"Canadian" as an Ethnicity

[Kibb]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But it could be though that there are enough (almost all of them assimilated to English of course) of them, coupled with the Scottish/Irish who also answered "Canadian", to give "Canadian" a plurality there.

The French Canadian origin population in the Windsor area is not even close to 50% either (it may not even be 20%), but it does seem to be a factor at play there. Unless it's people wanting to distinguish themselves from the Big Bad Neighbour in Detroit. Or maybe a mix of both.

Though I was born in Ottawa, my family is all of old loyalist stock from Hastings and Lennox and Addington. I just did a quick survey of some family.

I did just answer Canadian on the census. So did my Father. Brother listed English Canadian and sister listed Scottish. My cousins were 50-50 on listing either Canadian or one of English, Scottish, Irish or German.

Old loyalist families are very muddled, so it seems we're either going "I can't possibly list just this one, i could name 10 ethnicities" and go Canadian or "well my last name is Campbell(etc) so" just pick that one.

example I could go "English-Scottish-Irish-Welsh-German-Swiss-French-American" or just write Canadian or say my last name is Smith and write English (even knowing im more scottish irish and german then english)

[kool maudit]

this thread essentially raises the question of how new peoples are formed, which is interesting. if a 400-year-old country contains a bunch of people who are otherwise of mixed stock but whose dominant identity, practices, culture are those of that 400-year-old country, then i can see acajack and others' argument: a new people has been formed. on the other hand, they remain non-indigenous. it seems like there is a degree of arbitrariness here, which is normal because human identity is not a fixed thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

We had to study this in school.

From what I can recall, our culture is attributed to:

- Settlement by English and Irish in close proximity, which despite our violent history, led to the two merging; they're credited with the foundation of our culture (music, folklore, art, and social interactions), and the blend with creating many curious local traits, such as passionately monarchist Irish.
- Extreme isolation with the exception of temporary interaction with foreigners who shared the same occupations (fishing, whaling, etc.) or supply merchants from St. John's; this is credited with preserving linguistic traits, and a society that is quite worldly without being significantly influenced by that world (i.e. someone in Joe Batt's Arm in 1900 met French, Basque, Spanish, etc. people all the time, and knew a great deal about their homelands, but was far from cultured or worldly in the common sense).
- Local rule. For most of Newfoundland's pre-settlement history, the first captain to arrive in any given harbour became its official ruler for that season, and all vessels arriving later were subject to his command. Later, with colonial and national governments, St. John's influence on other communities remained weak. This is credited with our libertarian streak and the willingness to disobey laws with which one simply does not agree.
- Climate. A foggy, indoor culture required people to socialize more effectively and emphasized the importance of food, drink, and music in social settings. There were a whole bunch of other points for this one, it was one of the bigger ones, but I can't remember them.
- Outside conflict. Constant conflicts between the French/English as well as the Canadians/Americans/British, most of which resulted in battles in Newfoundland, is credited with the creation of a Newfoundland identity separate from its constituent parts. Exasperation with the conflicts among both local English and Irish led, for the first time, considering themselves one people not involved in the skirmishes of others.

There were a bunch of others but those were the ones that I remember.


Really, it could have happened anywhere with the same players - it just helped that we were an island. I think it's just sharing the passage of time, moreso than the land itself, that creates a culture.

I see your point, but do you really think Newfoundlanders would be essentially the same had this taken place in the South Pacific, or Eastern Africa? Who the players are is often directly related to where you are geographically.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

this thread essentially raises the question of how new peoples are formed, which is interesting. if a 400-year-old country contains a bunch of people who are otherwise of mixed stock but whose dominant identity, practices, culture are those of that 400-year-old country, then i can see acajack and others' argument: a new people has been formed. on the other hand, they remain non-indigenous. it seems like there is a degree of arbitrariness here, which is normal because human identity is not a fixed thing.

But at what point do they become indigenous, and why?

Note that I don't really consider old stock francophone Canadians as indigenous as aboriginal groups. But they are quasi-indigenous in my view.

When I personally transitioned from the mainstream Anglo North American culture to the French Canadian-Québécois culture 20 some years ago, it's one of the things I noticed: the ''no where else but here'' nature of much of the culture. Not that people necessarily played it up in that way, but it just jumped out at me (being a person who is observant of such things).

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But at what point do they become indigenous, and why?

Note that I don't really consider old stock francophone Canadians as indigenous as aboriginal groups. But they are quasi-indigenous in my view.

When I personally transitioned from the mainstream Anglo North American culture to the French Canadian-Québécois culture 20 some years ago, it's one of the things I noticed: the ''no where else but here'' nature of much of the culture. Not that people necessarily played it up in that way, but it just jumped out at me (being a person who is observant of such things).

i don't really know, to be honest. your point about the european migrations essentially creating a new people is well taken, but the fact that said migrations are well within the historical record, contemporary to voltaire and the like, makes it difficult for me to accept the idea that french canadians are indigenous to quebec. it is not as if they are a sort of mestizo race, although there was obviously some interbreeding with natives and others over the past 400 years. the blank spot created by that narrative is large and france-shaped.

as others have pointed out, the history of migration is longer than we know, and is complicated. in one sense, nearly all peoples can be said to be a mix of more ancient and politically defunct races assembled under somewhat more modern labels. on the other hand, people have historically associated and identified based on cultural conceptions of ethnic identity and the like, and even if that is unpopular at the moment it seems a fairly sturdy and persistent part of the human make-up.

the new world nations are special and peculiar in how they claimed vast lands and erected proposition-based nations upon them (i.e., you sign this/believe this/agree to this and you're american, whatever your history). as to whether they should be a model for the entire world, well, i am not that kind of programmatic thinker. i don't think the world particularly needs to be remade in any image, nor do i think this is a good day for overturning ancient beliefs and building a brave new planet. some people are temperamentally skeptical of those things and i am one of them, even if it's been the zeitgeist since world war one.

america is america and japan is japan. one can become american but one cannot really become japanese. other places fall between these extremes. i don't find this evil, i find it interesting. it does not need to be deconstructed for my convenience, i don't think.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But at what point do they become indigenous, and why?

Note that I don't really consider old stock francophone Canadians as indigenous as aboriginal groups. But they are quasi-indigenous in my view.

When I personally transitioned from the mainstream Anglo North American culture to the French Canadian-Québécois culture 20 some years ago, it's one of the things I noticed: the ''no where else but here'' nature of much of the culture. Not that people necessarily played it up in that way, but it just jumped out at me (being a person who is observant of such things).

The Afrikaners of South Africa have a similar perspective. Not often accepted by other Africans, but it makes perfect sense to them. There are similarities between Quebeckers and Afrikaners in this sense, including the time of origin (even down to some of the same original stock in terms of French Huguenots).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The Afrikaners of South Africa have a similar perspective. Not often accepted by other Africans, but it makes perfect sense to them. There are similarities between Quebeckers and Afrikaners in this sense, including the time of origin (even down to some of the same original stock in terms of French Huguenots).

I wonder if the ''no where else but here'' is not a bit of defence mechanism as well. There has been a tendency in English Canada to label French Canadians as an ethnic group or immigrant group like all the others in an English speaking country. This is anathema to francophones.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if the ''no where else but here'' is not a bit of defence mechanism as well. There has been a tendency in English Canada to label French Canadians as an ethnic group or immigrant group like all the others in an English speaking country. This is anathema to francophones.

Could be - Canada outside Quebec struggles to reconcile contemporary multicultural reality (and whatever the heck it is we're doing with our aboriginal peoples) with the idea of "two founding nations", and the Anglo founding nation lacks Quebec's ability to turn inward (or at least its liberal guilt makes it unwilling to do so).

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if the ''no where else but here'' is not a bit of defence mechanism as well. There has been a tendency in English Canada to label French Canadians as an ethnic group or immigrant group like all the others in an English speaking country. This is anathema to francophones.

the same english canadians who say these things will also make the rhetorical concession of calling english canadians "immigrants", but since they live in an environment of english words, common law, parliamentary democracy, casual post-anglicanism and all of the other england-derived niceties, it is not as if they are exactly in solidarity with the algonquin or whatever.

there is a bit of a fish-can't-describe-water thing going on with anglophone north americans and the centrality of english. never having been in a position where our folkways have ever appeared seriously threatened (even markham or richmond are ultimately just jewels in our crown of tolerance) and unable to seriously imagine a future in which our assumptions about how the world should work have vanished, we tend to find the spectacle of people who can imagine such things (and who react to them) kind of frightening and strident.

culture is least visible when it is most powerful. english canadians are not who they sometimes claim they are, i.e., a people who will effortlessly learn mandarin or hindi when some new global order upsets the apple cart and simply go on as a particularly expansive and tolerant part of the chinese world. we are not some sort of brave new species of global opportunists, and that's good because that is an ignoble thing to be. we are a nation with a culture like any other.

it's actually funny to imagine millions of well-meaning, well-heeled canadians diligently boning up on mandarin in order to "take part in the economy of the future," because this goes right back to the question of ethnicity: most of us are not chinese. we could sign the paperwork, learn the language, study confucius, but does anybody really think larry cameron from hamilton or whatever would ever be accepted as "chinese" in beijing, at the very seat of the ancient middle kingdom, where the enigmatic connection between the han people and their great civilization is at its most electrifying and powerful?

we might find it au courant to forget ethnicity, but it won't soon forget us.

[SignalHillHiker]

I find it easier to think of it in terms of where we belong, as opposed to what belongs to us.

I belong to Newfoundland. All of its positive and negative traits are part of who I am, and all of its grand and unnoticed features are things that I crave to feel... fulfilled.

That doesn't mean it belongs to me. Anyone is free to immigrate here and build their own relationship with the land. I'm confident, if they love it, they'll assimilate enough to keep things running smoothly.

[isaidso]

Results of the 2006 Census. This is what Canadians put down as their ethnicity:

[isaidso]

It's interesting that in 'Old Canada' people wrote down 'Canadian'. In newer parts of the country they were still more connected to the notion that they were of some other place specifically. As the decades pass, I suspect the map will become almost entirely 'red'. Also interesting is that their are only 2 blocks jurisdictions that put down 'French' and neither is in Quebec.

[Architype]

An important factor in determining ethnicity is that of common ancestry. We as a country are so diverse that we hold multiculturalism to be an important inclusive factor in being Canadian, so how can we have any one common ethnicity? How is a Canadian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent different from an American of Scots-Irish-English-German descent, or an Australian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent? If they are the same how would we define any Canadian distinction?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Architype

An important factor in determining ethnicity is that of common ancestry. We as a country are so diverse that we hold multiculturalism to be an important inclusive factor in being Canadian, so how can we have any one common ethnicity? How is a Canadian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent different from an American of Scots-Irish-English-German descent, or an Australian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent? If they are the same how would be define any Canadian distinction?

Because we're talking about a process that will evolve over the next 200-500 years. As we reproduce, we will become more and more homogenous over time. The only thing that will keep that in check is continuous large immigrant flows from nations that have little ethnic diversity themselves.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's interesting that in 'Old Canada' people wrote down 'Canadian'. In newer parts of the country they were still more connected to the notion that they were of some other place specifically. As the decades pass, I suspect the map will become almost entirely 'red'. Also interesting is that their are only 2 blocks jurisdictions that put down 'French' and neither is in Quebec.

What stands out to me is York Region identifies as Italian and Peel region identifies as East Indian. I wonder if 200 years from now they will claim nationhood with self-made narratives about a sense of self and connection to the land lol. More reasons why ethnic nationalist narratives in the new world are BS, just self-interest masquerading as cultural entitlement.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Architype

An important factor in determining ethnicity is that of common ancestry. We as a country are so diverse that we hold multiculturalism to be an important inclusive factor in being Canadian, so how can we have any one common ethnicity? How is a Canadian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent different from an American of Scots-Irish-English-German descent, or an Australian of Scots-Irish-English-German descent? If they are the same how would be define any Canadian distinction?

Canadian is not an ethnicity, its a nationality insofar as nationality is defined as citizenship. Ethnic groups are just mongrelized bastardized mixes of people who have forgotten over the centuries how mixed they are because they've sort of settled into a particular cultural ethos over time. Naturally, that cultural ethos too will change, but the sheep will keep bleeting that they indeed are a unique "semi-indigenous" culture... *facepalm*

[Architype]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Because we're talking about a process that will evolve over the next 200-500 years. As we reproduce, we will become more and more homogenous over time. The only thing that will keep that in check is continuous large immigrant flows from nations that have little ethnic diversity themselves.

I thought this thread was about the present, but anyway, such a change would still be a long way into the future. You are really talking about racial homogenization, which happens slowly if at all. Immigration will likely continue in a similar way to what it has been up to now.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Canadian is not an ethnicity, its a nationality insofar as nationality is defined as citizenship. Ethnic groups are just mongrelized bastardized mixes of people who have forgotten over the centuries how mixed they are because they've sort of settled into a particular cultural ethos over time. Naturally, that cultural ethos too will change, but the sheep will keep bleeting that they indeed are a unique "semi-indigenous" culture... *facepalm*

I agree, being "Canadian" is a matter of nationality. Ethnic groups are a product of geographic and cultural isolation. Because we are less isolated than ever, we are bound to become less "ethnic" rather than more "ethnic", making the chances of a well defined Canadian ethnicity less likely, in other words - less "like ourselves" (less distinct) and more like everyone else (more ethnically mixed).

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If that's the case then none of the mainstream cultures that dominate the territories of countries in the new world have legitimacy.

They're legitimate in the sense that they've legally decided to formally practice certain cultural traits such as language within legally defined borders at this given point in time. That being said, the relationship between land, people and language/culture in the new world is not sacrosanct. Take for example Texas (Indian to Aztec to Spanish to Anglo-American to Tejano), Pennsylvania (Indian to German to multiethnic), Alaska, Louisiana, California, Haiti (Indian to Spanish to French Creole to Black), Belize (Mayan to Spanish to Pirate lol to English), etc. The historical record for these old world cultures transplanted to the new world are too brief and more importantly the proven concrete evidence of pre-existing "nations" within their territories is what makes their claims to indigeny (i think i just made up that word lol) dubious. Realistically, all ethnic regions in the world are made up and exist on shaky ground, its just easier to prove that fact in the Americas.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

That's what I find weird about the Calgary census division... Calgary historically has had a ton of people of Scottish heritage. The city's name is derived from Gaelic, several of our past mayors and important figures were Scots, there's also a lot of people with Scottish blood that have moved from places like Nova Scotia. I have a sneaking suspicion that, like in Newfoundland, there are a lot of Calgarians who reported themselves as English when they are really Scots.

Maybe 55%?