Quote:Bad Hussar Wrote:
My question to the board members, and I have to say especially black Americans, is this: What are your thoughts on the fact that the left in the West, especially America, pretty much takes for granted that you are on-board with whatever social cause they have decided to make the "cause du jour"? My experience in Africa itself is that a lot of black people are very socially conservative, and their values/reality would not be even remotely served by left leaning Western political parties and organisations. In the US this is obviously true for many people as well.
Au contraire, the left in Canada is slowly becoming the party of government workers and liberal white inner city yuppies and hippies. The right is becoming the party of the central provinces, business leaders, and minorities in the large urban centres.
This is an interesting take on the conservatives in Canada.
Quote:Quote:
In just a decade, Mr Kenney increased his party’s “visible minorities” voter base from 9 per cent in 2000 to 31 per cent in the 2011 election. Remarkably, the Conservatives enjoyed more support from voters born outside Canada in the last election – 42 per cent – than they polled with the electorate overall.
“I keep telling our caucus and the cabinet that immigrants are our new base.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9310918c-979e-...z2uGuSOhFO
The core of the support doesn't come necessarily from social conservatism, but from economic betterment. Conservatives in Canada, (at least appear to) better the economic lot of immigrants by doing something that seems to elude the left leaning parties all across the West; tearing down barriers of entry by de-regulating, removing red tape, and getting out of the way.
The USA is a special case because it seems American Race relations are still rocky, specifically between blacks and whites. In the US playing electorate politics is a game of substitution of electorates, not simple addition.
Similar to France a few years ago. Sarkozy wooed the minorities by promising deregulation, this means lower barriers of entry for the outsiders (read; black and arab frenchmen). It was all fine and dandy, until a good portion of his base ran off to the National Front in the consequent election (which is oddly enough is a socialist, borderline communist party with nativist views on race).
Sarkozy tried to get them back with promises of kicking out Gypsies from Romania and Bulgaria (they can't throw out the blacks and Arabs because they're citizens, many 3rd of 4th generation). The damage was already done, he lost both the minority vote, and the nativist vote. He made the classic mistake of fiddling with social policy, nativist populism, and economic issues all at once. He should have concentrated on economics solely.
Gay-rights, were never an issue in the past. There was always a march against the old order of strict social conservatism and so called purity.
The resistance is growing now because of disfranchisement with shrinking of the economic pie, and the constriction of the middle class wealth.
If you really brake it down all the tidbits and talking points of contention are nothing more than minor things in the greater political scheme.
Gay-Rights: this doesn't actually change the life of the average non gay person all that much. Gays making out may be gross but it certainly isn't going to make a difference in any important decisions in my life.
Multiculturalism: The west has been multicultural for over 2500 years. This isn't going to change because it might irritate a few people. How is being anti multicultural going to change America, Canada, or Brazil? It may shift race relations but they're more shaped by the business environment than anything else. Somebody forgot to tell Mr Ford in 1915 that segregation was still in effect. He was more interested in profit margins.
Loss of masculinity: this is really a product of technological advancement. Japan hasn't had any real feminist, gay rights, or multicultural (multiracial movements) yet too many men there are humping pillows and masturbating to virtual companions.
The fundamental issues here are and always will be economic.
What does this have to do with blacks and gay rights?
Christian Africans are overwhelmingly evangelical. Uganda is a corrupt country with fast economic growth. What an easy way to put a veil over people's eyes than to bring up a controversial but rather inconsequential issue that might make them forget for a minute that the country's parliament members are some of the wealthiest lawmakers in the world, ruling some of the poorest people in the world.
What a better time to talk about gays, than when blatant government racketeering, corrupt lobbying, and corporate cronyism is making an 16th century comeback.
PS: Uganda might face sanctions for this. This seems to be the general among western politicians. So they may not quite get away with this because they're a predominatly black country just yet.
PPS: Russia isn't a wholly white country either, it's around 80% white Russian. The rest is a hodgepodge of people from the caucus, asians, and many other small ethnic groups.