Is there any reason why I have never met or have seen an Oriental homeless person? Pardon the pun but I have reason to believe they are not “oriented’ into becoming downtrodden and unfortunate souls who have these problems. And don’t go calling me a gosh darn ol’ racist for bringing this up. Now that I have mentioned it, you’ll be thinking about it. I call ’em as I see ’em. On another point, one has to wonder with all these imported foreigners from Mexico, the Caribbean, and such to pick our fruit in the orchards or do similar work, you have to wonder what they think of North American homeless when they go home. Discuss the issue. Don’t want to? Then don’t just justify yourself the only way you can and call me a racist and write me off..

Different standards in different cultures. An aunt and uncle of mine inherited a house and business my aunt’s brother owned in Quesnel. They managed to sell the business straightaway, but the house wasn’t so easy to move. In meeting some of the prospective buyers, many of whom were ‘oriental’, (East Indians mostly), the first question they were invariably asked was, “How many families could live in this house?”

Our ‘powers that be’, the ones who are supposedly responsible for drafting, enacting and enforcing our laws and by-laws, are doing their job with the imagined perspective of the majority in mind.

They will no longer let ‘white’ people do a lot of things our parents and grandparents were able to do when it comes to housing.

You have to have an ‘occupancy permit’ in most jurisdictions now before you can move into a new house. and it has to be finished to get one. You don’t get to build, and more importantly, pay for, the structure as you go.

The shack has to meet certain standards. Maybe this is a good thing. Probably so. But it doesn’t take into account whether the occupant can actually pay for all these wonderous features our lords and masters now demand be included in it.

An argument could be made, certainly from the ‘social credit’ perspective, anyways, that if we can ‘physically’ afford to do all these things (which there’s no doubt we can), we should equally be able to afford them just as readily ‘financially’. But we can’t. At least an ever increasing number can’t, or there wouldn’t be the ongoing rise in the number of homeless.

So the question is, do we want to solve the problem by continually lowering the standards that the (still) ‘white’ majority believe should be in place? Standards that make housing even more expensive in many instances.

Or do we want to take a look at whether those ‘figures’ with the dollars signs in front of them are actually REFLECTING physical reality, as they’re supposed to be?

Thanks for not crapping on my opinion. Your opening line “different standards for different cultures” is what we have to expect? Or accept? Or tolerate? Or change? Their standards (foreigners)should not stray too much from our perceived norm. It doesn’t bother me as long as it doesn’t affect me. People, IMO from some other cultures just take advantage of every opportunity they can get their hands on from this great country where as most of us can’t or won’t be bothered. Good for them. Standards, folks. Standards. Maybe that is why we don’t have tar paper and corrugated iron shack filled slums on the side of the Lions just north of Vancouver overlooking the inlet like they do in Rio and other places.

Well, I think the ‘racist’ angle some people insist in playing every time an issue like this is discussed is wearing a bit thin.

We, the (still) ‘white’ majority believe that people from other cultures come here to be ‘just like us’. In every way. That might come to be by the time the second or third generation is born here, but it isn’t ever going to be necessarily so with the first.

And the standards a lot of those people are used to, and accept as the norm wherever they’ve come from, are likely to be a far cry from standards that are the norm here.

There’s no doubt some come here with the idea of making a good stake and returning from whence they came. Where the conversion factor in the exchange of Canadian dollars for their native country’s currency can allow them to live in a standard there far beyond the norm of their fellow countrymen who stayed put all their lives in their own country.

Couple that with the advances some countries, like China, for instance, have made in areas where we are regressing ~ like the ability of every Chinese national to retire on a liveable government provided pension at age 55, for instance, (while we’re pushing our retirement age up, and looking for more ‘contributions’ both publicly and privately to supposedly fund those we’re beginning to begrudge a retirement at all.), and you get a rather interesting situation.

Here we are trying to be accomodative, tolerant and understanding of other cultures, and willing to cut the immigrants from such places as much slack as possible. And there they are, with the idea of being accomodative, tolerant, and understanding viewed in light of “let’s get while the getting’s good” before these suckers wise up and derail the gravy train we’ve be lucky enough to finally get aboard.

But when it comes to ‘standards’ and homelessness it still doesn’t reconcile why those domiciled here, or those want to be, increasingly can’t ‘financially’ afford be if they’re to meet them. And maybe those tin and discarded packing crate slums on the outskirts of Rio are an advancement on the digs some of the homeless here regularly bed down in their present situation. So again we have what I mentioned above. Do we want to see the ‘standards’ lowered? Most here would undoubtedly say, “No.” But those who do would just as surely refuse to look at how they can be met ‘financially’, in any other way than through “hard work, and more of it.” While that may have some historical virtue as far as a moral position is concerned, it is an utterly hopeless argument economically. Any country that has to have 100% of its people employed full time to provide 100% of its material needs and wants is a example of utter and complete ineffciency.