals of people facing this discrimination is meant to both shock and evoke compassion among those who did not understand this conflict to the same extent prior to watching this video. It is my understanding that the elements in the documentary the (“Understanding the Colour of Poverty – Part One,” 2007) are meant to generate a change – if not in action at least in thought and recognition. This video creates discourse concerning racial poverty providing altercations of the perceptions surrounding the issue of colour in relating to how occupations and economics in Canada are distributed in actuality. The tolerable and generous impression the country of Canada commonly has strongly contrasts the stereotype that perception is reality.

Reflection #2

October 14, 2010

Death due to disease, an accident or natural causes is disheartening. Death as a result of murder is tragic. The act of taking the life of another, for whatever reason is truly upsetting and not comprehendible to many – so much so that when a person knows and conceals information pertaining to a murder or is an accomplice to such they are considered to be a part of the ending of the victims life in the eyes of the law. But why then when people are fully aware that their lives are in danger in the country they reside in, like Grise in the article “Mexican woman deported to her death,” are forced back to their countries to face fear, brutality and in the case of this young woman death those who are in charge of their deportation, that is essentially the reason for their death, are not charged as accomplices to their death?

An obvious theory to answer this question would be that the criminals are those doing the physical act of killing – not those in charge of citizenship and immigration. But the truth is that those who control who enters Canada and who does not are in a sense regulating the people that are given an opportunity to reside in a safe country where they have at least some sources of protection, and who is deported – left to face probable kidnapping, rape, gang abuse and/or death.

What is proposed as a solution to aid in people to being deported to their death in this article is an appeal process suggested to give claimants another chance if immediately rejected into Canada. I suppose this is helpful for those who are successfully passed through immigration and are then sheltered from the danger within their country, however, I find that challenging to comprehend how the same people responsible for (dis)approving immigrants now would truly respond differently when presented with a previously rejected case versus a new one. If anything would this not just extend the process putting even more lives in danger as those who are hopeful to immigrate to Canada wait patiently in fear for their own lives and those they care about? I propose that the altering of procedures should not rest in how many times a case is reviewed, but the content that is considered valid to enter the country of Canada. Human life is not political, perhaps how people choose to live it is but certainly not the life itself. Nobody has the right to play God, no matter where they stand in the world’s hierarchy of power. Morally and ethically speaking – if Canada fails to save a life through denial of immigration, in a sense our country is just as guilty as the killer themselves.

Those who “filter” the people who enter Canada are eager to place trust in politically acceptable statements such as when the department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada stated in recognition to this conflict that "In rare cases, persons removed from Canada fall victim to unfortunate circumstances, which may or may not be related to factors examined in the pre-removal risk assessment.”This acknowledgement is convenient and admissible, but it is certainly not progressive and for many it is a certification that death has and will continue to happen to rejected immigrants when they return helpless and threatened to their countries. The message in this article is that the reality for many is that whether their lives end with dignity, despair, naturally or tragically comes down to the piece of paper they are granted – a visa, or a death certificate.

Reflection # 3

November 4, 2010

Foreign temporary workers within Canada often expected to leave as quickly as they arrived upon the notice that they themselves have been replaced or the labour they were doing has been adequately completed. These temporary employees are contributors to the Canadian economy by acting in much needed working positions but are being frequently denied permanent citizenship based on unjust premises and judgements. Workers that come to Canada should be viewed as beneficial editions in further developing our economy and general structures of our nation. Placing denial, abuse and burden upon them both devalues them as human beings and presents a notion that the work they do is neither appreciated nor considered valid where their standing as hopeful Canadian immigrants is concerned. The meaning of a worker being temporary has apparently transitioned in the opinion of many employers from regarding a person doing a labour that is momentary to considering an actual worker themselves as having temporary needs and rights. In the article “What Do We Owe Our Guest Workers,” the question of whether the current social contract regarding foreign temporary Canadian workers is in the need of reform. To answer this question, in my opinion, it is crucial to review basic human rights – the ethical, moral principles that the country of Canada ideally accepts and bases its decisions on. It must be realized that although it is overly optimistic to believe all foreign temporary workers could (and should) be easily admitted as immigrants to Canada, the idea that when they are working within this country’s borders they should be treated with respect, dignity, be given proper safety precautions necessary for their job, and a chance to be considered for a permanent opportunity to live and build a life in Canada should be a given assumption rather than a matter up for debate or inquisition. Temporary is not a synonym for disposable. When Canadian citizens typically partake in temporary jobs they are commonly viewed as apprenticeships, building work experience, exploring options or settling for the time being within our current society. However, why is it when people from foreign countries sign up for temporary working positions in Canada does their contract frequently become a means to treat them with disregard and place assumptions upon them that once they are no longer particularly useful or irreplaceable within our labour force they are not simply given the option to return back to their country, they are expected to. Canadian crops, care aids, restaurants, infrastructure and construction are all essential elements of the Canadian economy, it is imperative that the positions required to keep all of these areas continuously maintained and growing are filled and done correctly. But why are those who often fulfill these occupations, in the case of foreign temporary workers, not receiving the same treatment of importance as we give the labours themselves? The actuality that farm workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program are not given the option to apply for immigrant status at all precisely demonstrates that many Canadian employers consider SAWP workers, among other foreign temporary workers, as interchangeable as the crops they pick, burgers they flip, and infrastructure they build in our country. The reality is that many of these workers are contributing more to Canada’s economy and progression that a lot of the citizens are who are formerly residing. Much of the current population do not work yet receive government benefits – and furthermore those who commit criminal offenses and wrongdoings within the nation of Canada are often citizens, yet are deteriorating the country instead of working to build its economy and structure. One of the arguments presented in the article “What Do We Owe Our Guest Workers,” is that temporary workers surpassing a time period of two years in a consistent labour field of agriculture should be eligible for the application process of permanent Canadian citizenship status. It is my thinking that after an individual has worked in a challenging and important labour such as agriculture, it is obvious that they have contributed to society and made a significant impact on the growth of our countries production for the better. If they were to receive full citizenship, their work ethic would only improve because they would be labouring to better not just Canada – but their own country.

Reflection #4

November 18, 2010

For my final reflection in this class I have chosen to discuss my perspective of that stated in the assigned reading “Good Muslin, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism.” I found that the idea brought forth that in Western society perceives that there are Muslims who are “bad” – those that pose a threat and participate in extreme, immoral acts such as terrorism; and Muslims that are “good” – who in turn fight against the “bad” ones. There are several aspects I find disturbing about these generalizations. First, the idea that a culture can only be explicitly good or bad not only displays ignorant thinking but applies rigid stereotypes to groups that may collectively have understood religious views but practice them, along with other elements of their lives in contrasting ways. Secondly, this extreme division on Muslim people is racist on the part of the West. For example, many criminals who have committed unspeakable acts of violence claim to be of the Christian faith yet we do not classify the prominent majority of Christians as simply one way or another. Why is this? According to the article “Good Muslin, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism,” the fact that the experience of one’s religion is being placed into a political context in an effort to order it according to Western standards has a great deal to do with the classification that unjustly occurs. In regards to the mention of September 11th and how it affected the perception Westerners have about the relation between Islam people and acts of terrorism, I found the concept of “culture talk,” that was mentioned to present great insight into the way that a correlation is frequently placed between Islam and terrorism. A true understanding of the Muslim faith is not a reality for many individuals that make-up Western society. Because of this political aspects are inappropriately placed on extreme ideas of what differing, minority (in our culture), religions represent. The reality that one’s chosen religion or nationality is simply a part of who an individual is, and does not define the entire being is a concept that pertains to both an understanding of diversity and a willingness comprehend on a level greater than pre-existing common knowledge or simple stereotypes. Few things in life where people, politics and religion are concerned are explicitly one way or another. Categorizing a person, political ideal or policy or religious outlook cannot be done effectively where territory is involved. Mamdani (2002) states that culture is not territorial as political units are. Culture is a representation of something that is a part of an individual and is extremely personal. Placing political context upon that which is a persons’ culture is offensive especially when historical events, issues and societal developments are ignored in an effort to simplify explanations of the political outcomes of “traditionally modelled” cultures. It is my personal belief that blame and extreme negative connotations were placed upon Islamic people directly after September 11th because people needed to hold someone or something accountable. The fear, anger, hatred and confusion following the 9/11 terrorist attacks made individuals want to seek a problem – so they could have something to fix. Through targeting the specific cultural group of Islamic people a way to form opinions and action concerning the reasoning behind what happened on September 11th was presented. The problem of the destruction that took place in the United States due to the terrorist attacks was not then and will never be fixable. The closest many will come to feeling as though they are fighting back against the terrorism that murdered a part of their Western existence is killing the culture of others.