Multiculturalism in Canada

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

...When someone says 'multiculturalism is bad in Canada because you get towns where one ethnicity dominates', that is simply wrong on its face. With limited exceptions, all towns in Canada had and have a dominant ethnicity, regardless of multiculturalism. So that cannot be the real argument. I think it's worth making clear that the real argument is that 'multiculturalism is bad in Canada because you get towns where one non-European ethnicity dominates.' To me, that clarification is worth getting out there, so people see clearly the position being advanced.

In the case of somewhere like Richmond it is perfectly accurate to say it is bad because you get a city where there are a lot of millionaire homeowners yet declare very little income. Not only is there cheating going on somewhere, but working Canadians of all backgrounds are being pushed out by those with money derived from who knows where, doing who knows what.

[urbandreamer]

The English and the French have been in North America for over 400 years and still haven't assimilated into Native culture. The English in Montreal show that even when you're from a country just 18 miles from France, have been in New France for over 300 years, your language differences prevent you from becoming assimilated into Québécois culture.

Have the Amish assimilated into the majority Scots-Irish farming communities in Perth County? Both peoples have been in the region since the beginning.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

The English and the French have been in North America for over 400 years and still haven't assimilated into Native culture. The English in Montreal show that even when you're from a country just 18 miles from France, have been in New France for over 300 years, your language differences prevent you from becoming assimilated into Québécois culture.

Have the Amish assimilated into the majority Scots-Irish farming communities in Perth County? Both peoples have been in the region since the beginning.

Yea, but those are all good ethnicities. We're worried about the barbarous ones that'll keep the barbarians hotline ringing off the hook. Imagine if hordes of 200,000 young male Syrians descended upon Quebec City.

[lio45]

I'd love it for us to take in 500,000 young male Syrians, provided they're all headed to Ellesmere Island as colonists, without any further funding...

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Have the Amish assimilated into the majority Scots-Irish farming communities in Perth County? Both peoples have been in the region since the beginning.

We don't want to encourage further non-assimilation.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

The English and the French have been in North America for over 400 years and still haven't assimilated into Native culture. The English in Montreal show that even when you're from a country just 18 miles from France, have been in New France for over 300 years, your language differences prevent you from becoming assimilated into Québécois culture.

Have the Amish assimilated into the majority Scots-Irish farming communities in Perth County? Both peoples have been in the region since the beginning.

Why assimilate to a lesser evolved culture? Meaning that the Euro settlers were much further along as far as coming up to industrialization. They also took control of the land, why assimilate to other cultures when you're taking control? See where that leads, why should they assimilate when they are going to take control!

[Aylmer]

I... I can't tell if you're being serious...

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I... I can't tell if you're being serious...

When dealing with stupidity, just nod and smile, it's not worth the energy to engage with them

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

When dealing with stupidity, just nod and smile, it's not worth the energy to engage with them

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not necessarily speaking for myself, but I think most people's concerns (well, those who have them anyway) are more cultural and behavioural as opposed to ethno-racial.

(I realize this takes a bit of punch out of the "bunch of racists!" argument.)

I don't think most racists are purely or even primarily colorists. They typically ascribe unfavorable behaviors to a race, and often point to culture (although sometimes genetics, as well) as the cause of such unfavorable behavior. E.g., "blacks are criminals" or "Muslims are terrorists" or whatever, and that is often blamed on culture (e.g., "black culture" or "urban culture" and, of course, with Muslims a mix of religion).

I don't think this matters either way. No one is trying to make racist punches. You're being very defensive, and I think it's unwarranted.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The main reason you are seeing a contradiction in my views is because you see me as a racist xenophobe.

If you saw me as a normal person capable of seeing the multiple facets of issues from several angles, you wouldn't have this problem.

Typical "true believer" behaviour, as usual.

Again, being needlessly defensive.

Originally Posted by JM5

Please help me understand why?

It seems natural to me that you would prefer to live in a society better tailored to your own values where others feel generally the same way so that there is no need for a lot of top down regulations that tell you what you should do. Instead, on the odd occasion when faced with a choice that's not to your immediate benefit or liking, you would probably make a minor sacrifice to fit in. You would see this as a duty owed to the people you truly care about, not really for the sake of society as a whole.

- I like being exposed to different cultures, values, beliefs, etc. and choosing from them what I think works.

- While there may be clashes between cultures, I think sunlight is the best disinfectant. I enjoy the discourse. Ideas and values and beliefs competing in a marketplace.

- I like the options it provides. You can still have monocultural communities within multicultural societies, and also multicultural communities within such societies.

- I think it's a big factor in attracting talented people from across the world. It's a major selling point when a place is diverse because you know when you go there, you will kind of just fit in because there are many people from wherever your from or at least many people who just recently came.

- In many countries' constitutions, they provide for the freedom of mobility. I think as humans on Earth, it would be ideal if we could live and work where we please. I acknowledge there can be compelling circumstances to limit such mobility. But instead of the current regime, where entry to a foreign country is entirely regarded a privilege that can be revoked at any moment without advance notice or appeals, I'd prefer a system where states can only prohibit entry for cause. Of course, what is "for cause" leaves a lot of latitude, and I'm fine with allowing for things like probability of material economic harm or societal unrest. But within that, I'd hope we move toward greater customs liberalization over time.

- Even in places where there is "one culture", such cultures are still further divisible into communities of humans. For example, there are socioeconomic classes of humans even in monocultural societies, and these groups exhibit different behaviors and even values. I feel that in some multicultural places (like Toronto), that other factors by which humans separate themselves, like level of educational attainment or income, cut deeper than skin color. Culture is a nebulous term. The point is, you'll still need regulations, and there are monocultural societies with high levels of regulations. If you also study the burgeoning of regulations in places like the US, they developed before any mass immigration of non-European groups, in part with the growth of the administrative state. It's not really multiculturalism, but things like technological progress and changes in the values of the natives.

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

You can hold onto your language and culture, but you have to assimilate and speak the language.

Thank you, massa.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'd love it for us to take in 500,000 young male Syrians, provided they're all headed to Ellesmere Island as colonists, without any further funding...

This is what Stalin did to the Jews...

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

This is what Stalin did to the Jews...

Only a very small number of them actually made the trip out to Birobidzhan.

Arguably, you can say the Europeans did this after the Holocaust. Sent the bulk of the survivors off to Israel. Granted, most didn't want to remain in Europe anyway.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think this matters either way. No one is trying to make racist punches. You're being very defensive, and I think it's unwarranted.



Again, being needlessly defensive.
a.

I am not being defensive at all. There are perhaps a half-dozen posters on here who have strongly insinuated in this thread and others that I am racist. And they've also done the same to other posters, who like me, have never written anything that could be considered racist by anyone with over Grade 8 reading comprehension.

Anyway, I don't really give a shit. I am mostly here for the jousting, which I enjoy.

Even truly liberal Muslims like Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji and Fatima Houda would agree with me BTW.

BTW2, you know that motion on islamophobia? It was tabled in December and so it was not a reaction to the tragic events of Quebec City.

Was Canada going through an epidemic of islamophobia in December? Compared to, say, anti-semitism? racism against aboriginals? francophobia outside Quebec? anglophobia in Quebec?

I actually respect the NDP the most in this thing for supporting both the Liberal and Tory motions, and therefore taking a stand against all forms of intolerance.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

- In many countries' constitutions, they provide for the freedom of mobility. I think as humans on Earth, it would be ideal if we could live and work where we please. I acknowledge there can be compelling circumstances to limit such mobility. But instead of the current regime, where entry to a foreign country is entirely regarded a privilege that can be revoked at any moment without advance notice or appeals, I'd prefer a system where states can only prohibit entry for cause. Of course, what is "for cause" leaves a lot of latitude, and I'm fine with allowing for things like probability of material economic harm or societal unrest. But within that, I'd hope we move toward greater customs liberalization over time.

So I'm not sure if you're saying "Open Borders" or not. My biggest problem when people say "open borders" is that first world countries can't take in hundreds of millions of people at once, which is what would happen with 'open borders' as why would you live in a dirt poor country when you could live in Canada? The difference between freedom of mobility in a country and globally a country is very different whereas a nation is more or less the same. If you live in a shitty trailer park in Kentucky you wouldn't move to Beverly Hills because it would cost a lot to move there and then also buy a place there and find a job. When people are in poor countries, a trailer park lifestyle in Kentucky is the dream.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

When someone says 'multiculturalism is bad in Canada because you get towns where one ethnicity dominates', that is simply wrong on its face. With limited exceptions, all towns in Canada had and have a dominant ethnicity, regardless of multiculturalism. So that cannot be the real argument. I think it's worth making clear that the real argument is that 'multiculturalism is bad in Canada because you get towns where one non-European ethnicity dominates.' To me, that clarification is worth getting out there, so people see clearly the position being advanced.

Hold on there pal. I don't think you get the difference between European, White, race and culture. If you have a neighbourhood with white and black people that's not multicultural, as both have been in Americanada for probably over 200 years or so. If you have a neighbourhood that is full of Eastern Europeans and Nigerians you can call that multicultural, as both are probably immigrants with quite different cultures. Cincinnati is 48% White and 45% Black, yet no one calls that "multicultural Ohio". There is quite a difference between Anglo Saxons / Francophones and Black People whose ancestors where slaves and Eastern Europeans and Africans.

You can't really say that so much with Asians though as a plurality of them (in Vancouver at least) are 2nd or 1st generation immigrants. I've only met one Asian person who truly had no idea about anything Asia as they've been in Canada for many generations.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

- I like being exposed to different cultures, values, beliefs, etc. and choosing from them what I think works.

- While there may be clashes between cultures, I think sunlight is the best disinfectant. I enjoy the discourse. Ideas and values and beliefs competing in a marketplace.

- I like the options it provides. You can still have monocultural communities within multicultural societies, and also multicultural communities within such societies.

- I think it's a big factor in attracting talented people from across the world. It's a major selling point when a place is diverse because you know when you go there, you will kind of just fit in because there are many people from wherever your from or at least many people who just recently came.

- In many countries' constitutions, they provide for the freedom of mobility. I think as humans on Earth, it would be ideal if we could live and work where we please. I acknowledge there can be compelling circumstances to limit such mobility. But instead of the current regime, where entry to a foreign country is entirely regarded a privilege that can be revoked at any moment without advance notice or appeals, I'd prefer a system where states can only prohibit entry for cause. Of course, what is "for cause" leaves a lot of latitude, and I'm fine with allowing for things like probability of material economic harm or societal unrest. But within that, I'd hope we move toward greater customs liberalization over time.

- Even in places where there is "one culture", such cultures are still further divisible into communities of humans. For example, there are socioeconomic classes of humans even in monocultural societies, and these groups exhibit different behaviors and even values. I feel that in some multicultural places (like Toronto), that other factors by which humans separate themselves, like level of educational attainment or income, cut deeper than skin color. Culture is a nebulous term. The point is, you'll still need regulations, and there are monocultural societies with high levels of regulations. If you also study the burgeoning of regulations in places like the US, they developed before any mass immigration of non-European groups, in part with the growth of the administrative state. It's not really multiculturalism, but things like technological progress and changes in the values of the natives.

Thanks for that, your argument is compelling. You're entirely right about "monocultural" societies as there is no such thing, rather it's a spectrum. I guess, having been born in a society that thinks of itself as monocultural, I sometimes miss the level of automatic trust, respect and honesty/openness that comes along with that. Also the feeling of connectedness/deep rootedness. It's hard to explain if you've never experienced it. There are also clear drawbacks that go along with these imo positive aspects.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM5

Thanks for that, your argument is compelling. You're entirely right about "monocultural" societies as there is no such thing, rather it's a spectrum. I guess, having been born in a society that thinks of itself as monocultural, I sometimes miss the level of automatic trust, respect and honesty/openness that comes along with that. Also the feeling of connectedness/deep rootedness. It's hard to explain if you've never experienced it. There are also clear drawbacks that go along with these imo positive aspects.

I can understand why you'd want that. However, you may be longing for a romanticized version of homogeneity; although some homogeneous societies do have high levels of trust (like, say, Japan), others, like Greece, don't.

There are so many factors (income, inequality, age, population, localisation, etc.) which determine social trust that it's really hard to draw any meaningful conclusions of causality. But even the correlations vary from country to country;

- In Germany, an experiment found that, controlling for other factors, a letter dropped in an ethnically diverse neighbourhood would be returned less often than in an ethnically homogeneous one.

- But in Canada, a study of the top 50 Canadian cities found that, controlling for other factors, there was a higher level of trust in more diverse cities than less diverse ones. From that study:

Two of the findings of this study are particularly noteworthy and warrant further attention in future research. One is the relationship between ethnic diversity and trust. The positive relationship found here runs contrary to many other existing studies, particularly those conducted in the United States. We need further studies before we can argue that this is a uniquely and genuinely Canadian phenomenon [...]

So it really is a very complicated and variable question. A homogeneous Canada may actually have lower levels of trust, whereas a homogeneous USA might have increased trust. So if we're looking for a more cohesive society in Canada, perhaps we should look less towards an Anne of Green Gables Canada, and more towards a Little Mosque on the Prairie Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

So it really is a very complicated and variable question. A homogeneous Canada may actually have lower levels of trust, whereas a homogeneous USA might have increased trust. So if we're looking for a more cohesive society in Canada, perhaps we should less towards an Anne of Green Gables Canada, and more towards a Little Mosque on the Prairie Canada.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we can't have both Anne and Little Mosque, and why the acceptance of one entails the exclusion of the other.

[Acajack]

I am also not sure about the diversity and trust correlation. Seems like the data is probably inconclusive.

I don't think people were asked if they trust others more in a diverse milieu vs a non-diverse one.

Other factors may be at play there.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Two of the findings of this study are particularly noteworthy and warrant further attention in future research. One is the relationship between ethnic diversity and trust. The positive relationship found here runs contrary to many other existing studies, particularly those conducted in the United States. We need further studies before we can argue that this is a uniquely and genuinely Canadian phenomenon [...]

Just guessing but the above observation could be caused by pitting recently formed, highly mixed Canadian neighborhoods where people are unfamiliar with each other, are still a bit self conscious and treat each other with respect because of this, versus American neighborhoods where a few well defined and long standing ethnic groups live together in a polarised environment. I worry that the Canadian neighborhoods will turn into the American ones with time.

I agree, the way I have presented monocultural society is completely idealised. In practice, no monocultural society is like that as "others" always exist and are sometimes numerous. The reality is though that the majority tend to believe in the idea that the "issue" of the "others" is temporary and will be "worked out", so the idealised society is just around the corner. I don't need to mention that this can lead to disastrous outcomes. Rather, I want to highlight the more common cases where people believe that the "others" will eventually integrate. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and members of the majority have various levels of education and awareness so their views on the matter differ greatly as well. The most important aspect of all this in my mind is NOT that the ideal will ever be achieved, as this is doubtful. Instead, that the ideal should be believed in and strived for by the individual as well as the state. THAT is powerful.

I think that all nations need a common narrative such as above. It's much harder for post ethnic states such as the US and Canada, but imo the US is doing a better job than we are. We will need to define one at some point, and people worry that if they don't do it, then "others" will do it for them and they won't like the outcome.