Multiculturalism in Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Would the average Canadian woman tourist visiting Paris feel more scared of walking by a Paris banlieue off the beaten track, or feel more scared of walking in the Chicago neighbourhoods off the beaten track?

The chances of either being a pleasant experience are rather low.

One difference is that most people don't have rose-coloured, Édith Piaf-Toulouse Lautrec-Amélie Poulain idealized view of Chicago to be shattered by reality.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Are they though? If I recall correctly, didn't you mention some second and third generation radicalization happens as the younger generation become even more religiously conservative than their parents?
.

When I've mentioned that it was mostly about immigrant-descended kids in Canada being more devout than their parents, though that may be going on in Europe too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So, some ways of life that become harmful traps are the products of alienation from society or post-immigration (in the case of the poorer African American marginalized communities, it's the post-trans-Atlantic slave trade, post-Jim Crow and Great Migration).

There is also no shortage of success stories out there. I guess the real question is where the exception to the rule lies - is it the success stories or the failures?

[Capsicum]

Canada is luckier in that there was less alienation and segregation historically and present for both these groups (Canadian Arabs and North Africans vs. European Arabs and North Africans, and Afro-Canadians vs. African Americans) though in both case these groups are still poorer/less well off than the white Canadian majority.

But for Canada (and Australia) the equivalent of the marginalized group trapped in some dysfunctional situations due to history would be the poorer Aboriginal communities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But for Canada (and Australia) the equivalent of the marginalized group trapped in some dysfunctional situations due to history would be the poorer Aboriginal communities.

...who until fairly recently tended to be a much smaller share of the population and did not generally live in or near the urban areas where most other Canadians do.

[Capsicum]

I guess a difference with the Canadian and European minority examples (eg. Sikhs, Muslims) is that religious minority accommodation is more an issue or discussions of cultural relativism play a greater role.

In the US, African American "integration" (assimilation is rarely used for non-immigrant groups, especially native born and if so, it can be negative, such as in the context of residential schools in Canada) is much more focused on socio-economic mobility and equality and equity in jobs/opportunity/status but isn't as much on cultural accommodation (fewer African Americans are religiously or culturally different on that dimension to other Americans, though you do have issues of cultural tolerance such as the Oakland "Ebonics" controversy of the 90s --was the dialect a distinctive cultural aspect to be respected in school and not to be "corrected"?).

But since in Canada (and to a greater extent in Europe) cultural integration and racial integration are conflated with visible minorities you get that debate more here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I guess a difference with the Canadian and European minority examples (eg. Sikhs, Muslims) is that religious minority accommodation is more an issue or discussions of cultural relativism play a greater role.

In the US, African American "integration" (assimilation is rarely used for non-immigrant groups, especially native born and if so, it can be negative, such as in the context of residential schools in Canada) is much more focused on socio-economic mobility and equality and equity in jobs/opportunity/status but isn't as much on cultural accommodation (fewer African Americans are religiously or culturally different on that dimension to other Americans, though you do have issues of cultural tolerance such as the Oakland "Ebonics" controversy of the 90s --was the dialect a distinctive cultural aspect to be respected in school and not to be "corrected"?).

But since in Canada (and to a greater extent in Europe) cultural integration and racial integration are conflated with visible minorities you get that debate more here.

While there is some emphasis on retaining African-Americans' uniqueness, most of the activism has been traditionally about achieving status as Americans just like all the others.

Immigrant activism (for lack of a better term) in Canada has been a bit different. It's more about finding a balance between the old country's ways and the new life in Canada, and obtaining respect and acceptance (and support?) for that duality.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While there is some emphasis on retaining African-Americans' uniqueness, most of the activism has been traditionally about achieving status as Americans just like all the others.

Immigrant activism (for lack of a better term) in Canada has been a bit different. It's more about finding a balance between the old country's ways and the new life in Canada, and obtaining respect and acceptance for that duality.

But what about Aboriginal activism -- it has elements of both cultural preservation and legal/political/economic integration/equal treatment as other Canadians in terms of things like justice/opportunities for social mobility etc.?

I would say all these examples have elements of both -- but what is prioritized can be different.

The African American situation is much more about legal/socio-economic/political fairness and representation than cultural representation, though the latter still is an issue of contention nowadays.

For groups where economic integration and socio-economic equality has been achieved (eg. religious minorities that are, on average, no longer that poor, like wealthier or middle class Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, many Asian ethnic groups etc.), cultural preservation or cultural representation becomes the priority so that's the other end.

Aboriginal groups have both issues (cultural distinctiveness and economic/legal/political integration) and the two can conflict (eg. give up culture for more opportunity or retain culture but stay in places with less opportunity).

There are many people who even claim that cultural preservation/uniqueness is a luxury for those who no longer worry about survival, material-well being and socio-economic fairness. The idea that it's after you have a full belly and clothes on your back and a roof over your head that you worry about things like symbols and cultural representation (of course if one is religious, the symbols and representation are much more heightened in importance).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, here's a perfect way to illustrate my point:

Under my proposal, if someone who didn't sign the waiver decides to illegally hop on a motorbike and drive around, if they crash before they get caught and harshly ticketed, they'd get healthcare for free (and also, a ticket, and possibly other legal troubles, but no hospital bill).

Conversely, someone who did sign the waiver can drive around without being arrested. That's the difference. By relinquishing the privilege that is the reason why Big Brother forces us to wear helmets (which is that Big Brother's Wallet is who's paying for our head injuries), we gain the right to legally avoid to comply.

That would be the better way to approach this IMO, and a better way to do 'reasonable accommodation'. Maybe put in a fee as well so that not everybody does it. In your proposed system (I had a similar idea), everybody is treated equally, unlike the systems where the state decides whose beliefs are sincere, and whose are not.

This is an admittedly minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but small issues like this are important for setting the standards of what is right and wrong. In this country, the principle that all beliefs are treated equally is something that most people accept as a given - but these exceptions blatantly fly against that, and it's pretty irritating to see it get brushed off like it does, people ignoring a key principle in the misguided name of tolerance

[mintzilla]

whoever thought to make the left shift key on the canadian multilingual standard keyboard so damn small deserves his own special place in hell.

also question mark on #6 drives me insane as well.

ya you can just switch to the US layout but that doesn't make the shift key larger. and trying to be a good citizen i am actually learning french so all those accents are necessary.

basically a rant but fml...

edit: also why don the labels on my keys correspond to what will come on the screen when pressed? am i taking crazy pills or what?

[saffronleaf]

what about the daggers?