[Sebastien Gauthier]

Since the thread on what is your favorite Canadian cities has deviated on a debate on racial segregation/integration based on the Canadian Geographer' s article that furry canuck has provided us, let's discuss these topics in that new thread. This is obviously a sensitive issue so please make sure to make your comments in a way that is as diplomatic as possible without auto-censorship. I'm sure we can have this discussion without creating chaos and mayhem. Please assume forumers are writing in good faith. On a thread like that there will inevitably be many different views. I'm particularly interested to hear what new Canadians/Queberers have to say about these issues as ultimately they are the ones who are the most affected by it.

Personally as you all know, I oppose multiculturalism. I think this is a very flawed concept to begin with. If you value cultural diversity as I do, you can't logically support multiculturalism. Imagine if we were to blanket the world with the concept of multiculturalism as currently implemented in English Canada and UK notably. It will result in the complete dissapearance of all national cultures and suppression of national identities because every countries in the world would be exactly the same. In other words, if you push the concept of multiculturalism to the extreme in theory, there's no need to have countries because there is no longer any specific cultures, just one global culture. That's why proponents of multiculturalism in Canada (Liberals and NDP) are telling new immigrants that there is no definite culture in Canada and that we are all immigrants in this country (That's obviously an intellectual fraud). Indeed, according to multiculturalism in what is known as English Canada, old-stock Canadians are not considered the host society or the historic founding people, they are reduced to the status of an ethnic community among many others. That completely obliterate 400 years of history. When you think about that, multiculturalism is a cultural genocide.

So how does multiculturalism works in practice ? In Canada it's almost as if the federal government was opening branches of foreign countries on the Canadian soil. Since we are telling immigrants to remain what they are and that there is no need to integrate into the mainstream canadian society, most of new immigrants in Canada live exactly as they were living in their country of origins. As a result of that you have as Joe Clark once said, a community of communities that live side by side with almost no interactions with each other.

Since English-Canada is a community of communities instead of a nation in the classical sense, how can all these micro nations-communities cohabit under one government ? In the long term the only way to acheive pacific cohabitation is through a ruthless dictatorship like the Tito regime in former Yougoslavia. My biggest fear for English-Canada is that sooner or later, these communities will start to compete for the control of political institutions. Unavoidably, the better organized and structured communities will seize the control of the public institutions while weaker communities will be left out of the dance. This will create alienation and resentment among many of our fellow citizens. Actually it's currently happening. Remember when the Toronto police foiled a major terrorist plot not so long ago in which Canadian institutions were targeted. In that case, the conspirators were all homegrown terrorists of arab origins but they could have been of any origins including old-stock Canadians. The conspirators didn't plan terrorist attacks because they were of arab origins, they did it because of a strong feeling of alienation. I'm not condoning them, I'm trying to explain their motivations. That's what multiculturalism can do. This ideology of multiculturalism is favourable to the rise of natural selection and by extension, exclusion and segregation. Multiculturalism is not inclusive so people can't share a strong bond with each others, share common values and beliefs and so on. I'm only trying to warn you about the danger of multiculturalism, nothing else.

In comparison, integration recognize that there is a definite culture and seek to integrate new immigrants to that culture. This definite culture is shape by the contribution of people of diverse origins and will continously evolve because of the contribution newcomers are making. That's what is known as an integrationist melting pot. That's what the USA and Quebec are among others. Now is integration a flawless model ? Absolutely not as inequalities still subsists. But with integration, we can at least create a strong bond between citizens, we can have a good national cohesion, we can share common values because new immigrants know what are the common values that the host society cherishes. This is possible because in the USA, everybody is American regardless of the race, religion and country of origin. There is no such thing as hyphenated-americans. Not surprisingly, Americans have a very strong sense of nationhood and patriotism. That's what we strive to recreate in Quebec.

In retrospect no model is perfect. But when you weight the pros and cons of both model, it's pretty obvious to me that integration is a far better and superior option than multiculturalism.

[PhilippeMtl]

blablablablablabla blablabla blabla blabla :sleep:

[Wooster]

In my experience any 'policy' on integration or multiculturalism is moot. First generation immigrants, understandably seek out people from the same background, language, religion, culture (just as many of us would as ex-pats in other countries) because that is what they are comfortable with. People will learn the official language and other custom to be able to function in that society (I've yet to come across an immigrant I've not been able to communicate with at all).

Integration is de facto for second generation immigrants. They are born into this dominant Canadian or Western society just like any 4th or 5th generation Irish, English, German, French or any other citizen. Some will learn the language, practice some of the customs or religion of their backgrounds, but will be essentially just as "mainstream" as anyone else.

Canada is a post-national state. The furthest thing that a country can be from a nation. What I like about that is that it is a welcoming place for all outsiders and backgrounds. Our bigger cities epitomize this. Of course a dominant english (or french) speaking western democratic and modern society is what binds us together to a degree and that's what makes society function effectively. I don't see multiculturalism, or pluralism threatening that, nor do I see different cultures as competing. People in Canada are very good at co-existing with everyone else.

[theman23]

Personally as you all know, I oppose multiculturalism. I think this is a very flawed concept to begin with. If you value cultural diversity as I do, you can't logically support multiculturalism. Imagine if we were to blanket the world with the concept of multiculturalism as currently implemented in English Canada and UK notably. It will result in the complete dissapearance of all national cultures and suppression of national identities because every countries in the world would be exactly the same. In other words, if you push the concept of multiculturalism to the extreme in theory, there's no need to have countries because there is no longer any specific cultures, just one global culture. That's why proponents of multiculturalism in Canada (Liberals and NDP) are telling new immigrants that there is no definite culture in Canada and that we are all immigrants in this country (That's obviously an intellectual fraud). Indeed, according to multiculturalism in what is known as English Canada, old-stock Canadians are not considered the host society or the historic founding people, they are reduced to the status of an ethnic community among many others. That completely obliterate 400 years of history. When you think about that, multiculturalism is a cultural genocide.
Any culture is a constantly evolving, organic thing. Allowing this to happen is simply the natural way of things, not cultural genocide. In any case, the change is self-induced so I'm not sure why you see this to be so reprehensible.



There is no such thing as hyphenated-americans.
African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans don't exist? Yeah, right.


In retrospect no model is perfect. But when you weight the pros and cons of both model, it's pretty obvious to me that integration is a far better and superior option than multiculturalism.

How would an "integration" model differ from multiculturalism? I've never gotten a good sense of this from any of its proponents, just empty rhetoric over "cultural genocide" and the need to build some sort of mystical emotional bond amongst random strangers.

In any case, I don't believe you are being very honest here. Your so-called models of integration, Quebec and the USA, are no more "integrated" than the rest of Canada. You conveniently choose to ignore that segregation does exist within those nations, and in some cases at a greater degree. Your claim of their being no hyphenated Americans is laughable.

[Cambridgite]

Hey Sebastien. Great idea for a thread, given how often this topic pops up and pollutes other threads.

Personally as you all know, I oppose multiculturalism. I think this is a very flawed concept to begin with. If you value cultural diversity as I do, you can't logically support multiculturalism. Imagine if we were to blanket the world with the concept of multiculturalism as currently implemented in English Canada and UK notably. It will result in the complete dissapearance of all national cultures and suppression of national identities because every countries in the world would be exactly the same. In other words, if you push the concept of multiculturalism to the extreme in theory, there's no need to have countries because there is no longer any specific cultures, just one global culture.

I think that's the aim, actually. A globalist agenda.

That's why proponents of multiculturalism in Canada (Liberals and NDP) are telling new immigrants that there is no definite culture in Canada and that we are all immigrants in this country (That's obviously an intellectual fraud). Indeed, according to multiculturalism in what is known as English Canada, old-stock Canadians are not considered the host society or the historic founding people, they are reduced to the status of an ethnic community among many others. That completely obliterate 400 years of history. When you think about that, multiculturalism is a cultural genocide.

Well, in truth, Canada did have non-English/French immigrants before the multiculturalism act. But they were expected to assimilate to a WASP/French host culture. This never destroyed the culture of the Ukranians, Dutch, Germans, etc, but it allowed them to compete successfully in the host culture and become fully Canadian (non-hyphenated). Imagine if those immigrant groups were let in under multiculturalism. We'd have a lot more Quebec-like situations around.

So how does multiculturalism works in practice ? In Canada it's almost as if the federal government was opening branches of foreign countries on the Canadian soil. Since we are telling immigrants to remain what they are and that there is no need to integrate into the mainstream canadian society, most of new immigrants in Canada live exactly as they were living in their country of origins. As a result of that you have as Joe Clark once said, a community of communities that live side by side with almost no interactions with each other.

Well, there is interaction between communities, but as these communities reach enough critical mass (a la Toronto), there is a declining need to go outside the community for anything.

Since English-Canada is a community of communities instead of a nation in the classical sense, how can all these micro nations-communities cohabit under one government ?

Good question. The answer is simple. We're all going to sit under the multicultural rainbow holding hands and singing kum-bah-yah. :rolleyes:

In comparison, integration recognize that there is a definite culture and seek to integrate new immigrants to that culture. This definite culture is shape by the contribution of people of diverse origins and will continously evolve because of the contribution newcomers are making. That's what is known as an integrationist melting pot. That's what the USA and Quebec are among others. Now is integration a flawless model ? Absolutely not as inequalities still subsists. But with integration, we can at least create a strong bond between citizens, we can have a good national cohesion, we can share common values because new immigrants know what are the common values that the host society cherishes.

I think the key here is that we need do define "Canadian values". What do the majority of Canadians (throughout different ethnic origins) value? What do we want to keep and what doesn't matter so much to us? It'd be nice if a public survey of Canadian attitudes was taken so we could determine this. But that will never happen under a multiculturalist government structure.

This is possible because in the USA, everybody is American regardless of the race, religion and country of origin. There is no such thing as hyphenated-americans.

Not true at all. Ever heard of "African-Americans" or "Asian-Americans"? The difference there is that they are PC methods used to describe racial differences, rather than the vast and stringent cultural differences we have in Canada.

In retrospect no model is perfect. But when you weight the pros and cons of both model, it's pretty obvious to me that integration is a far better and superior option than multiculturalism.

It just depends how far you take it. Multiculturalism at its extreme results in civil war. Integration at its extreme results in fascism and the suppression of basic freedoms.

[Coldrsx]

both...this isnt a question of which but combination of both

[MTLskyline]

This is perhaps going to sound strange but this is what I think.

Countries outside of the Americas/Australia should only have systems of integration only. According to Mark Steyn in his book, America Alone, something like 50% or more of students in Dutch (Netherlands) schools are Muslim immigrants. What is that going to do to the Netherlands 50 years from now? Will it be indistinguishable from Morocco, Syria or Pakistan? Similar situations are occuring in France, Germany and the UK. I oppose multiculturalism of those countries. Europe could become nothing more than a continuation of the Middle East.

I more openly support multiculturalism in Canada and the United States because these countries were built by people from all places. I don't find it to be a shame if one day old-stock English-Canadian constitute a small portion of the population. However I do find it would be a shame if the English in England are no longer a majority in their own country. It would be the same thing as what's happening in Tibet, the Tibetans are being outnumbered in their own area by Han Chinese.
________
Group Sex Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/group-sex/)

[Cambridgite]

This is perhaps going to sound strange but this is what I think.

Countries outside of the Americas/Australia should only have systems of integration only. According to Mark Steyn in his book, America Alone, something like 50% or more of students in Dutch (Netherlands) schools are Muslim immigrants. What is that going to do to the Netherlands 50 years from now? Will it be indistinguishable from Morocco, Syria or Pakistan? Similar situations are occuring in France, Germany and the UK. I oppose multiculturalism of those countries. Europe could become nothing more than a continuation of the Middle East.

I more openly support multiculturalism in Canada and the United States because these countries were built by people from all places. I don't find it to be a shame if one day old-stock English-Canadian constitute a small portion of the population. However I do find it would be a shame if the English in England are no longer a majority in their own country. It would be the same thing as what's happening in Tibet, the Tibetans are being outnumbered in their own area by Han Chinese.

Wow, your opinion is very similar to mine.

Bigot. ;)

In all seriousness though, the only difference I would make in that is that Europe should not be focusing on immigration AT ALL to grow its population, but rather stabilizing it through incentives to increase the birth rate.

As for North America and Australia, I agree with your point. I have no problems with these places being multi-ethnic and multi-racial. However, I do think that there are certain characteristics about our countries that make us desirable to immigrants in the first place and we should strive to preserve those. We also need a certain degree of conformity (ie. language and laws) just to run our country effectively.

[Boris2k7]

The idea that multiculturalism poses a serious threat to the majority culture in any country is entirely bullshit. It's a big, fat, fucking lie propogated by conservatives who are offended by the sight of burkas or by seeing someone dare speak Chinese in public. It's stupid, petty, and outrageous.

As Josh said, most second generation immigrants are already very well integrated into the majority culture. That's a natural outcome. And within in majority culture smaller groups will form that choose not to fully integrate. That's also perfectly fine. They can't simply hijack the majority culture. That is a process that is more gradual.

As far as the nation goes, that's an outmoded concept as national borders around the world dissolve, companies shift jobs, and laws are standardized between political units. A global world requires the continual flow of people and goods around the world. And people bring bits of their culture with them. No nation is culturally pure, that is another stupid myth. For example, France has had a large number of black muslims for centuries... and are they any less "French" or do they simply not comform to the image of France that Westerners have constructed in their minds?

Ironically, the OP has it ALL backwards, and it is only convenient that the only true host cultures, that of native Canadians, are completely omitted from his post. By pushing exactly this integrationism across the nation, that of making sure everyone is like English or French immigrants, Canada has committed cultural genocide against its founding cultures. By putting natives on reserves, and by ignoring the contributions of immigrants of Eastern European and Chinese origin to building Canada, it has purged of itself all "unecessary" cultural elements. And these cultural purists are exactly the same types crying foul over multiculturalism, that rather benign policy that thus far has eased some of the suppression of other Canadian cultural groups.

[Rusty van Reddick]

The opposing categories are multiculturalism versus ASSIMILATION(ism), not "integration." Places can be multicultural and integrated (as with every major Canadian city) and can be assimilationist and segregated (as with every major US city). Assimilation and segregation go hand in hand because assimilationism marginalises those who don't, can't or refuse to "assimilate" and the end up being segregated from the dominant culture, spacially culturally linguistically and so forth. This is not the same thing as voluntary enclave building as happens in ethnoburbs all over North America. This is ghettoisation and it doesn't happen in Canada for the most part.

The US is a weird example because while its policy on IMMIGRANTS has always been one focussing on assimilation (a policy that "worked," largely, until around 1960 with the huge influx of Spanish-speaking US citizens from Puerto Rico and of course increased immigration from Latin America that engendered a critical mass of Spanish speakers who had no need to assimilate), but of course the US has always in practice comprised two separate and unequal "societies," one white, one black, and black "assimilation" never worked and in fact de facto segregation of black people is still very much extant in the US. In many parts of the US racial segregation (black vs non-black) is greater than it has ever been. Right now.

[Rusty van Reddick]

According to Mark Steyn

Fail.

[ReginaGuy]

Multiculturalism is a good thing, as long as it doesn't violate Canadian/Western values.

For example, things like Sharia law have no place in western civilization.

[Boris2k7]

The opposing categories are multiculturalism versus ASSIMILATION(ism), not "integration." Places can be multicultural and integrated (as with every major Canadian city) and can be assimilationist and segregated (as with every major US city). Assimilation and segregation go hand in hand because assimilationism marginalises those who don't, can't or refuse to "assimilate" and the end up being segregated from the dominant culture, spacially culturally linguistically and so forth. This is not the same thing as voluntary enclave building as happens in ethnoburbs all over North America. This is ghettoisation and it doesn't happen in Canada for the most part.

Thank you

[AndrewJ3D]

When you think about that, multiculturalism is a cultural genocide.

I'd more consider it cultural evolution, which as a Canadian I'm proud of. 3 out of the last 4 girls I've dated were non white, first generation Canadian. I myself am first generation Canadian all be it from England. The girl I'm seeing now is part Persian, part, Scandinavian, and part Irish 100% sexy. Anyway, 400 years ago the white Europeans came over here and just about wiped out an entire civilization. Canada is becoming a world leader at becoming multicultural.

[Sebastien Gauthier]

I'd like to thank everybody who have contributed to this thread so far. I've read all of your comments with great interest. I will comment on a few of your comments:

1) Cambridgite: Well, in truth, Canada did have non-English/French immigrants before the multiculturalism act. But they were expected to assimilate to a WASP/French host culture. This never destroyed the culture of the Ukranians, Dutch, Germans, etc, but it allowed them to compete successfully in the host culture and become fully Canadian (non-hyphenated). Imagine if those immigrant groups were let in under multiculturalism. We'd have a lot more Quebec-like situations around.

I fully agree with that. Former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow of Ukrainian origin is a very good example.

2) Cambridgite )I think the key here is that we need do define "Canadian values". What do the majority of Canadians (throughout different ethnic origins) value? What do we want to keep and what doesn't matter so much to us? It'd be nice if a public survey of Canadian attitudes was taken so we could determine this. But that will never happen under a multiculturalist government structure.

Once again I agree. That's basically my whole point. It's possible to live in a fully multi-racial, pluralistic society only and only if we share common values. Right now, there is many people in this country who disagree with something as basic ans fundamental as men-women equality.

3) theman23: Any culture is a constantly evolving, organic thing. Allowing this to happen is simply the natural way of things, not cultural genocide. In any case, the change is self-induced so I'm not sure why you see this to be so reprehensible.

I find it reprehensible because it doesn't take into account the historic role of old-stock Canadians as a founding people of this country. I will never agree to a concept that reduce the founding people of a country to an ethnic group among many others. As it stands now, old-stock Canadians in Toronto have become a minority in the country of their ancestors and I can't accept that. Less and less people in a city like Toronto identify as a Canadian and I do find it reprehensible. It's either you're Canadian or your not. You can't be Canadian only at 20%.

4) theman23: African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans don't exist? Yeah, right.

Of course they exist. Afro-American have been in the USA since the beginning. They are not immigrants. As such they are more or less a co-founding people in my opinion. As for Hispanic, Indian and Asian-Americans, they obviously exists as well. However, they do consider themselves as American first and foremost. That's the difference with Canada.

5) josh white : Integration is de facto for second generation immigrants. They are born into this dominant Canadian or Western society just like any 4th or 5th generation Irish, English, German, French or any other citizen. Some will learn the language, practice some of the customs or religion of their backgrounds, but will be essentially just as "mainstream" as anyone else.

I agree in theory. However, in a city like Toronto in which old-stock Canadians have become a minority, how can these immigrants integrate even in the 3rd or 4th generation if there is no longer a critical mass of old-stock Canadian to integrate them ? Therefore, new immigrants will integrate to their own community and won't become mainstream. We've got to remeber that after WW II, we received a lot of Europeeans immigrants but the quantity of these immigrants was nowhere near as close as what we see now with massive immigration. Also, as Europeeans, these immigrants because of cultural proximity were much more easier to integrate.

6) MTL skyline: I more openly support multiculturalism in Canada and the United States because these countries were built by people from all places. I don't find it to be a shame if one day old-stock English-Canadian constitute a small portion of the population. However I do find it would be a shame if the English in England are no longer a majority in their own country.

I think it would be a shame and a tragedy in both cases. Why do we think it's worth to protect endangered species like the great blue whale or bengali tigers but we don't think it's worth to protect the great english canadian culture and society ? I just don't get it. It's worth nothing that it's only in the western world that we have to deal with these questions. Aren't western caucasian civilizations worth protecting just like African and Asian civilizations ?

7) ReginaGuy: For example, things like Sharia law have no place in western civilization.

Right on. Those muslims who disagree with that should stay in their country as they are undesirable elements in a western society. Same is true for any other religion. Sikhs who wants their kids to wear the kirpan at school should also be send packing. This is exactly the kind of things we don't need in Canada. Heck, even a muslim country like Turkey doesn't tolerate things like Sharia, headscarfs and burkas so there is no reason why we should tolerate it here.

[Sebastien Gauthier]

I forgot one :

8) AndrewJ3D : 3 out of the last 4 girls I've dated were non white, first generation Canadian. I myself am first generation Canadian all be it from England. The girl I'm seeing now is part Persian, part, Scandinavian, and part Irish 100% sexy.

Humm, the last 4 girls I've dated...maybe you don't fully understand the concept of monogamy!!!! The good thing about muslims is they have the right to have up to four women but as one of my muslim friend used to say you only multiply the trouble by four!!!

[caltrane74]

The opposing categories are multiculturalism versus ASSIMILATION(ism), not "integration." Places can be multicultural and integrated (as with every major Canadian city) and can be assimilationist and segregated (as with every major US city). Assimilation and segregation go hand in hand because assimilationism marginalises those who don't, can't or refuse to "assimilate" and the end up being segregated from the dominant culture, spacially culturally linguistically and so forth. This is not the same thing as voluntary enclave building as happens in ethnoburbs all over North America. This is ghettoisation and it doesn't happen in Canada for the most part.

The US is a weird example because while its policy on IMMIGRANTS has always been one focussing on assimilation (a policy that "worked," largely, until around 1960 with the huge influx of Spanish-speaking US citizens from Puerto Rico and of course increased immigration from Latin America that engendered a critical mass of Spanish speakers who had no need to assimilate), but of course the US has always in practice comprised two separate and unequal "societies," one white, one black, and black "assimilation" never worked and in fact de facto segregation of black people is still very much extant in the US. In many parts of the US racial segregation (black vs non-black) is greater than it has ever been. Right now.

furrycanuck I give you all the props today. This thread is beyond stupid, and if Sebassitien likes the US style better, maybe he should move there.

[Wooster]

^^ I think he probably meant 4 girls in succession, not at the same time. Nothing to do with monogamy.

Either way, many of your viewpoints that seem to imply entitlement of "old stock" (WTF?!?! :rolleyes:) Europeans (read: white) in Canadian society, quite frankly, I find offensive. It just smacks of xenophopia.

The thing I love about Canada, and why I think it will be a very successful country into a more globalized future is that it is set up to adapt to a more diverse and global society. On the other hand, other countries that push for assimilation and fear the diversity and plurality that come with dissolving borders and a more global culture is where marginalization and conflict (see Parisian suburban riots) will occur.

[Rumors]

I support multiculturalisum because with out it, Canada would not be what it is today. :yes:

[kool maudit]

these two words do not represent two different patterns of practice, only two different ideologies of description. immigration in north america - places like germany are different - follows the same pattern whether it is in toronto or los angeles.

these words represent differing government strategies on how to introduce and present the phenomenon to a populace, not different phenomena.

[AndrewJ3D]

^^ I think he probably meant 4 girls in succession, not at the same time. Nothing to do with monogamy.

I wish :rolleyes: and as for monogamy who says that has to be the way to go.:shrug:

[MolsonExport]

For the immigrant, there are two issues (according to the renowned cross-cultural psychologist, J.W. Berry, Queens U, 1980;1997):

Issue 1: Is it considered to be of value to maintain one's identity and characteristics (Y/N)? This is referred to as the degree of cultural maintenance.

Issue 2: Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with larger society (Y/N)? This is referred to as the degree of contact and participation.

Dichotomizing these two issues results in four patterns:
1. "Yes" to issues 1 and 2: Integration (the closest thing to "Multiculturalism" as per Canadian policy is concerned)
2. "No" to issue 1 but "Yes" to issue 2: Assimilation
3. "Yes" to issue 1 but "No" to issue 2: Separation/segregation
4. "No" to issues 1 and 2: Marginalization

Note that the above represent matterns of degree, rather than absolute conditions. Empirical research has also revealed the contextual nature (referred to as situational ethnicity: Stayman and Deshpande, 1989) of these patterns (i.e., one can exhibit assimilation on certain traits while exhibiting separation/segregation/marginalization on other traits [e.g., when a second-generation Italian Canadian does not speak Italian, but primarily identifies with Italian culture, nonetheless). As Irish-Canadians can testify, language is but one dimension of ethnic identity/affiliation (albeit probably the most important).

Other distinct acculturation patterns have been proposed and found degrees of empirical support, including:
-Cultural transmutation (fusion of home and host cultural elements into a new, "third" culture).
-Acculturation over-shooting: whereby the acculturated behavior of ithe minority immigrant exceeds that of the majority host group. A good example here might be the Scots in Montreal at the turn of the last century ("More English than the English").
-Hyper-identification with the original culture: whereby the given behavior individual (or his/her descendents) exceeds that of those still living back in the home country.
-Reverse-acculturation: whereby the values, attitudes, and behaviors of the ethnic minority impacted the host or mainstream culture. (Implying that acculturation is not unidirectional).

[Gerrard]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with people reveling in their traditions. However, making it an official policy and using taxpayer money to fund these institutions is not a good use of public funds.

I kind of wish Canada had a similar policy to the Netherlands where new immigrants would be forced to either know one of the 2 official languages and also be tolerant of Canadian cultural norms.

[shappy]

these two words do not represent two different patterns of practice, only two different ideologies of description. immigration in north america - places like germany are different - follows the same pattern whether it is in toronto or los angeles.

these words represent differing government strategies on how to introduce and present the phenomenon to a populace, not different phenomena.

the policy-driven "Toronto model" or "Canada model" of multiculturalism creates a culture and it does filter down to the everyday level of human interaction. We may automatically dismiss policy-making (and all the words that are associated with it and used to describe it) as fake and forced, but the vast majority of Montrealers would be speaking English right now if that were the case. Is this culture different in the U.S.? I'm not sure, but somehow it seems to be.

[Rusty van Reddick]

MolsonEx. that's a good, informative post- thanks! :tup:

[Laurent]

^ I was thinking the same thing. Very interesting and enlightening.

[Cambridgite]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with people reveling in their traditions. However, making it an official policy and using taxpayer money to fund these institutions is not a good use of public funds.

I kind of wish Canada had a similar policy to the Netherlands where new immigrants would be forced to either know one of the 2 official languages and also be tolerant of Canadian cultural norms.

Good post. One in which I agree. And by cultural norms, I'm sure you mean just some basic ground rules and values, not the supression of all identification with the old culture.

MolsonExport, great post on your part as well. And really, I can see all of those patterns displayed here in Canada (in the last half of your post).

[kool maudit]

the policy-driven "Toronto model" or "Canada model" of multiculturalism creates a culture.



which policies are you referring to, and which mass behaviours do they affect?

[Rico Rommheim]

Good, he's finally gone now!!!

[graupner]

Pourquoi a-t-il été banni ??
Why did he get banned ?

[Rico Rommheim]

that's like asking why birds fly.

[graupner]

Indeed, welcome to SSP. Eyh, maybe I'll get banned for asking who knows !!

[someone123]

It might seem random to you that he got banned but you have to remember that you do not see the threads and posts of his that were deleted or the numerous warnings that were PMed to him all along.

Basically we (I know I did and some other mods have) asked him to keep it to a couple of threads or, better yet, take a break for a little while. He responded by opening and derailing additional threads. At that point I suspended him for three days and that is when I ceased to be involved in this.

Moderation of this type is necessary because anybody can wreck the forum by spamming or opening numerous threads and that is unfair to other posters. It has nothing to do with his political views.

Nobody is randomly banned from SSP unless they're spammers on a new account.

[CANAUS]

Honestly I'm sick of these types of discussions because they only leave you with a sour taste in your mouth. I mean I personally support multiculturalism and part of my love for Toronto is based on that, but so what?? It's OK to disagree with someone and have a different view. We should respect others' views. In reality most of our views are based on past experiences and not on some sort of superior logic. My past experiences with multiculturalism are positive, while with others it can be negative. There is no right or wrong opinion!!!!

For me the Toronto model, if indeed it exists, is taking people of all sorts of background, whether it be religious or sexual or whatever else, and putting them all together in a glorious, messy mix. Am I exagerating? Probably. Is it perfect? Definately not, BUT it is what Toronto represents for ME and it is that which is important.

[Rico Rommheim]

It might seem random to you that he got banned but you have to remember that you do not see the threads and posts of his that were deleted or the numerous warnings that were PMed to him all along.

Basically we (I know I did and some other mods have) asked him to keep it to a couple of threads or, better yet, take a break for a little while. He responded by opening and derailing additional threads. At that point I suspended him for three days and that is when I ceased to be involved in this.

Moderation of this type is necessary because anybody can wreck the forum by spamming or opening numerous threads and that is unfair to other posters. It has nothing to do with his political views.

Nobody is randomly banned from SSP unless they're spammers on a new account.

More than that, he was being extremely condescending to everyone, and had a nasty habit of bigotry.

[cornholio]

multiculturalism is fine as long as you dont create a large enough mass of a new culture(having two or more cultures with a critical mass). If this happens then there is no mainstream culture to connect all the citizens, you then fracture the country and create instability. this is not a good thing and the more cultures with critical mass you create the biger problem you end up having, and by crtical mass I mean a person doesnt need to interact what so ever with any other culture in their everyday life.
The thing is that its fine to tell people to keep their culture because eventually they will merge with the mainstream culture(or their future generations will) and the mainstream culture will evolve and change with their contributions. But the country remains united and stable with a unifying mainstream culture.
Really all that needs to be done is that immigration levels and the sources that are used need to be paid close attention too so a critical mass of another culture isnt created. If we do this and maintain one mainstream culture then everything else justs works its way out naturally. Im a bit tired so I hope i made sense.

[MolsonExport]

More than that, he was being extremely condescending to everyone, and had a nasty habit of bigotry.

Yes. I unfortunately was on the receiving end of a few nasty PMs. Somehow, my views were construed by the forumer to be on par with those of Mao, Hitler, and worst of all (from the viewpoint of the sender), the nefarious Trudeau ;) and the rest of what the sender labelled as LIE-berals (and, that I must be a LIE-beral...truth be told, I have no party affiliation [never have, in fact], and I have not voted monotonically for the same party in my 20 adult years).

I took issue. I am in an interracial marriage, with 2 children. I have French-Canadian family members, and family members with 200 years of presence in Quebec (my beloved home province). I also have some Jewish family members, some of whom have ancestors that perished in Auschwitz.

[Rico Rommheim]

^according to him I was a bigot, a rotten Trudeau worshipping liberal who, along with rotten liberal immigrants, corrupted the soul of Canada and the almighty empire of Quebec.

What I found particularly amusing was his disdain for canada despite his endless bantering about the very nation he hates. Also his bitterness for Quebecers who left their province for better opportunities was really striking, considering the fact that he lives and works in Toronto!

[Cambridgite]

multiculturalism is fine as long as you dont create a large enough mass of a new culture(having two or more cultures with a critical mass). If this happens then there is no mainstream culture to connect all the citizens, you then fracture the country and create instability. this is not a good thing and the more cultures with critical mass you create the biger problem you end up having, and by crtical mass I mean a person doesnt need to interact what so ever with any other culture in their everyday life.
The thing is that its fine to tell people to keep their culture because eventually they will merge with the mainstream culture(or their future generations will) and the mainstream culture will evolve and change with their contributions. But the country remains united and stable with a unifying mainstream culture.
Really all that needs to be done is that immigration levels and the sources that are used need to be paid close attention too so a critical mass of another culture isnt created. If we do this and maintain one mainstream culture then everything else justs works its way out naturally. Im a bit tired so I hope i made sense.

It makes perfect sense and I agree with you entirely. It's the unifying mainstream culture that needs to be protected. It other cultures aren't threatening to overtake it, I have no issues.

[Cambridgite]

Yes. I unfortunately was on the receiving end of a few nasty PMs. Somehow, my views were construed by the forumer to be on par with those of Mao, Hitler, and worst of all (from the viewpoint of the sender), the nefarious Trudeau ;) and the rest of what the sender labelled as LIE-berals (and, that I must be a LIE-beral...truth be told, I have no party affiliation [never have, in fact], and I have not voted monotonically for the same party in my 20 adult years).

I have seen nothing posted on this forum as of late that is akin to Hitler's ideals. It's fine that he doesn't like Trudeau. You either love him or you hate him. I like him in some cases, but not in others. But I wouldn't group him in with Mao or Hitler...not even close.

I took issue. I am in an interracial marriage, with 2 children. I have French-Canadian family members, and family members with 200 years of presence in Quebec (my beloved home province). I also have some Jewish family members, some of whom have ancestors that perished in Auschwitz.

Did he ever comment about your marriage or Jewish family members?

[Cambridgite]

While I agreed with him on some of his views and I even had a nice little discussion with him through PMs, what I found really funny about him was two things.

1) I never once witnessed him talking about urbanism, development, or much about cities in general.

2) He had his own version of political correctness. If you object to anything he says, he calls you a bigot and politically correct. He says he wants to discuss the issues without name-calling. But when someone calmly responds, he calls them names. One thing I don't like is double-standards.

It might seem random to you that he got banned but you have to remember that you do not see the threads and posts of his that were deleted or the numerous warnings that were PMed to him all along.

Basically we (I know I did and some other mods have) asked him to keep it to a couple of threads or, better yet, take a break for a little while. He responded by opening and derailing additional threads. At that point I suspended him for three days and that is when I ceased to be involved in this.

Moderation of this type is necessary because anybody can wreck the forum by spamming or opening numerous threads and that is unfair to other posters. It has nothing to do with his political views.

Nobody is randomly banned from SSP unless they're spammers on a new account.

Well, he created THIS thread, which I think was a good idea in keeping these discussions separate. So why did he get banned AFTER that?

[KrisYYC]

I'm for integration.

Immigration is a sticky issue. Canada's population would decline without immigrants, however we must be very careful with immigration policy. One only needs to go to some of the large European cities to see what a fine contribution unchecked 3rd world immigration makes on their societies.... Hell even in Canada there's some small pockets. We need to be more careful with refugee claims. That being said I think Canada does a decent job of balancing it.

[Nutterbug]

How about LIBERTARIANISM--let the people flow naturally and choose their own paths without any socially engineered forces nor government policies effecting 'multiculturalism' nor 'integration'?

[Cambridgite]

How about LIBERTARIANISM--let the people flow naturally and choose their own paths without any socially engineered forces nor government policies effecting 'multiculturalism' nor 'integration'?

I like that idea.

Taken to its extreme, both multiculturalism and assimilation (not integration) can be bad things.

The flaws of multiculturalism have already been covered, so I'll list a few flaws of full-blown assimilation:


Loss of freedom of speech. Forget ever talking in your native language or expressing an opinion that conflicts with that of the dominant culture. This also assumes that the dominant culture is united in its beliefs.


Loss of freedom of association. In order to assimilate, you must spend time around a proportionate number of people from every ethnic background and every neighborhood must be systematically mixed. Very heavy social engineering that is just unrealistic.


Alienation. An advantage to multiculturalism is that your culture might be valued, at least in a superficial way. Under full assimilation, you are told all aspects of your culture are inferior and must be promptly abandoned. This could have the effect of actually increasing tensions further.


Stagnation of society. If culture is seen to be something that does not go through transitions over time, then it is fixed. If immigrants are forced into a host culture that is set in stone, the host culture itself cannot evolve. However, that does not mean we can't judge an immigrant culture and decide whether or not we want to accomodate their customs, if that custom is widely perceived to be detrimental to our society.



Regardless of what the official policy is, immigrants tend to seek out those they see as similar to them. Some do it so they can make the transition into Canadian society, while others prefer to stay in their own enclave and not venture outside. Some people assume it's always the latter, but that's not usually true. But it does take a little while to integrate, unless you're of a Western European or American origin.

I think the biggest issue is one of critical mass. For a country of Canada's population, 250,000 immigrants per year is a lot. Our major cities are feeling it. If it takes a generation to become integrated as a Canadian and we assume a generation is about 30 years, we are accomodating a foreign population of 7.5 million that needs to be integrated every generation. I don't think that's sustainable at all, considering where we are increasingly taking our immigrants from (a much wider cultural gap than before).

[204]

Since English-Canada is a community of communities instead of a nation in the classical sense, how can all these micro nations-communities cohabit under one government ?

Where do your marxist/separatist college professors get idea this from?

Living in Quebec one sometimes hears this ridiculous argument (one of many ridiculous ones). "You see the people of Quebec, we are ONE because there is only one Quebec!!!!!!! But the Canada, she has 9 province (sauf the holy land of QUEBEC) and that is one people divided by nine!!!!" Whatever.... not highly logically. I could turn around and say with the same logic that "Quebec is not ONE people!! She is divided into many municipalities!!!!".

English-speaking Canadians are no more "a community of communities" than French-speaking Canadians (or Quebecois as they like to called, even though many live outside Quebec) are.

[Lysander]

"You see the people of Quebec, we are ONE because there is only one Quebec!!!!!!! But the Canada, she has 9 province (sauf the holy land of QUEBEC) and that is one people divided by nine!!!!"

I've lived in Quebec all my life and never heard of this "argument".

"English-speaking Canadians are no more "a community of communities" than French-speaking Canadians"

Well I'll have to disagree with that. On the next 24th of june turn on your tv or go to parc maisonneuve and watch the fête national gig. You'll see 3rd, 2nd, 1st generation immigrants singing the words of Ferland, Vigneault, Leclerc or Leloup. I'd say Quebec is less so a community of communities since all groups find a common ground and integrate in the strong Quebec culture.

By chosing multiculturalism Canada choses to have community of communities since no single identity is considered more "important" (not the right word, but the best I can find) than the others. Hence no common ground.

[Rico Rommheim]

Where do your marxist/separatist college professors get idea this from?

Living in Quebec one sometimes hears this ridiculous argument (one of many ridiculous ones). "You see the people of Quebec, we are ONE because there is only one Quebec!!!!!!! But the Canada, she has 9 province (sauf the holy land of QUEBEC) and that is one people divided by nine!!!!" Whatever.... not highly logically. I could turn around and say with the same logic that "Quebec is not ONE people!! She is divided into many municipalities!!!!".

English-speaking Canadians are no more "a community of communities" than French-speaking Canadians (or Quebecois as they like to called, even though many live outside Quebec) are.

um..he won't be able to answer you.

Well I'll have to disagree with that. On the next 24th of june turn on your tv or go to parc maisonneuve and watch the fête national gig. You'll see 3rd, 2nd, 1st generation immigrants singing the words of Ferland, Vigneault, Leclerc or Leloup. I'd say Quebec is less so a community of communities since all groups find a common ground and integrate in the strong Quebec culture.


I've yet to meet anyone my generation that knows any of these people's lyrics.

[someone123]

These conversations annoy me because they tend to be imprecise and run contrary to obvious facts.

Every culture in Canada is equal? Then why do we have only two official languages? Why do we have statutory holidays limited to Christmas, Easter, Labour Day, etc? Why do we have a parliament?

Québécois doesn't mean "French-speaking Canadian", it means "[possibly French-speaking] person from Quebec". Acadians are not québécois for example. "Albertan" or "British Columbian" are analogous terms.

Multiculturalism and multilingualism in cities, provinces, or an entire nation state are not unique to Canada by any stretch of the imagination, and in a global context English Canadian and French Canadian cultures are very similar. Modern immigration to Canada is somewhat unique, but it has never caused any sort of crises along the lines of what has happened with Quebec. Most major countries on the planet have many ethnic groups that are often quite different from each other, and lots of major cities specifically have all sorts of different people living in them. Having multiple kinds of people in one area is not unusual or some sign of inherent instability.

[ErickMontreal]

These conversations annoy me because they tend to be imprecise and run contrary to obvious facts.

Every culture in Canada is equal? Then why do we have only two official languages? Why do we have statutory holidays limited to Christmas, Easter, Labour Day, etc? Why do we have a parliament?

Québécois doesn't mean "French-speaking Canadian", it means "[possibly French-speaking] person from Quebec". Acadians are not québécois for example. "Albertan" or "British Columbian" are analogous terms.


The fact is Québécois simply represents all the persons who live within Québec, not exclusively "pure laine".

Frankly, if you got your information about the Quebec-crisis through the english-Canadien medias, I`m not really sure you actually know the obvious facts.

[PhilippeMtl]

Where do your marxist/separatist college professors get idea this from?

Living in Quebec one sometimes hears this ridiculous argument (one of many ridiculous ones). "You see the people of Quebec, we are ONE because there is only one Quebec!!!!!!! But the Canada, she has 9 province (sauf the holy land of QUEBEC) and that is one people divided by nine!!!!" Whatever.... not highly logically. I could turn around and say with the same logic that "Quebec is not ONE people!! She is divided into many municipalities!!!!".

English-speaking Canadians are no more "a community of communities" than French-speaking Canadians (or Quebecois as they like to called, even though many live outside Quebec) are.

Stop reading Globe and Mail and National Post, you are making a fool of yourself.

[204]

These conversations annoy me because they tend to be imprecise and run contrary to obvious facts.

Every culture in Canada is equal? Then why do we have only two official languages? Why do we have statutory holidays limited to Christmas, Easter, Labour Day, etc? Why do we have a parliament?

Who says they're equal? The French came here over 400 years ago. They, together with other Europeans who came later, built the cities, the infrastructure, EVERYTHING. Do not tell me that their accomplishments are equal to those who just arrived from here Somalia or some such.

Québécois doesn't mean "French-speaking Canadian", it means "[possibly French-speaking] person from Quebec". Acadians are not québécois for example. "Albertan" or "British Columbian" are analogous terms.


Yes this is obvious. It's pretty clear that french-speaking Quebeckers have thrown French speakers in the rest of Canada "under the bus" so to speak.

[204]

Stop reading Globe and Mail and National Post, you are making a fool of yourself.

You think that yet you offer no explanation as to why. Typique.

Stop reading Le Devoir and Le Journal de Montreal then and it's a deal! :tup:

[204]

The fact is Québécois simply represents all the persons who live within Québec, not exclusively "pure laine".

Frankly, if you got your information about the Quebec-crisis through the english-Canadien medias, I`m not really sure you actually know the obvious facts.

I got it through being born and having lived there for most of my life and having a french-canadian father. I made no mention of the media nitwit. Read the post before you reply.

Go ask ANY french-speaking Quebecker what "Quebecois" means. It certainly won't be what you claim. It means to them french-speaking and white.

Moving on from this. Same old, same old.

[ErickMontreal]

I got it through being born and having lived there for most of my life and having a french-canadian father. I made no mention of the media nitwit. Read the post before you reply.

Go ask ANY french-speaking Quebecker what "Quebecois" means. It certainly won't be what you claim. It means to them french-speaking and white.

Moving on from this. Same old, same old.

I`m a french-speaking Quebecer ....I`ll ask the question to myself.

[le calmar]

It's not all the Quebecers who qualify for being a "Québecois", in the english sense... To me being a Québecois means speak french or at least make efforts to learn it and use it in a certain way, as well as making efforts to learn the culture and be integrated. In my opinion it takes a couple of years before you can be very well integrated in the Quebec particular society, and until then you're a Quebecer, but still not a Québecois. Just my opinion though!

Some part of the population of Quebec will never be "Québecois" because they're not integrated enough... This part of population consider itself Canadian and might not be aware that Quebec is a distinct province by its culture, and I don't care, they just pick the side they want and that's fine with me.

By the way, in french the word "Quebecer" doesn't exist, so every inhabitant is a Québecois indeed. I was talking about the "Québecois" vs "Quebecer" issue, but this only applies in english.

[Lysander]

What does it mean to be American, German, French, Nepali...?

You'll all pretty much get the same answers for every place on earth. Officially it means being citizen of the country. But in reality you'll need to at least know the language of the majority and a tiny bit of the culture to be recognized as something more than a tourist by the population itself. Same is true for Quebec.

And 204, please stop depicting quebecois as racist. Pe-lease. Do me a favor, check out some stats about ethnic crimes across Canada (still doesn't mean much, but it's one of the very few indicators about racism).

Edit: Check this out: http://qc.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080609/nationales/statcan_haine
Ontario, aka the Queen of immigration, has nearly 3 times more hate crimes (composed of 40% of ethnic crimes) per capita than her racist sister Quebec. Why's that?

[Rico Rommheim]

http://www.avidcruiser.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/quebec-flag.jpg

USA! USA! USA!

[93JC]

:haha:

[theman23]

Edit: Check this out: http://qc.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080609/nationales/statcan_haine
Ontario, aka the Queen of immigration, has nearly 3 times more hate crimes (composed of 40% of ethnic crimes) per capita than her racist sister Quebec. Why's that?

Because Ontario has more than 3x as many visible minorities per capita than Quebec.

[PhilippeMtl]

Because Ontario has more than 3x as many visible minorities per capita than Quebec.

We are way after Calgary (9.1 hainous crime/100 000!!), Kingston (8.5/100 000), Ottawa (6.6/100 000), London (5.9/100 000) and Toronto (5.5/100000).

National average is 3.4/100 000, Quebec average is 1.4!

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080609/d080609a.htm

[PhilippeMtl]

Because Ontario has more than 3x as many visible minorities per capita than Quebec.

We are way after Calgary (9.1 hainous crime/100 000!!), Kingston (8.5/100 000), Ottawa (6.6/100 000), London (5.9/100 000) and Toronto (5.5/100000).

National average is 3.4/100 000, Quebec average is 1.4!

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080609/d080609a.htm

''In 2006, five census metropolitan areas had police-reported rates of hate-motivated crime that were well above the national average of 3.1 per 100,000 population. Calgary led with a rate of 9.1 incidents for every 100,000 population, followed by Kingston (8.5), Ottawa (6.6), London (5.9) and Toronto (5.5).''

[Lysander]

Because Ontario has more than 3x as many visible minorities per capita than Quebec.

It's a point... But I don't know what to think of the equation: A bigger proportion of immigrants= a bigger proportion of hate crimes per capita. I just don't like that.

[theman23]

It's a point... But I don't know what to think of the equation: A bigger proportion of immigrants= a bigger proportion of hate crimes per capita. I just don't like that.

I think its a reasonable explanation.

Where is Montreal, the world racism capital??
Eh...

[Spocket]

I'm opposed to multi-culturalism as government policy . There's certainly nothing wrong or inherently dangerous with a multi-cultural society but I've never bought the government propaganda about how it makes us a stronger nation or somehow binds us together as Canadians. That's just political rhetoric at best. How could our differences bring us together ? That's contradictory as well as counter-intuitive. All the same, it's only as a government policy that I disagree with the concept. Mostly I disagree with it for two reasons :
1- Promoting ourselves as a land with no cultural identity except that which immigrants bring with them is not conducive to nation-building. It promotes seperation from the national consciousness. Once a community reaches a certain critical mass in terms of population, the need to venture outside of that community and into 'general' society becomes superfluous. The mistake is allowing these communities to isolate themselves because sooner or later, it will lead to a certain segregation and disconnect from Canadian society.

2 - If we're inviting people to Canada to become Canadians , what need is there to modify the definition of what a Canadian is in the first place ? The reasonable assumption is that immigrants come to Canada to become Canadians , therefore, there is no initial request from them to make cultural accomodations on their behalf. If they wanted the same thing they were used to it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they never would have boarded the jet to Canada to begin with. The implicit message is that there is no need to assimilate. Perhaps that's true but without also promoting their new Canadian identity, sooner or later this message is going to lead to trouble. There are already many minor examples of the failure of multi-culturalism as government policy and it remains to be seen how big an issue it ever becomes.

Anyway, promoting toleration is a laudable effort. Being a multi-cultural society is neither anything new nor will it ever lead to the ultimate demise of this nation. Promoting the idea that there is no need to integrate is foolish and ultimately is dangerous to the health of our land. All are welcome to Canada (well, with certain very reasonable exceptions of course) and free to practise their own faith, speak the language they've known since birth, so on and so forth. Our government throwing common sense out the window in an effort to be more 'tolerant' or accomodating is something I'll never agree with though. No immigrant comes here to live the same life they lived back in their birth-country. They came to be Canadian and I see nothing wrong whatsoever with promoting that instead of what essentially is unplanned segregation.

[Cambridgite]

^Amazingly well put. :worship: