of course not - he is on the dole as it is.

Your point being? We had Wilfried Laurier in the 1900s as PM of Canada, it didn't changed our sub-cast status. What's relevant is how, on average, the cohort is treated by other members of the society when it comes to rights and privileges regarding work, law and education.

Are the sub-standard jobs in the U.S. are mostly done by a specific ethnicity? If so, then you have yourself a cast system. As unintentionnal as it might be.

Interesting phrase.  What would those be?

The ones with minimum salary, no marginal benefits whatsoever. Usually also worked by illegals.

I cannot comment on the canadian sub-class (or lack there of) as I said, my ancestors bailed on it long ago.  However, I can comment on it here.  There is racism, there is discrimination.  Just as there is discrimination against Catholics, Jews, one legged polo players and red haired, green eyed color blind parachutists.  But that does not make them a subclass.  Unless they want to play the role.  Laws can make them that way, if passed or not enforced,  But discrimination is just that.  Discrimination.  not a definition of a class.

And your last statement is patently false.  In the first place, who does a job is not proof of who is allowed to do it.  You can use it to establish an hypothesis on perhaps some discrimination, but not as proof.  Are men discriminated against when it comes to secretarial work?  hardly. 

And the second reason is that the occupiers of those jobs are less educated.  In other words, they cant do anything else.  And so who are the less educated?  for the most part, illegal immigrants (they did not have access to education in their native lands).  That we share a long border with Mexico means that most are from taht country (Mexico makes US laws about illegal border crossings look like a cake walk compared to what they do on their southern border).  And of course, if you are a blond haried, blue eyed mexican, you are still classified "hispanic" (don't laugh. I know some).  Again, making assumptions without investigating the underlying symptoms is very dangerous - and usually wrong.

Sure I knew that. It's just that if one reads to the talk on this site and elsewhere, one would be lead to believe the US is the only nation on earth to abuse the "native" (more correctly the first inhabitants) populations. I just find that laughable. Name me a country, and I'll give you the name of a peoples that were displaced, subjugated, or eliminated. Of course the US is the only bad guy that matters.

An interesting side bar to this is that, for the most part, English colonies removed the natives (Canada, US, Australia, NZ), while Spanish (and Portugese) Colonies interbred with them.  We can see where those colonies are today, and I am not implying the policy is the reason.  But the reason for the disparity is a good topic for a future discussion.

Yes, I have always wondered about that.

Note that some interbreeding also happened in the north, like in Canada with the Metis. But in general the settlers in the English colonies kept away from the Indians.

I think in the Spanish colonies (include the Portoguese colonies) simply differentiated differently.

The English and French saw "European" on the one side and "Indian" on the other.

The Spanish saw "noble" on the one side and "peasant" on the other.

Hence the English/French/Germans/Dutch never mixed with the other, while Spanish peasants mixed with Indian peasants (and Spanish nobles simply had no reason to mix with Indian nobles).

I believe it had a lot to do with the actual mechanics of the respective "European" presence. In the Spanish controlled portions of the New World, they arrived specifically for the exploitation of the people and for the resources, especially gold and silver. The Spaniards never so much wanted to settle the land. It was easy, even in relatively small groups, through force of power, to get what they wanted, including many native women. IMO many Spaniards saw their time abroad as part of their duty and the cost of doing business.

The English and French on the other hand, came to settle. Sure in the beginning exploitation may have been the motivating factor, but lack of gold and silver lead to a change of plans. Indians were displaced by sprawl over time. Early settlers on the frontier were at the mercy of the natives. Sometimes it was peaceable sometimes not. These settlers brought their own women had had little need to "take" native women, besides due to their small numbers the Indians would have easily wiped them out for trying. I'm sure interbreeding occurred, just on a much smaller scale than the horny Spanish soldiers with nothing better to do with their free time.  

Funny. I always thought that Canada received a lot of flak for it's mistreatment of the natives...

But then, if the USA are going to completely ignore us save for a few quick jokes and occasional outrage at a few points taken out of context (seal hunting, Ann Coulter), they might as well ignore us for the bad things too

Oh, you Canuckistanis are funny.

There, there, now. 

I think both of you have hit on parts of it (at least in my opinion).  For the most part the spanish did not send women, just men to take the riches back to the country.  And they interbred (and as Leauki said, the nobles did not do anything noble).  And yes, the english, upon realizing they missed El Dorado, came to settle, so they brough families and saw no reason to intermix.

I have not studied the mindset of that period so do not really know if there was an aversion to intermingle (except for John Rolfe), or a more willingness to.  Another thing to consider is that with the Spanish (and Portugese) came the missionaries and it was seen as a "god's mission" to convert the heathens.  The English really were not into that at the time either.

Now one nation is not really represented, because of their loss of their lands.  And that is France.  But with very few exceptions (Montreal), the French came to tap the natural resources, not plunder for gold and silver.  They lived well with the natives (and that was why they fought on the French side disproportionately during the wars before the revolution).

Since they were not here to settle, or convert, they fall into a 3rd category, but there is no real nation that reflects their heritage since all their colonies were taken over by the English (or later lost for other reasons).

Anyway, this is far afield of the topic.  I just have always found the differences somewhat intriguing.  And I suspect what Leauki said about Nobles may be a prime reason for the difference between the development of the english new world and the hispanic new world.

Ann coulter hunts seals?????