SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Multiculturalism in Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227075)

dleung Feb 13, 2017 5:10 AM

Multiculturalism in Canada
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.



No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

wg_flamip Feb 13, 2017 5:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck (Post 7708222)
Cynical response: "I can eat Pakistani food, but I can't eat queer food or disabled food".

Slightly more reasonable response that aims at the essence of my cynical response: "I can participate in Pakistani culture. I can learn Urdu and read up on Pakistani history and talk about Pakistan with my Pakistani friends, and go to their house for a traditional meal. My relationship with Pakistani culture can be a two-way exchange.

But I can't participate in disabled culture. If I did, it would be seen as incredibly patronizing. I can be an ally, and be understanding, but I can't participate in a symmetrical power relationship that I entered out of my own self-interest."

You're centring yourself here; the benefits of diversity do not begin and end with universal access. All else being equal, a city with spaces for the communities formed by people with disabilities and for the cultural expression of those communities is more diverse than a city that does not make those spaces. This is true whether the existence of those spaces is relevant or even accessible to you as a non-disabled person; this form of diversity is absolutely relevant to people who do have disabilities. And, of course, your status as a non-disabled person is not guaranteed to last in perpetuity; what is irrelevant and inaccessible to you now will not necessarily remain so.

You're ignoring the access you have to the cultures of disability* while downplaying the power dynamics that shape intercultural (i.e. inter-ethnocultural) exchange and the limits on your abilities to participate in a different (ethnic) culture. You can learn ASL just as well as you can Urdu; you can use it (and are encouraged to use it) to interact with staff at a restaurant just a few blocks away from where I'm now sitting. You can visit a braille library. You can attend a piano recital of music composed by those with one functional hand played by those with one functional hand.

Conversely, there's only so far you can go in your participation in Pakistani culture: The dynamics of your proposed two-way cultural exchange are mediated by centuries of colonialism and racism and by the shape of globalization.

*This phrase seems imprecise, inaccurate and even condescending, but a better term is proving elusive.

Spocket Feb 13, 2017 6:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)
No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

Metro-One Feb 13, 2017 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710208)
Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

You would think this, but this is the hyper sensitive age where everything must be done to the extreme, and if you are not 100% in line with a group / movement / ideology, well then, you MUST be the enemy (because, you know, there are no shades of gray anymore).

I actually believe that the Black Live Matter movement missed a huge opportunity in its infancy to be accepted by a much wider range of people when a few moderate liberals started saying "All Lives Matter." Of course this is the age of division (identity politics) and no one was going to have any of that. Those people were made into social pariahs and had to apologize. That alienated many potential supporters of the movement and then caused the "All Live Matter" quote to be stolen by those on the right as a counter protest. A sucky situation really. One can argue that having allowed the "Black Lives Matter" movement to naturally evolve into "All Lives Matter" (which is was at first) would have lost some focus of the original goal, but I feel that doing so would have been to the larger benefit of the black population in the end, and indeed all people (using inclusiveness instead of exclusion) For godlessness sake, doing such may have been the extra straw needed that would have prevented a Trump presidency. Just something I have wanted to say for a long time (and expect to be called a racist for doing so, because nothing wins an argument like calling someone a racist these days)

I also agree that too many people rank an area's worth by its diversity. I remember an SSP conversation years ago about how Portland was "too white." To me, calling an area "too" anything is racist and quite disgusting. An area does not need diversity to be fun / interesting. Look at Japan, it is the least diverse place in the world (99% Japanese) so if you are going to fault some cities in North America for being "too white" then you better also fault Japanese cities for being "too Japanese."

That said I also don't think that any area being too diverse should be looked at as a negative either. There are many positives to having great diversity in a city. (some that i miss very much living in Japan)

Both have their positives and negatives and in the end, with all other factors equal, generally even out.

Tosin007 Feb 13, 2017 7:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7710096)
Being the devil's advocate, but diversity can also be having areas within the country that have a United Nations mix of people, others that are mostly of British origins, others mostly of French origin, others mostly indigenous, etc.

I guess..

Skyisnolimit Feb 13, 2017 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709312)
I've seen these stats before, and they've been quite consistent (e.g. Quebec on the low end) for a couple of decades.

I once used them in an argument with someone reasonably smart, and to my astonishment, in all seriousness and with a straight face, he countered that in Quebec there were fewer hate crimes because the hateful people here didn't feel compelled to act, given that hate and racism was the dominant view in all levels of society, from the political classes to the education system, the courts, police, etc. :koko:

Most people I met from Quebec were more on the whiny side then the aggressive side . I think it's more with culture and upbringing why the lower numbers.

Marshal Feb 13, 2017 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7708252)
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.

This is only true in the most superficial sense. Actually that isn't even true: it is a rational fallacy. The two sides of the coin only appear the same because of similar form, but the meaning of the nouns you use involve complexes of many different things (ideas, perceptions, values, definitions, histories, states of affairs . . . ) - and they differ from each other in both substance and context.

By the way, the expression involving the proverbial coin doesn't fit the point. Yes coins have two sides, but nowhere does that mean the two sides are equivalent. In fact, to state it without fallacy, no two sides of a coin are the same.

Damn, thinking is tricky!
_

As a post note: "hipsterism" is not an argument. And, if you are called a socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal for the things you say, you should ignore that source, as they are equally stupid in their form of argument.

The whole thing about "political correctness" is getting tired fast. This too is a stupid, mostly meaningless, phrase. You should neither say nor not say anything based on "political correctness" (whose correctness is this anyway). People are sounding off with bigotry in the name of opposing PC. Others self censor in that same name. Both are the thoughts of fools. You say things because you either believe them, know them to be true, have been convinced of them, or have given them thought and think they are the best you can come up with at that time. Opinions are fine, but they are just that. The only reason to inflate your un-proofed opinions as facts is if you are out to trick people. Facts are facts - not absolute truths, but statements of information that survive the tests we humans have been working on (philosophers, scientists, artists, and everyone else) for thousands of years. This is one of the first benefits we earned by settling down. Why throw it out now. The people who disregard the voice of science concerning Climate Change all accept science's voice in creating their smartphone, the spacestation, the airplane, the internet, graphic interfaces, and the billion technologies and materials of our age. Funny. Most of those things are more complex than the atmospheric data analysis which show our effects on climate. Warning - there is a lot of bullshit out there.

Marshal Feb 13, 2017 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710208)
Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

Much the same here. For similar reasons (the massive complexity of human existence and cultural being) there is no equivalence between "black lives matter," and "all lives matter." Those of you who think "all lives matter" is a clever counterpoint are just being sucked in by a little bit of similarity between two phrases.

For crying out loud, try to think a little deeper. The "all lives matter" expression is an intellectual embarrassment. You are hood-winking yourselves.

_

So, before you go off on a tantrum: of course ALL LIVES MATTER! No one is actually against this. Those that appear to be against this are just trying to hold to the meaning that is embodied by (and I will abstract it to make the point): THE LIVES OF THOSE FACING PERSECUTION AND PREJUDICIAL HARM AT THE HANDS OF OTHERS, ESPECIALLY THE AUTHORITIES . . . MATTER. And to keep it clear for you, "matter" means "needs attention until racial unfairness is more or less (nothing is ever perfect) dismantled.

The "black" part, of course, refers to black people, their troubles and their horrible history since being hunted in West Africa and beyond. Black people, feeling under threat, feeling and living the lack of equality you are spouting . . . black people are who started this movement. Why are you offended by the catch phrase they chose (under circumstances neither you or I will ever really know, feel, or understand)?

And, again, to stem any revolt, "Black lives matter" was coined, no doubt with some regret, as a catchphrase to publicize a movement and its issues. I suggest you ponder some of our world's nastier problems concerning race, and get of the literalistic soapbox. (and yes, that's not a word.)

There is nothing hipster here: this is the civil rights movement telling everyone that bthe project isn't finished. That's all. Surely you can acknowledge that much. And if you can, what do you gain by saying the what you do.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

Yes, I would say that all lives matter. But I wouldn't say that "All Lives Matter" as in the movement itself. Get the difference?

Spocket Feb 13, 2017 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 7710303)
If we could get this thread focused back on statistics and StatCan releases that would be great, thanks.

This thread is rarely about statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal (Post 7710261)

The "all lives matter" expression is an intellectual embarrassment. You are hood-winking yourselves.

The embarrassment is that BLM exists because roughly %0.2 shootings were of black people by white police officers. Go ahead...look it up. Never mind the hundreds committed by blacks or the smaller number committed by whites. In fact, statistically, there should be a WLM since those same stats are pretty clear about who's doing most of the shooting and who's taking most of the bullets.

Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country. Let's keep it that way. I know what you're going to say but is that because there's absolutely no reason for the police to be in those communities? BLM is a racist movement and people who support it in principle are fine but people who think it's a call to kill "whitey" can stay the fuck out of my country.

Oh, and who told you I was offended by BLM? I mean, I am because I know something about the leaders and speakers in the movement but what's really a shame is that you don't. More importantly, if you truly believed in equality and justice then you wouldn't narrow it down to equality and justice for some people based on genetic traits.

Drybrain Feb 13, 2017 3:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710340)
Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country.

You are wrong. I don't know even how to dispute your point, though:. We can discuss the severity or prevalence of discrimination, or compare it to other countries, but to say baldly that there is no systemic bias is an incredible claim.

Read this, to start with.

ciudad_del_norte Feb 13, 2017 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710340)
This thread is rarely about statistics.


The embarrassment is that BLM exists because roughly %0.2 shootings were of black people by white police officers. Go ahead...look it up. Never mind the hundreds committed by blacks or the smaller number committed by whites. In fact, statistically, there should be a WLM since those same stats are pretty clear about who's doing most of the shooting and who's taking most of the bullets.

Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country. Let's keep it that way. I know what you're going to say but is that because there's absolutely no reason for the police to be in those communities? BLM is a racist movement and people who support it in principle are fine but people who think it's a call to kill "whitey" can stay the fuck out of my country.

Oh, and who told you I was offended by BLM? I mean, I am because I know something about the leaders and speakers in the movement but what's really a shame is that you don't. More importantly, if you truly believed in equality and justice then you wouldn't narrow it down to equality and justice for some people based on genetic traits.

:uhh: To be clear, systematic racism can be much more nuanced than getting shot. Many of the issues don't manifest themselves in your face as much as they might in the states, but Canada is in no way immune to, or above such things.

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:42 PM

In fact, it can even make it worse, because if there's enough perception that racism is still a problem, there are chances steps will be taken to address it (societal level / long term) while if the majority seems to think everything's fine, things will stay as is.

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 7710387)
You are wrong. I don't know even how to dispute your point, though:. We can discuss the severity or prevalence of discrimination, or compare it to other countries, but to say baldly that there is no systemic bias is an incredible claim.

Read this, to start with.

I recall you shared that a while ago already... poor guy! He did the right thing sharing his story though, and he's pleasant to read.

On the other hand, I can't help but detect traces of arrogance in what he recounts - calling a cop "bro", for example. Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but I'd NEVER dream of doing that. In the cop's head, you're immediately categorized as cocky a.f., and it's really not a good way to start (whether or not you happen to be black).

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:52 PM

Okay, just noticed that while I was replying the thread was somewhat cleaned... Shouldn't a mod just branch this off and start a new thread, if we must keep this one pure for statistics?

It's... interesting that a discussion about how racism exists but flies under the radar in Canada, and that as long as we continue to ignore it rather than face it, the problem is likely to remain, would get quickly and entirely swept under the rug by well-thinking moderators who are uncomfortable with it!!! Quite the Q.E.D. there.

d_jeffrey Feb 13, 2017 4:21 PM

If there's any systematic racism in Canada, it's towards natives. It's litterally systematic. I don't comprehend how society acts as it's no problem at all.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)
No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

:

That depends. Most of the "international" buffet restaurants are "jacks of all trades, masters of none". They almost never offer the true high level cuisine of the countries they claim to cover. Whereas if you go to the best Japanese, best French, best Moroccan, etc. in town, you know you're going to get something really good, unique and special.

The same can be transposed to cultures, cities, nations, etc. If you want just a pastiche of all the world's cultures, that's fine. But that's "EPCOT". Not the real deal.

If they have a choice, nobody goes to a new world city or country to sample an old world culture.

BretttheRiderFan Feb 13, 2017 9:02 PM

Without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. diversity vs. melting pot vs. cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, I'm pretty happy with how we do things in Canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 9:24 PM

Mental exercise.

Imagine for a minute that 100,000 "Army of Jesus" people move from the U.S. to Canada. They move to a handful of areas only, so while they're not the majority anywhere, they're numerous enough to pack some punch. After a couple of years most of them are Canadian citizens. They exercise their rights to act on their "Guns and God" mindset to the fullest limits of Canada's gun laws. Which aren't nearly as tight as most Canadians think BTW. As a result, there are way more visible guns around and more lethal guns in these communities than there used to be ever before.

Anyway, they also lobby for changes to Canada's gun laws to make them even less strict. Because, after all, since they've moved to Canada, not a single Army of Jesus member has been involved in a crime involving a weapon.

How would y'all react to that?

north 42 Feb 13, 2017 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bretttheriderfan (Post 7710751)
without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. Diversity vs. Melting pot vs. Cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, i'm pretty happy with how we do things in canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

+1


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.