Multiculturalism in Canada

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Acajack

At least you are now laying bare your prejudices for everyone to see.

It's noteworthy how, just as the British origin and French origin groups in Canada seem to be slowly getting over the historical bullshit that poisoned their relationship for so long, we have people like you and dleung who seem intent on stirring up shit by finger-pointing the "good guys" (worthy of praise and adulation) and the "bad guys" (worthy of scorn and concept).

Maybe you and your ilk think it's a way of endearing yourself to your chosen "good guys" who, it's true, are more numerous and powerful.

As I've said before - good luck with that.

lol if you understood what you wrote below, you wouldn't be whining about a "double standard" with calling places too-white vs too-whatever. And after that observation was debunked by others you insist you were referring to a SSP-only phenomenon... how small of a person are you??

Originally Posted by Acajack

Cynics will tell you that Straight Pride Week is pretty much every week, White History Month is basically every month, International Men's Day is mostly every day. There is a shred of truth to that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

Yes, lowering the barriers to mainstream will help people with different backgrounds integrate better and prevent parallel societies from forming but I just don't believe it's that simple.

I believe as our multicultural society has integrated more and more diverse individuals, they have stretched the mainstream more and more. I believe that currently the mainstream is so broad that it's meaningless and causes people to say that "Canada lacks it's own culture". I fear that at some point the mainstream will be so broad that it will fragment and people will flee to a number of separate cultural "poles" - in fact maybe this is what we are getting at by having this conversation: the two of us are on different poles.

I would say that there will almost certainly be a "mainstream" but that it won't be very "Canadian".

The mainstream will be be very American, fairly "Anglospheric" and most certainly "globalist".

I mean, it already is to a very large degree.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by JM5

I do believe that this phenomenon is scary to many though. It's never easy to see the place you've called home change it's character and culture so much that you feel it doesn't belong to you or welcome you anymore. My parents went through this and it has hurt them.

I'm not as concerned about it and I think if it were to happen to me, I could chalk it up to "the only constant in life is change", but what scares me a bit as well is the idea that not everyone shares this vision of a multicultural country. What if large scale demographic changes eventually lead to further regionalism or even calls for separation? I do think the possibility of this is rather remote though.

None the less, people in general don't like change. A bit of change can be seen as positive, especially if it benefits more people than it hurts. I think, however that our society is getting closer to the point where the pace of change is becoming a burden. People here and there are starting to feel threatened. They don't think their future will be better because of the changes.

I think we need some broad ground rules. Let's not call them "Canadian Values", that sounds too old fashioned.

I agree that some people will be uncomfortable with the pace of change.

I think it's helpful to compare the social changes that places like Canada, Australia and the U.S. are undergoing due to mass immigration with the economic changes that these places are undergoing due to increasing economic globalization and free trade.

In both instances, there is going to be push-and-pull. We've seen most countries go through some oscillation in terms of its openness to economic globalization and free trade. However, if we zoom out, I think we'll see that the general trajectory has been toward greater economic globalization and free trade. There are real grievances many have. And similar to how the elderly may be particularly uncomfortable with the social changes wrought by mass immigration, it is elderly workers whose jobs have left due to technological progress and/or economic globalization and free trade who are most distressed by that change.

I think, as a general matter, I would like to see Canada gradually be more welcoming of immigrants. That doesn't mean I want complete open borders tomorrow. In the same way, I would like to see Canada engage in more free trade and participate more fully in the global economy, but that doesn't mean that I want to abolish all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade overnight. But it seems to me a goal or ideal worth working towards.

In my responses here, I've mostly been countering specific arguments rather than positing an overarching immigration policy. I think these kinds of discussions that get to the root of exactly why some are expressing skepticism toward multiculturalism are needed so that we can all see clearly these roots and judge for ourselves whether they have merit.

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.

[Blader]

........

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I agree that some people will be uncomfortable with the pace of change.

I think it's helpful to compare the social changes that places like Canada, Australia and the U.S. are undergoing due to mass immigration with the economic changes that these places are undergoing due to increasing economic globalization and free trade.

In both instances, there is going to be push-and-pull. We've seen most countries go through some oscillation in terms of its openness to economic globalization and free trade. However, if we zoom out, I think we'll see that the general trajectory has been toward greater economic globalization and free trade. There are real grievances many have. And similar to how the elderly may be particularly uncomfortable with the social changes wrought by mass immigration, it is elderly workers whose jobs have left due to technological progress and/or economic globalization and free trade who are most distressed by that change.

I think, as a general matter, I would like to see Canada gradually be more welcoming of immigrants. That doesn't mean I want complete open borders tomorrow. In the same way, I would like to see Canada engage in more free trade and participate more fully in the global economy, but that doesn't mean that I want to abolish all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade overnight. But it seems to me a goal or ideal worth working towards.

In my responses here, I've mostly been countering specific arguments rather than positing an overarching immigration policy. I think these kinds of discussions that get to the root of exactly why some are expressing skepticism toward multiculturalism are needed so that we can all see clearly these roots and judge for ourselves whether they have merit.

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.

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.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

lol if you understood what you wrote below, you wouldn't be whining about a "double standard" with calling places too-white vs too-whatever. And after that observation was debunked by others you insist you were referring to a SSP-only phenomenon... how small of a person are you??

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.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I have fun making racist heads explode by mentioning indigenous Eastern European Muslims.. the ones that form a majority in Albania and Kosovo and a significant minority in Bosnia and Bulgaria. These people are white, ethnically & culturally European, speak European languages, and have been around for centuries. The Slavic Muslims in Bosnia are more or less the same people as Orthodox Christian Serbs (**though don't tell them that--politics are complicated!) The very idea of their existence contrasts so heavily with the narrative of Muslims as fundamentally opposite to "Whiteness" that mentioning them gives many racists an existential crisis.

I am a Bosnian 'muslim'. When you call people who don't like Muslims racists, I'd like some citations please. How can you be racist towards a religion? When people say Islam is against "Whiteness" (I assume you mean western values), yeah, they're not wrong. Islam isn't very friendly towards things like individual freedom. I rarely if ever hear people shit on Sikhism or Buddhism, as they are far more peaceful than Islam and Christianity.
However, Islam in Bosnia is very different compared towards Islam in Saudi Arabia, just like how Christianity is different in Utah and in Quebec.
Remember, Islam and Nazism aren't that different, one has a God and one doesn't.
(I am not saying Christianity is perfect, just currently it's much more chill and it's nature is far different than Islam. The Bible has been rewritten so many times that it barely means anything, that's why it's so cheerypickable, whereas the Koran is the same as it was in the 600's. You don't even have to follow the Bible to be Christian, just the word of Jesus is pretty much it.)

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Remember, Islam and Nazism aren't that different.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Godwin's rule has finally manifested itself.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Remember, Islam and Nazism aren't that different, one has a God and one doesn't.

big if true

[lio45]

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.)

This seems crystal clear. If you asked people, it's guaranteed a majority would tell you they'd trade a Martin Couture-Rouleau for a non-Muslim immigrant of any ethnicity in a heartbeat.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I think, as a general matter, I would like to see Canada gradually be more welcoming of immigrants. That doesn't mean I want complete open borders tomorrow. In the same way, I would like to see Canada engage in more free trade and participate more fully in the global economy, but that doesn't mean that I want to abolish all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade overnight. But it seems to me a goal or ideal worth working towards.

Let me share my stance on globalization and multiculturalism. I think globalization is inevitable. I see it as an evolutionary step BUT I also see it as the cultural apocalypse. By the time the process is over, we will have a global culture but I don't think it will be as open and inclusive as many think.

In my experience/opinion, nation states where the population has strong cultural values need fewer laws, and the laws are basically intended to define a consistent and therefore fair set of penalties for infractions. Most small issues take care of themselves because the community essentially polices itself and there is a high cost to breaking the societal norms. Many Canadians would feel these societies are smothering.

I see Canada as one of the most open societies in the world with personal liberties pretty much unequalled around the world. But at the same time, I personally often feel smothered by the massive bureaucracy and regulations needed to prop the system up. Getting rid of cultural values came at the cost of lots more written rules.

My feeling is (and I think many others share this view) that in societies where strong social norms exist, people choose not to break the norms every day basically for the sake of their family and loved ones. Others choose to break them and live with the social consequences, but no-one ever feels like they broke any law... because they haven't.

In comparison, a place that has a lot of regulations like Canada can feel very top down and authoritarian. You cut your grass because it's the by-law, not because if you don't your friends and family will think you're weird. Then you gripe about why it's the city's business if you choose to cut your grass or not.

So to get back on point after my massive digression, the brave new multicultural world will imo be overregulated and feel repressive/authoritarian (because it's not a choice if it's written down on paper - then it's become a rule). As well, it will have a common language and a very basic and broad set of values based on one pre-existing culture or another - and everybody wishes that it's their culture that will prevail. I think the conflicts we're seeing around the world are because of this.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

Let me share my stance on globalization and multiculturalism. I think globalization is inevitable. I see it as an evolutionary step BUT I also see it as the cultural apocalypse. By the time the process is over, we will have a global culture but I don't think it will be as open and inclusive as many think.

In my experience/opinion, nation states where the population has strong cultural values need fewer laws, and the laws are basically intended to define a consistent and therefore fair set of penalties for infractions. Most small issues take care of themselves because the community essentially polices itself and there is a high cost to breaking the societal norms. Many Canadians would feel these societies are smothering.

I see Canada as one of the most open societies in the world with personal liberties pretty much unequalled around the world. But at the same time, I personally often feel smothered by the massive bureaucracy and regulations needed to prop the system up. Getting rid of cultural values came at the cost of lots more written rules.

My feeling is (and I think many others share this view) that in societies where strong social norms exist, people choose not to break the norms every day basically for the sake of their family and loved ones. Others choose to break them and live with the social consequences, but no-one ever feels like they broke any law... because they haven't.

In comparison, a place that has a lot of regulations like Canada can feel very top down and authoritarian. You cut your grass because it's the by-law, not because if you don't your friends and family will think you're weird. Then you gripe about why it's the city's business if you choose to cut your grass or not.

So to get back on point after my massive digression, the brave new multicultural world will imo be overregulated and feel repressive/authoritarian (because it's not a choice if it's written down on paper - then it's become a rule). As well, it will have a common language and a very basic and broad set of values based on one pre-existing culture or another - and everybody wishes that it's their culture that will prevail. I think the conflicts we're seeing around the world are because of this.

I have to admit that I do have a fear that groups that resist this globalist identity (or even don't embrace it enough) will eventually get viewed and treated like aboriginal groups were treated during the era of European colonization of the new world. That they'll be stigmatized and bullied, and maybe even be viewed as expendable and even "purge-able".

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to admit that I do have a fear that groups that resist this globalist identity (or even don't embrace it enough) will eventually get viewed and treated like aboriginal groups were treated during the era of European colonization of the new world. That they'll be stigmatized and bullied, and maybe even be viewed as expendable and even "purge-able".

Yes, sometimes I dream of a world where independent cultures coexist in peace and nations cooperate toward global goals without the strong push for multicultural coexistance everywhere and the watering down that goes along with it. But that's just wishful thinking I guess, people always think the grass is greener and want to jump the fence instead of trying to change their own society to better suit them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to admit that I do have a fear that groups that resist this globalist identity (or even don't embrace it enough) will eventually get viewed and treated like aboriginal groups were treated during the era of European colonization of the new world. That they'll be stigmatized and bullied, and maybe even be viewed as expendable and even "purge-able".

To me the biggest problem so far is that corporations and plutocrats seem to be in the driver's seat when it comes to this process. And I think it's gotten worse as sovereignty has eroded and it's become easier to play countries off of each other. There are people who aren't allowed to live or work in the US who can be extradited there and thrown in jail for life for actions like copyright infringement that wouldn't have been considered criminal until a few years ago.

If it were just about getting along and trying to raise everybody's standard of living by encouraging better trade and giving people more choices then it would be great, but it's not.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by someone123

To me the biggest problem so far is that corporations and plutocrats seem to be in the driver's seat when it comes to this process. And I think it's gotten worse as sovereignty has eroded and it's become easier to play countries off of each other. There are people who aren't allowed to live or work in the US who can be extradited there and thrown in jail for life for actions like copyright infringement that wouldn't have been considered criminal until a few years ago.

If it were just about getting along and trying to raise everybody's standard of living by encouraging better trade and giving people more choices then it would be great, but it's not.

This. I think many share your view. Trump came about in part because of this.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by JM5

Yes, sometimes I dream of a world where independent cultures coexist in peace and nations cooperate toward global goals without the strong push for multicultural coexistance everywhere and the watering down that goes along with it. But that's just wishful thinking I guess, people always think the grass is greener and want to jump the fence instead of trying to change their own society to better suit them.

I disagree and would prefer the opposite, but I appreciate your honesty and sincerity.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to admit that I do have a fear that groups that resist this globalist identity (or even don't embrace it enough) will eventually get viewed and treated like aboriginal groups were treated during the era of European colonization of the new world. That they'll be stigmatized and bullied, and maybe even be viewed as expendable and even "purge-able".

Lio, come defend this one, too.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I disagree and would prefer the opposite, but I appreciate your honesty and sincerity.

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.

[cornholio]

From UNESCO

Protecting Our Heritage and Fostering Creativity

In today’s interconnected world, culture's power to transform societies is clear. Its diverse manifestations – from our cherished historic monuments and museums to traditional practices and contemporary art forms – enrich our everyday lives in countless ways. Heritage constitutes a source of identity and cohesion for communities disrupted by bewildering change and economic instability. Creativity contributes to building open, inclusive and pluralistic societies. Both heritage and creativity lay the foundations for vibrant, innovative and prosperous knowledge societies.
Read less
UNESCO is convinced that no development can be sustainable without a strong culture component. Indeed only a human-centred approach to development based on mutual respect and open dialogue among cultures can lead to lasting, inclusive and equitable results. Yet until recently, culture has been missing from the development equation.

To ensure that culture takes it rightful place in development strategies and processes, UNESCO has adopted a three-pronged approach: it spearheads worldwide advocacy for culture and development, while engaging with the international community to set clear policies and legal frameworks and working on the ground to support governments and local stakeholders to safeguard heritage, strengthen creative industries and encourage cultural pluralism.

UNESCO renowned cultural conventions provide a unique global platform for international cooperation and establish a holistic cultural governance system based on human rights and shared values. These international treaties endeavour to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage including ancient archaeological sites, intangible and underwater heritage, museum collections, oral traditions and other forms of heritage, and to support creativity, innovation and the emergence of dynamic cultural sectors.

http://en.unesco.org/themes/protecti...ing-creativity

If your goal is to destroy Canadian culture then you are going against the United Nations conventions. Canadian culture must be protected.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I am not a fan of multiculturalism in the sense that immigrants don't have to integrate. You can hold onto your language and culture, but you have to assimilate and speak the language. A country runs much more smoothly when there is a shared culture among everyone. However, this is not always the case that countries are mostly homogenous. Even Canada 50 years ago had the Anglo, The Franco, and the Inuit/Native parts that were quite different from each other.