Multiculturalism in Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Amok is a culture-bound disorder of the Malay people and its use in the phrase above is offensive.

Some guys will pass by later today.

Another view is that in 21st century Canada "amok" can be said to be a Canadian thing given that any cultural trait existing in humanity can be said to be "of Canada".

As such it is Canadians who should be offended that Malays might lay exclusive claim to something that is also rightfully theirs.

"Amok" and "cabin fever": both are legitimately Canadian.

[Capsicum]

Plenty of cultures and nationalities lay claim to traits that really aren't unique to their culture anyways but widespread among humans. (eg. "Yankee know how" when anyone in any society can be practical and resourceful, or the "British stiff upper lip", when anyone can practice such emotional restraint)

However, people generally try to pick what they consider "good" human traits to claim for their culture, so probably not many people would want to claim running amok as one of them.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by dleung

certain SSPers will still object to all this money pouring into the economy and will want to limit the number of newcomers.

Deep down it's rooted in the mentality that Canada should remain white-majority, just like African countries are black, etc, rather than be based on the ideal of shared values.

What's wrong with Canadians wanting to limit the number of newcomers into the country? I happen to agree with higher immigration rates but there are definite downfalls of it. One of the primary ones is housing. New immigrants overwhelmingly gravitate to our biggest cities which already have huge affordability and accessibility issues in housing. It also puts yet more strain on our overburdened infrastructure. Yes they contribute to the nations economy and hence tax base to offset these expenses but that takes years and does nothing for those who can't find a place to live right now. This is to say nothing of how they can also put more pressure on our social/health/education resources.

Also even if Canada only accepts " the best of the best" that doesn't mean their spouses/children/parents also are. They can warp the supply & demand nature of employment by offering cheap labour subduing wage growth. To say that immigration is always good is over simplistic bordering on irresponsible.

As for this 'deep rooted" Canadian mentality of racism........spare me. Canadians are amongst the most colour blind in the world and as for "shared values", it is often the newcomers who do not share our values of equality and hence isolate themselves and not the other way around.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Plenty of cultures and nationalities lay claim to traits that really aren't unique to their culture anyways but widespread among humans. (eg. "Yankee know how" when anyone in any society can be practical and resourceful, or the "British stiff upper lip", when anyone can practice such emotional restraint)

However, people generally try to pick what they consider "good" human traits to claim for their culture, so probably not many people would want to claim running amok as one of them.

I was being sarcastic - should have used an emoji I guess.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Plenty of cultures and nationalities lay claim to traits that really aren't unique to their culture anyways but widespread among humans. (eg. "Yankee know how" when anyone in any society can be practical and resourceful, or the "British stiff upper lip", when anyone can practice such emotional restraint)

You make a category error when you contrast ethnic stereotypes with individual traits. I've met shy, reserved Brazilians, and there are loads of noisy, boisterous Brits out there.

The epithet "Yankee know-how" does not need to negate resourcefulness in other cultures. Rather, it merely serves to illustrate that the people of the northeastern United States built some amazing things that no one else did at the time, like the Erie Canal, an engineering marvel that served to catapult the country toward its eventual economic prominence.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

You make a category error when you contrast ethnic stereotypes with individual traits. I've met shy, reserved Brazilians, and there are loads of noisy, boisterous Brits out there.

The epithet "Yankee know-how" does not need to negate resourcefulness in other cultures. Rather, it merely serves to illustrate that the people of the northeastern United States built some amazing things that no one else did at the time, like the Erie Canal, an engineering marvel that served to catapult the country toward its eventual economic prominence.

That's a very un-Canadian, non-contemporary way of seeing things, but one that I totally agree with.

Whereas Capsicum's response was the opposite: very Canadian and contemporary.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What's wrong with Canadians wanting to limit the number of newcomers into the country?

Well, some Canadians want to limit the number of newcomers, others don't.

There's still on net, more people with a positive than negative view of immigration but with a slight change in attitude more recently.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-suggests.html

[Spocket]

It's usually tied to the economy. When the economy is in the crapper, support for immigration goes down. Conversely, when there are plenty of jobs, support goes up.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Spocket

It's usually tied to the economy. When the economy is in the crapper, support for immigration goes down. Conversely, when there are plenty of jobs, support goes up.

Canada's economy is actually doing pretty well at the moment.

[Acajack]

Sign of the times:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ents-1.4421395

[Acajack]

Not in Canada but an interesting debate nonetheless.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col...t_can_t_be_won

This is a private Roman Catholic college BTW.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's a very un-Canadian, non-contemporary way of seeing things, but one that I totally agree with.

Whereas Capsicum's response was the opposite: very Canadian and contemporary.

I agree as well. Most human types are available in most human circumstances and cultures. That's we can read very remote works like Gilgamesh or The Iliad and not find everything totally alien.

The question of culture is one of ratios. If you have one group of 5 million people, group A, who are 51% reserved and 49% boisterous, and another equally sized group B, whose percentages are reversed, group B over time will develop a party-hats-and-toasts reputation when and where they share space.

That despite the fact that the difference is so small that any individual group Aer, upon meeting a group Ber in the street, could have no real expectation that he was not encountering a silent librarian.

This is how we can say groups have characteristics while remaining cognizant of the primacy of individual character.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I agree as well. Most human types are available in most human circumstances and cultures. That's we can read very remote works like Gilgamesh or The Iliad and not find everything totally alien.

The question of culture is one of ratios. If you have one group of 5 million people, group A, who are 51% reserved and 49% boisterous, and another equally sized group B, whose percentages are reversed, group B over time will develop a party-hats-and-toasts reputation when and where they share space.

That despite the fact that the difference is so small that any individual group Aer, upon meeting a group Ber in the street, could have no real expectation that he was not encountering a silent librarian.

This is how we can say groups have characteristics while remaining cognizant of the primacy of individual character.

In fairness, we really did have the best of intentions when we made that notion part of our ethos.

Making the attribution of certain traits to specific groups of people verboten was I suppose deemed necessary to rid us of the idea that People X were genetically or culturally unsuitable for cerebral, managerial positions. Or for playing quarterback on a gridiron football team. To name just two examples.

Of course, when such things are taken too far, they enter into the realm of the denial of human nature.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sign of the times:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ents-1.4421395

LOL, there's a good This Hour Has 22 Minutes sketch in there somewhere.

Though it didn't get mentioned on SSP, the white Quebec nationalists seemed to be able to draw a good size crowd in their Quebec City march last week. Not sure any other province would get that many willing to be associated with such a thing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ysis-1.4420370

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, there's a good This Hour Has 22 Minutes sketch in there somewhere.

Though it didn't get mentioned on SSP, the white Quebec nationalists seemed to be able to draw a good size crowd in their Quebec City march last week. Not sure any other province would get that many willing to be associated with such a thing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ysis-1.4420370

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I found it disconcerting, didn't you?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I found it disconcerting, didn't you?

Yes, but right now I don't feel like getting into yet another tit for tat over who's more racist.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I found it disconcerting, didn't you?

Multiculturalism of the Canadian sort is tied to English hegemony and does not transfer cleanly to smaller peoples.

Even Sweden has a very developed ethnocentric far-right.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Multiculturalism of the Canadian sort is tied to English hegemony and does not transfer cleanly to smaller peoples.

Even Sweden has a very developed ethnocentric far-right.

It's probably a good idea to point out we're talking about a "couple hundred" people at this demonstration in Quebec City.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Spocket

It's usually tied to the economy. When the economy is in the crapper, support for immigration goes down. Conversely, when there are plenty of jobs, support goes up.

While I agree with that historically I think that has changed. I think the biggest concern today is immigrants impact on housing and soaring real estate prices and a lack of affordable rentals. Many are of the feeling that we shouldn't be letting in as many people as we do when we can't properly house the people already here. Many also view immigrants as the reason for wages that haven't increased in real terms as employers take advantage of temporary international workers as opposed to raising wages.