Regarding discussion of Canada's "new", post-1960s or '70s multicultural identity.

[Capsicum]

From reading some of the threads here, this appears to be talked about a lot.

It often seems that, sort of like Australia in a sense, Canada's non-French, non-English, non-Aboriginal cultural groups are seen as still pretty new, and their incorporation as part of the national identity is seen as a product of the last few decades, as "multiculturalism" was celebrated as policy, and also socially. Many such as Italian, Chinese, Ukrainian and Black Canadians actually do have many generations in Canada but are still kind of seen as tied to the after- 1960s or 1970s multicultural identity.

On the other hand, the US seems to much more have a sense of non-Anglo settler groups having contributed to the national identity, such as Italian, Irish, Polish, Jewish groups and other Ellis Island immigrant groups, African Americans, Hispanic Americans including Mexicans. Regardless of multiculturalism or the melting pot as metaphor, these groups seem to be accepted and talked about as part of the national discourse in the US more than non-English, French, and aboriginal Canadians. For instance you get the impression that Black or Asian Canadians, and even some European groups like Greeks or Italian still get the "But Canada is so new, so where are you really from?" treatment but that's not the case for their US counterparts, where the ethnic groups very strongly say "I'm American".

However, Canada's rate of incorporation of these so-called "newer" groups has been very fast. The rate of demographic change if I'm not mistaken is higher than in the US (not sure about Australia, but it seems comparable). As the newer generations come of age, won't Francophone Arab and African Quebecois, or Pacific Asian Anglophone British Columbians, or Ontarians be seen to Canada in the 21st century what Italian Americans, African Americans or Hispanics are to the US? Not of the old country anymore but a distinctively homegrown demographic that still is recognizably Canadian? Or maybe they are already so.

[Acajack]

Interesting idea for a thread.

One comment though is that I wouldn't segment out the "Irish" (or the Scottish or I guess the Welsh) from "English Canadians" for this discussion, as they for the most part merged quite some time ago.

I think "British Canadian" is probably the right term for this group, with apologies to the independent Republic of Ireland.

[patm]

Canadians need to learn how to drive in the left lane before I ever add "-Canadian" to "Polish" when discussing my heritage. Embarrassing.

[Acajack]

Regarding the OP, while there is some validity there I do think that it's quite hit and miss when it comes to various groups being considered totally part of the "us".

If I think about it more it might come down to individual families in Canada as opposed to entire ethnic communities which is how it seems to be in the U.S.

For example in Western Canada the name Friesen is most definitely considered totally Canadian. It's of Dutch (or maybe Mennonite?) origin I assume.

In PEI the Lebanese name Ghiz is totally banal and "local". They've had two premiers by that name.

We even have a number of cases like this in Quebec/French Canada. Interestingly enough a lot of them are names from the British Isles: Ross, Harvey, Fraser, Ryan, Flynn, Johnson, Smith, etc. They're considered Québécois by everyone - and I am not just making this up. Of names of other origins quite a few are Lebanese-Syrian names. Céline Dion's husband René Angélil is a good example, as was former Senator Pierre de Bané. I guess these names have the advantage of sounding French. Other names from central-eastern European Europe like Globensky and Franke are also considered Québécois and nobody bats an eye at that suggestion.

[Capsicum]

I'm reminded of this line from the movie "The Deer Hunter".

Army Doctor: Chevotarevich, is that a Russian name?
Nick: No, it's an American name.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Regarding the OP, while there is some validity there I do think that it's quite hit and miss when it comes to various groups being considered totally part of the "us".

If I think about it more it might come down to individual families in Canada as opposed to entire ethnic communities which is how it seems to be in the U.S.

For example in Western Canada the name Friesen is most definitely considered totally Canadian. It's of Dutch (or maybe Mennonite?) origin I assume.

In PEI the Lebanese name Ghiz is totally banal and "local". They've had two premiers by that name.

We even have a number of cases like this in Quebec/French Canada. Interestingly enough a lot of them are names from the British Isles: Ross, Harvey, Fraser, Ryan, Flynn, Johnson, Smith, etc. They're considered Québécois by everyone - and I am not just making this up. Of names of other origins quite a few are Lebanese-Syrian names. Céline Dion's husband René Angélil is a good example, as was former Senator Pierre de Bané. I guess these names have the advantage of sounding French. Other names from central-eastern European Europe like Globensky and Franke are also considered Québécois and nobody bats an eye at that suggestion.

I think it may be regional too in the US so that a German name might be seen as "all-American" in a Midwest town, and an Italian name in the Northeast may be assumed to belong to a local.

However, there are also some ethnocultural communities that are more cross-country in the US. African Americans (many who have English or Irish surnames but not always) are recognized as African American, whether in Seattle, Atlanta or Boston. However, Black Canadian identity is less similar cross-country, so an individual may be seen as local in Nova Scotia, but assumed to be a Jamaican in the GTA, a Francophone Haitian in Quebec or an American nearby in Windsor. Asian Canadians are also not as spread cross country and so might be assumed to be locals by Vancouverites and Torontonians, but mistaken for outsiders east of Ontario.

Syrian and Lebanese names being familiar enough to be "old stock" in Quebec and even in the Maritimes is interesting (I mean Halifax Donair is a thing, after all) in contrast to the portrayal and association of Syrian descent or ancestry with the newest wave of refugees in places farther west in Canada and I'm guessing in parts of the US. That people with Middle Eastern origins in Quebec have been around for ages but are not always recognized almost is reminiscent of the fact that Latin Americans of Arab origin are prominent (such as Shakira) but often go unnoticed in the discussion about Middle Eastern immigration, in the US while ironically, both Latin American and Middle Eastern immigration is such a hot topic in the news.

Among some in the younger generation however, especially people who have come of age in big diverse cities, both in the US or Canada, it can be considered crass or somewhat offensive to suggest surnames of some origins are quintessentially American or Canadian more than others.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I'm reminded of this line from the movie "The Deer Hunter".

Army Doctor: Chevotarevich, is that a Russian name?
Nick: No, it's an American name.


.

I always loved that line. Christopher Walken.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Syrian and Lebanese names being familiar enough to be "old stock" in Quebec and even in the Maritimes is interesting (I mean Halifax Donair is a thing, after all) in contrast to the portrayal and association of Syrian descent or ancestry with the newest wave of refugees in places farther west in Canada and I'm guessing in parts of the US. .

Interestingly enough you also got that "portrayal and association" of Syrian refugees in Quebec as well, in spite of the fact that the established Syrian-Lebanese community is probably in the top five of what you might call "model minorities" in Quebec.

[Acajack]

Here is junior hockey player Olivier Schingh-Gomez, from Gatineau. Guess which side of his family is the long-established old stock francophone Québécois side?

Schingh of course!

[Acajack]

Kind of related to the OP...

One thing I've noticed in the US is that many groups that in Canada are totally concentrated in major urban areas are more spread out across the country down there.

It seems much more common to meet people with Italian, Greek, Jewish, etc. names in small towns and cities in Colorado (for example) or some other non-coastal state than it is in non-metropolitan Canada.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Interestingly enough you also got that "portrayal and association" of Syrian refugees in Quebec as well, in spite of the fact that the established Syrian-Lebanese community is probably in the top five of what you might call "model minorities" in Quebec.

Seems like in some cases, portrayal in the media often focuses on the newest members of a group, not the older, more established ones. Often with not so positive press geared towards the newer arrivals.

For example, portrayal of Chinese being new wealthy investors in Vancouver versus the established Chinese Canadian community, many of whom go back to the 19th century during the building of the railways.

Another example, portrayal of Mexicans as very recent border crossers to the US Southwest, versus the established Mexican American community, many of whom go back to the 19th century when the border crossed them, rather than they crossed the border.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Kind of related to the OP...

One thing I've noticed in the US is that many groups that in Canada are totally concentrated in major urban areas are more spread out across the country down there.

It seems much more common to meet people with Italian, Greek, Jewish, etc. names in small towns and cities in Colorado (for example) or some other non-coastal state than it is in non-metropolitan Canada.

The Canadian population is much more concentrated in metropolitan areas than the US as a whole, immigrant or not, but it does seem like non-metro areas in Canada are much closer demographically to their 1950s counterparts than in the US, where the diversity changes from post-war immigration were more spread out.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

The Canadian population is much more concentrated in metropolitan areas than the US as a whole, immigrant or not, but it does seem like non-metro areas in Canada are much closer demographically to their 1950s counterparts than in the US, where the diversity changes from post-war immigration were more spread out.

Another factor I think is that the U.S. ethos leans more towards viewing the entire country as "yours". Far-flung areas of the country have more visibility in people's minds via movies, TV, news and just the culture in general.

Just look at how mobile Americans are within their own country compared to Canadians.

In Canada the English-French thing is often mentioned as a major "silo" which it is but it really goes beyond that.

Many (I'd say probably most) of immigrants move to city or province X in Canada and that specific area becomes "their Canada". They don't usually give much thought to exploring other parts of the country as a place to live.

For example, Italians have been in Canada for a very long time but think of how few of them there are in Western Canada.

This silo effect is definitely true of the GTA and Vancouver but it's also true in my experience of many other smaller centres in Canada as well like Halifax, Winnipeg, Ottawa, etc.

I remember a few years ago one local media outlet profiled a leader of Ottawa's Lebanese community. He was talking about his kids and how deeply rooted they were in his adopted country. And then he said "Ottawa is their country" (Ottawa, c'est leur pays) - the interview was in French.

When I heard that it really rang true.

Obviously you have some of this going on in the U.S. as well. Certain groups are highly concentrated in certain regions there too. But it's not as extreme as in Canada. They tend to branch out across the country quite a bit more.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Kind of related to the OP...

One thing I've noticed in the US is that many groups that in Canada are totally concentrated in major urban areas are more spread out across the country down there.

It seems much more common to meet people with Italian, Greek, Jewish, etc. names in small towns and cities in Colorado (for example) or some other non-coastal state than it is in non-metropolitan Canada.

Reflective of an earlier arrival in the New World and a greater mobility, no?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Reflective of an earlier arrival in the New World and a greater mobility, no?

It's a factor but many groups in Canada have been here for quite some time as well.

In terms of greater mobility, I'd add that populated areas have a much greater contiguity (is that a word?) across the U.S. than they do in Canada. That likely enters into it as well.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a factor but many groups in Canada have been here for quite some time as well.

In terms of greater mobility, I'd add that populated areas have a much greater contiguity (is that a word?) across the U.S. than they do in Canada. That likely enters into it as well.

Shared unified mass media too and wider portrayal of ethnic groups all across the country within that media.

Americans are likely much aware (eg. someone from say, Idaho, even if they've never encountered them in person, might know Italians live in New Jersey, Cubans in Miami etc. from TV portrayals) than Canadians (eg. someone from Vancouver might be unaware that Lebanese live in Quebec, because it's not on their radar).

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Shared unified mass media too and wider portrayal of ethnic groups all across the country within that media.

Americans are likely much aware (eg. someone from say, Idaho, even if they've never encountered them in person, might know Italians live in New Jersey, Cubans in Miami etc. from TV portrayals) than Canadians (eg. someone from Vancouver might be unaware that Lebanese live in Quebec, because it's not on their radar).

No, but it goes past that. It's not about knowledge of who lives where, but about how Americans seem to be much more mobile within their own country than Canadians are. I remember during the US election there was a (condescending) piece on how some large percentage of Trump supporters never lived outside their state. That was interesting to me because I never thought there would be an expectation that you'd leave your state/province. Obviously people in Canada move to other places for better opportunities or what not, like to Calgary during its boom time or whatever, but overall it seems like most people live, grow up and die in the same metropolitan area, regardless of how "non-Trump voter demographic" they are.

We don't have a Portland where all the hipsters go, or a Silicon Valley or a Hollywood or a Nashville. Sure some cities do better in these areas than others (you're much more likely to make it as an actor/singer in Vancouver or Toronto than Saskatoon), but for the most part, people stay where they are and try to pursue whatever it is they're doing there.

[kool maudit]

In the '90s John Ralston Saul claimed that Canada was in fact more 'American' than the US in many senses; this century, our adoption of the "proposition nation" self-definition confirms an aspect of this.

I'm broadly bearish empires, or federations of nations, but it can work – Switzerland is a good example. But if we are going to do this I suspect it requires an official decentralization.

Even then, though, a massive prosperity is needed for the bloc to avoid fragmenting along lines of language, religion or culture. Fortunately, Canada is an immensely prosperous country, and its points-based immigration policies have wisely allowed the country to avoid the situation faced by places like Sweden.

But who are the Canadians, as a people? Do they have qualities? Can they be meaningfully distinguished from others? If no you begin to face the question of why should they be "Canadian" rather than whatever identities are closer to heart or more identifiable?

Can a country be an OS, or a platform? Can it exist mainly in the legal realm? These questions are still open, historically speaking.

This is a good thread and I look forward to watching it grow. I suppose I had a "fish in water" way of thinking re Canadian multiculturalism, and only began to look at the meaning of the issue (its merits, its current ideological dominance, its structural supports, who is pushing it versus who is reacting against it etc.) since moving to Europe.

But Europe's situation is different, and I am less optimistic about it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

This is a good thread and I look forward to watching it grow. I suppose I had a "fish in water" way of thinking re Canadian multiculturalism, and only began to look at the meaning of the issue (its merits, its current ideological dominance, its structural supports, who is pushing it versus who is reacting against it etc.) since moving to Europe.

But Europe's situation is different, and I am less optimistic about it.

There are many Europes and the European nation-state model is hardly stumbling everywhere on that continent. It's not hard to find countries that are pretty stable and calm under that model right now.

Even many of the countries that are struggling at the moment weren't doing too badly all that long ago. The "model" after all is what gave us Charles Aznavour, Frédéric Chopin, Marie Curie, Freddie Mercury, Zinédine Zidane, George Michael, Shirley Bassey, Maxine Nightingale, etc. And before then John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), Mazarin (Giulio Mazzarino), etc.

So the question I think we need to ask ourselves isn't so much if the model is a failed one, but more... what has changed?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are many Europes and the European nation-state model is hardly stumbling everywhere on that continent. It's not hard to find countries that are pretty stable and calm under that model right now.

So the question I think we need to ask ourselves isn't so much if the model is a failed one, but more... what has changed?

Demographics.

Many European nations are coming to grips with large-scale immigration from outside their traditional regions. This is a new thing in their experience, whereas prior, most of the increase in the population of Europe was due to high birth rates. Now, most European countries have sub-replacement fertility rates (I think France might be an exception).

These new immigrants bring with them their own culture. In the (relatively speaking) culturally homogeneous countries of Europe, this cultural disruption is a point of conflict. How they deal with this probably will determine the success of how integration happens. Too many immigrants too quickly, and you get domestic population backlash. It will be sort of a tightrope governments have to walk - too few immigrants and you end up with a demographic time-bomb as the population ages (see: Japan), too many and you get domestic population backlash (see: nationalistic right-wing parties).

As a nation that has generally had high levels of immigration, Canada is better prepared than most countries for the future. Especially since we've increased the diversity in our immigration sources (and government policies have helped encourage acceptance of this), so it's not something 'new' to us. It will help us as we have sub-replacement fertility as well.

Our challenge is how to prevent alienation, especially in the second and third generations. Will the children of immigrants see themselves as Canadians, or as a marginalized group X that lives in Canada? I think we've done a good job so far.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

As a nation that has generally had high levels of immigration, Canada is better prepared than most countries for the future. Especially since we've increased the diversity in our immigration sources (and government policies have helped encourage acceptance of this), so it's not something 'new' to us. It will help us as we have sub-replacement fertility as well.

Our challenge is how to prevent alienation, especially in the second and third generations. Will the children of immigrants see themselves as Canadians, or as a marginalized group X that lives in Canada? I think we've done a good job so far.

For lack of a better term (and I don't mean this sarcastically), Canada's approach at this point seems to be the "free for all". Basically there are no expectations beyond paying your taxes and not killing anyone. OK, it's a bit more than that, but Canada is extremely user-friendly for a person from virtually any culture in the world to settle into.

I don't know if that means that we've found the magical solution that everyone is looking for, or if we're simply on a different evolutionary timeline.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For lack of a better term (and I don't mean this sarcastically), Canada's approach at this point seems to be the "free for all". Basically there are no expectations beyond paying your taxes and not killing anyone. OK, it's a bit more than that, but Canada is extremely user-friendly for a person from virtually any culture in the world to settle into.

I don't know if that means that we've found the magical solution that everyone is looking for, or if we're simply on a different evolutionary timeline.

I've thought about it and can't really come up with a better solution.

I'm not sure if 'free for all' is the right term though - there is some societal expectation that you will respect the beliefs of others, attempt to learn one of the official languages and support yourself without recourse to public funds. The points based immigration method helps on this count - eliminates those who probably wouldn't be a good fit for us. Our immigration policy should be for our benefit mostly, not the benefit of those who want to immigrate, aside from refugees.

I don't think an overly paternalistic 'making a round peg fit in a square hole' push will accomplish much - probably more backlash than anything.

In my experience most 2nd and 3rd generation Canadians are mostly 'Canadianized'. I know that's anecdotal, but our system seems to work remarkably well.