But yes, generally it’s part of a backlash from the folks who think that “real” racism is over and done and who think that talking about or noticing race and racialization is racist.

And thanks for going through this stuff point by point. The contempt and ignorance in the original articles make me feel pretty sick, and having this more careful, factual context helps me stay with it long enough to really see what Coyne wrote.

I will not pretend to be entirely disinterested, and I appreciate that you are not either. And I do appreciate your engagement – very much. In answer to your question, the prior claim you made, which I don’t want to hold you to, but which was informing my “relief” was your claim that you thought the article did not meet the threshold of racism – although that is still my interpretation of your stance, is that fair?

I’m interested to hear you say that you’re not rejecting either of my premises. But neither are you accepting them. I’m all for refining the analysis, so I commit to re-reading your comments and to try to better understand them.

At this moment though, I don’t seem able to get past your, well, partial apology for Coyne on the basis of his other actions and claims. I’m not interested in judging Coyne as a person. This is not an argument about Coyne. I don’t see how good or bad he is on the Mansbridge panel has anything to do with the argument I’ve set out. I’ve written my argument as way of articulating what is specifically racist about these specific things he wrote. I’m sure he’s written other things that aren’t racist (I hope lots). And I know that you know that. So why do you feel so compelled to raise the point that you appreciate other things that Coyne says or does?

One thought that is occurring to me that may inform the way I write the next argument, is that no matter how explicit we make our premises, there are almost always tacit premises and implicit evidence that we use to judge the argument by. Some logicians are loathe to see it this way.

But my point is this. I think it’s interesting that you are demonstrating how the premise (the general premise) could be more obvious: “It would be UNacceptable to say that these are the only reasons, and this is a more interesting problem.” I think I almost agree with this. This version of the premise would be a much easier test for racism. This would not, on my view, make the problem more interesting; it would make the problem more obvious. Which is to say that if Coyne wrote, specifically in this article, that the only problems that Aboriginal people have are caused by Aboriginal people, then I think that would be a really obvious case of racism. And then you and I wouldn’t be disagreeing.

Put another way, it looks like we now have strong and weak versions of premise 1.1. The strong version is as I have written it, and the new weak version: premise 1.1.1: Claiming that Aboriginal people are the only cause of the problems that Aboriginal people have, is racist. I call this the weak version because this test will find fewer instances of racism.

I agree with the weaker premise 1.1.1. I’m not sure if there is enough evidence to show that Coyne was doing this. He certainly didn’t use “all” or “only” or other words like this – journalists rarely do. On the other hand, he certainly didn’t imply or say anywhere in the article that he thought that there were other reasons that Aboriginal people have problems. You would think, given the stakes and the seriousness of the issue, if you believed this, you would make an extra effort to say so. But regardless of whether the criteria for 1.1.1 is met in this article, I still stand by 1.1 and I believe that the criteria for 1.1 was met.

One more reflection on this. The difference between 1.1 and 1.1.1 is a matter of quantity. 1.1.1 is a universal qualification. And obviously, if someone says something small or insignificant as a criticism of Aboriginal people, I would be hesitant to say that it instantiates 1.1. And this gets back to Kevin’s question, above, can we ever criticize Aboriginal groups? And the answer is, well, yes.

But the question for me is, was Coyne’s article saying something small about Aboriginal people? And the answer, to me, is a resounding no. Coyne’s strongly worded article was a theory of fundamentalism within Aboriginal communities and he accused members of the fundamentalist faction of having values and beliefs that he both poorly represented and simultaneously derided. Additionally, Coyne nowhere claimed that this faction of fundamentalists was small. Quite the reverse in fact. Coyne suggested that even the modernists, at times, were likely to uphold the values and beliefs of the traditional agenda. Even the name “traditional agenda” which he used to describe the ideology of the fundamentalists speaks to his view of the pervasiveness of this faction and their views. It is tantamount to saying essentially, that the cause of problems for Aboriginal people, is cultural.

The thing is that in 2013, the racism that is written in newspapers will not be as obvious as the racism that was in print in 1950 – in the 50s they might have said “all” or “only.” The racism that is in print today will be more subtle than that. More subtle, but still real.

Just out of curiousity, and I’ll understand if you run out of interest or time for this dialogue, have you found any of the writing in newspapers through December and January to be racist? I would be interested to know which articles you think are, if any.

Also, do you seriously expect the National Post to be a powerful advocate for Aboriginal interests, or indeed anything non-mainstream? It’s the National Post, for pete’s sake.

To be clear, as well as actually serious again, I’m not rejecting your premise 1.2, or even 1.1 for that matter: I’m troubling them, and I’m suggesting that they’re insufficiently complicated.

Premise 1.2: it’s perfectly acceptable to write an article about Aboriginal people that focuses exclusively on Aboriginal people, including discussing only those explanations for social change that are entirely internal to Aboriginal communities. It would be UNacceptable to say that these are the only reasons, and this is a more interesting problem.

I take Coyne’s article here to be one statement among many that I’d see as his, including hypothetical ones that he hasn’t (yet?) written, and including his participating in CBC discussions (the Mansbridge panel, basically, which I rarely see but tend to appreciate). This is precisely why I’m quite disappointed in Coyne, because he NEEDS to write these articles rather than just to say interesting things on TV.

My view of him, incidentally, and of this article, would change significantly if there was evidence that he sees no problem with the Harper government’s relations with Aboriginal communities and individuals.

Premise 1.1: I don’t follow the distinction you’re making here. A society’s views of any group’s needs and demands will affect how it responds to those needs and demands. (Think MLK and Malcolm X, for example, just in movie stereotypes to make it simple.) Different approaches generate different responses, independent on the merit of what’s being sought or demanded.

And OF COURSE it seems wrong that structural injustice continues to have such a powerful effect on Aboriginal individuals and communities. This rankled a little, like the sense of relieve you expressed earlier.

Premise 1.2

Even if I removed the ‘the’ in the quote you point out, this wouldn’t effect the actual wording of the premise. It seems to me that if you are rejecting premise 1.2, you need to explain why the headline is about Aboriginal people, why Coyne’s theory is about Aboriginal people, and why all of the causes and reasons listed are about Aboriginal people. In the absence of any provisos or qualifiers, this article joins the ranks of article written for two centuries by, mostly, white guys, explaining why Aboriginal people’s problems are caused by [edit] a significant portion of [/edit] Aboriginal people.

I’m relieved that you’re disappointed. But I’m also troubled unsure what to think about the fact that you think it’s okay for a you are not outraged that a reporter for the national Post wrote in such strong, generalized and negative ways about Aboriginal people.

Premise 1.1

Your concern about premise 1.1 is more interesting. But maybe you’ve answered your own question. In both of the hypothetical examples you gave you couldn’t help but use terms that spoke to the complexity and diversity of the racialized groups. And in truth, Coyne wasn’t simply speaking about Idle No More. Coyne was saying that Idle No More tells us about the much larger picture of Aboriginal people; namely, that many of them are fundamentalists. To draw a more accurate parallel to your example, then, we would have to say that a national Jewish movement is symptomatic of a set of generalized problematic beliefs and values shared by Jewish people across the nation (not all Jewish people, mind you, because some are modernizers) which is the reason for the troubles faced by Jewish people in canada.

Now I know that neither you, nor I, are actually saying that. But wouldn’t that sound messed up to you? And given the deep structural injustices faced by Aboriginal people in Canada as well as the fact that those structural injustices are not in their control, doesn’t that seem wrong to you?

By the way, I think I have the argument down for my next article. Should be interesting.

“My main point here is that Andrew Coyne is arguing that Aboriginal people are the cause of the problems that Aboriginal communities have.” My key difficulty with your argument, really, is the definite pronoun “the” before “cause”: overall, Coyne’s journalistic production doesn’t support this argument. Unquestionably, this article is less carefully phrased than it should have been, but its focus is on the relationship between Idle No More specifically (which is a complicated movement, no?) and Aboriginal communities generally AND specifically. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised were Coyne to write an article chastising the Harper government for its assorted actions and inaction compromising the health and viability of these same communities.

Mind you, I’m still disappointed that Coyne continues NOT to have written just such an article.

Premise 1.1

The substitution isn’t convincing because, as you say, the contexts are different and the groups have different standing. But it’s not clear to me why, for example, it would be unacceptable to argue that public statements by the Canadian Islamic Congress are hurting the causes of individual Muslim-Canadians. It’s not clear to me why one couldn’t argue that activities by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs could have a negative PR effect on local campaigns by Jewish groups in different parts of the country. (Both of these are ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS; I don’t know if anything they’re doing could or should have such an effect!)

I don’t need to in order for my argument to work.

What’s troubling is the idea that if an organization is based within a marginalized racial community, then it’s beyond criticism.

If Coyne is factually wrong, then it should be argued based on facts. “Here is another group that uses the same strategies as Idle No More, and they have been successful in establishing a better quality of life, so obviously Coyne is wrong”

But it’s problematic to say that criticizing an organization or movement is off-limits because that’s racism.

Probably the most direct reason is that Canadians are not a racialized minority, or a racialized group. But even if Canadians were a racialized group, no one would even think to divide us into two factions. When I try to imagine this, it draws out what is so strange about Coyne doing that about a racialized minority. But additionally, if someone did this kind of analysis of a majority racialized group, I wouldn’t care so much, and it probably would be racism. Racism is understood as flowing down the social status hierarchy. Racism has to be understood within the flow of power. It’s not racist to say there are two kinds of white people. It is racist to say there are two kinds of Aboriginal people. (And just for the record, I’m not saying that Coyne claimed there are two kinds of Aboriginal people.)

Another way of thinking about this is to first acknowledge that Aboriginal people endure structural racism from the state. Indigenous people are, for example, over represented in Canadian jails. Indigenous interests are not protected by policing (I’m thinking of the Missing Women Inquiry in Vancouver). Land claims remain ignored. In short, so many of our historic Canadian structural racisms, remain part of our present structural racisms. Canadian government reports acknowledge these structural problems. And the United Nations considers these human rights problems for Canada. And Amnesty International writes about Canadian failures in policy and practice with respect to Aboriginal communities. And most Canadians remain deeply ignorant about the complexity and depth of injustices to First Nations.

So when a national journalist comes along and writes about Aboriginal communities, and develops a theory in which a faction within that community is the problem, it is very different from just arguing party politics. Over-simplifying as coyne does, in a context that is already troubled by multiple racisms, is the opposite of helpful.

I include myself in my claim about generalized Canadian ignorance, by the way. I don’t really know that much about this stuff. I am starting to realize more and more that it’s my duty to educate myself.