Multiculturalism in Canada

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I love it when people I have no connection to do an "Acajack"...

Over the weekend, I heard an interview with the organizers of the black film festivals in Montreal and Toronto. They are also holding one for the first time in Halifax I think.

Anyway, during the interview the situation of the black communities in Canada was discussed, and one person said that in Toronto the black community's cultural situation was "better" than in Montreal as they were more culturally dynamic (as black people anyway) and more cohesively organized amongst themselves.

Another thing that was mentioned was the contrast in the crowds that usually attended the black film festivals in either city.

In Toronto, the audiences are very predominantly black, apparently.

Whereas in Montreal, the organizers said the audiences were 60-70% white.

The explanation that was given was that there are way more black people in Toronto. While it is no doubt true that there are more black people in sheer numbers in Toronto, in percentage terms it's about the same and Montreal may even be higher (9.1% vs. 8.5%).

In any event, it's not really true that Toronto is way more black as a city than Montreal is. They're pretty comparable.

My understanding is black is a better rallying point in toronto.

I think you might wnat to look at the countries of origin to understand that one.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by ue

I don't know if Russia being excluded is "geographically incorrect", when Europe is in reality quite constructed as far as continents go. Using more natural definitions, it's not really a continent, but more a subcontinent of Eurasia. It's not like Africa or Australia, where it's obvious where the continent starts and ends, and that won't ever change (prior to continents merging millions of years from now).

Sociopolitically, it seems Russia (and to a lesser extent places like Belarus and Ukraine) are kind of ambiguous as to whether they're "really" European. I grew up thinking of Russia (west of the Urals) as European, but some strongly associate it with the "East" (and not just Eastern Europe). Nowadays, I'm kind of indifferent, and haven't heard very strong arguments for it to be considered more Asian than European, but my point is that it isn't safe to just assume that it is incorrect to not label Russia as European.

I think they are very clearly eurasian along with the caucas, turkey and the stans of central asia.



I think this map is extremely useful for understanding the cultures of the world/history/economics.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

I don't know if Russia being excluded is "geographically incorrect", when Europe is in reality quite constructed as far as continents go. Using more natural definitions, it's not really a continent, but more a subcontinent of Eurasia. It's not like Africa or Australia, where it's obvious where the continent starts and ends, and that won't ever change (prior to continents merging millions of years from now).

Sociopolitically, it seems Russia (and to a lesser extent places like Belarus and Ukraine) are kind of ambiguous as to whether they're "really" European. I grew up thinking of Russia (west of the Urals) as European, but some strongly associate it with the "East" (and not just Eastern Europe). Nowadays, I'm kind of indifferent, and haven't heard very strong arguments for it to be considered more Asian than European, but my point is that it isn't safe to just assume that it is incorrect to not label Russia as European.

It was easier in our childhood, because you had the "fully European" (for lack of a better way to put it) Western Europe that was also mostly the EU (with a few holes in it like Switzerland), which was Germanic/Latin, and then you had Eastern Europe, which was communist and Slavic.

Nowadays, though, I have a hard time with any definition by which Minsk and Kiev are European but places like Vyborg and Königsberg aren't. And it's also really strange to me to have Russians placed in a different basket than Poles, Lithuanians, Ukranians, White Russians, etc.

Also, it's really weird (bordering the inacceptable) to me to have continents changing overnight when Russia annexes Crimea or (potentially) the Donetsk area. Continents, by definition, shouldn't be able to change overnight, ever. If Constantinople/Istanbul is in Europe, then it's in Europe, regardless of political boundaries.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

Also, it's really weird (bordering the inacceptable) to me to have continents changing overnight when Russia annexes Crimea or (potentially) the Donetsk area. Continents, by definition, shouldn't be able to change overnight, ever. If Constantinople/Istanbul is in Europe, then it's in Europe, regardless of political boundaries.

Western Russia is regarded as Europe... quite often maps that clearly distinguish between continental boundaries will have some variation on this type of map. On that basis, Crimea is Europe regardless of who happens to rule it at any given moment.

Green and light blue are Europe, the two shades of purple are Asia.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by lio45

It was easier in our childhood, because you had the "fully European" (for lack of a better way to put it) Western Europe that was also mostly the EU (with a few holes in it like Switzerland), which was Germanic/Latin, and then you had Eastern Europe, which was communist and Slavic.

Its hilarious that you mention that to me idea of anything approaching a european identity is so incredibly gone.

Its ironic to me that the things that built the identity of europe, shared history, race, linguistics heritages, religious, a sense of geographic closeness etc are no longer all that relevant.

My prediction is that britian will lean to its ex colonies especially india(has its economy soars, Aus/Can/USA/Nigeria)

Spain/port the same.

Italty will become more intergrated with north africa.

France being more intergrated with all its excolonies in africa.

And most of northern/central/baltic europe being tied into greater germany.

[ue]

Originally Posted by lio45

It was easier in our childhood, because you had the "fully European" (for lack of a better way to put it) Western Europe that was also mostly the EU (with a few holes in it like Switzerland), which was Germanic/Latin, and then you had Eastern Europe, which was communist and Slavic.

Nowadays, though, I have a hard time with any definition by which Minsk and Kiev are European but places like Vyborg and Königsberg aren't. And it's also really strange to me to have Russians placed in a different basket than Poles, Lithuanians, Ukranians, White Russians, etc.

Also, it's really weird (bordering the inacceptable) to me to have continents changing overnight when Russia annexes Crimea or (potentially) the Donetsk area. Continents, by definition, shouldn't be able to change overnight, ever. If Constantinople/Istanbul is in Europe, then it's in Europe, regardless of political boundaries.

I agree. To me the Urals are the logical border of Europe with Asia, not the Russia-Ukraine/Belarus/Finland border, though by definition Europe is arbitrary as a "continent", which is perhaps why it changes.

To use your Istanbul example, one side is Europe, the other, Asia. It's pretty straightforward. Whether Turkey annexes a nearby territory or not doesn't change it's bi-continental status. Not sure why Russia is different.

I mean, obviously, Russia is different from the UK or Germany or Italy. This is why I'm fairly agnostic on the issue. But it's core values aren't closer to Mongolia or Egypt than other Slavic countries which everyone agrees are hella European. If Israel and Japan can exist on the same continent, I'm not sure why Russia and the UK can't.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by esquire

Western Russia is regarded as Europe... quite often maps that clearly distinguish between continental boundaries will have some variation on this type of map. On that basis, Crimea is Europe regardless of who happens to rule it at any given moment.

Green and light blue are Europe, the two shades of purple are Asia.

The black sea regions I think are better identified as eurasian.

For much of the regions history there's been huge migrations from turkic peoples, ottomans and other peoples from the eurasian step.

remember crimea was once the homeland of tatars.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ue

I agree. To me the Urals are the logical border of Europe with Asia, not the Russia-Ukraine/Belarus/Finland border, though by definition Europe is arbitrary as a "continent", which is perhaps why it changes.

To use your Istanbul example, one side is Europe, the other, Asia. It's pretty straightforward. Whether Turkey annexes a nearby territory or not doesn't change it's bi-continental status. Not sure why Russia is different.

I mean, obviously, Russia is different from the UK or Germany or Italy. This is why I'm fairly agnostic on the issue. But it's core values aren't closer to Mongolia or Egypt than other Slavic countries which everyone agrees are hella European. If Israel and Japan can exist on the same continent, I'm not sure why Russia and the UK can't.

Humans are "funny like that" in that they don't respect geographic boundaries.

The Asian part of Russia all the way to the Pacific is about 95% European (Slavic) demographically.

Africa north of the Sahara is also an interesting case and it often feels weird to describe the region and its people as "African". In terms of human geography it's really part of the Middle East.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Africa north of the Sahara is also an interesting case and it often feels weird to describe the region and its people as "African". In terms of human geography it's really part of the Middle East.

Yep... what's interesting is that on a map that has the water blue and all land the same color, Africa seems to be a "logical unit" for interconnectedness and proximity, but when you pay a bit more attention to detail, you realize that the Mediterranean Sea is much easier to cross than the Sahara, and that geopolitically, a place like Tunisia is much more likely to end up a vassal of, say, Rome, than of any place in subsaharan Africa.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

My understanding is black is a better rallying point in toronto.

I think you might wnat to look at the countries of origin to understand that one.

This wasn't the angle I was approaching it with, but it's an interesting one as well.

I wonder if in Toronto there isn't a bigger pull in terms of "Black Pride" that dovetails with what goes on in the U.S. on this front.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This wasn't the angle I was approaching it with, but it's an interesting one as well.

I wonder if in Toronto there isn't a bigger pull in terms of "Black Pride" that dovetails with what goes on in the U.S. on this front.

I think it has to do with which Caribbean countries black folk in toronto come from.

I'm very much alarmed how blacks in canada are being equated by african american's.

The 20 dollar bill fiasco smacks of us importing an american narrative.


However the fact is toronto is basically an extension of the west indies, whcih means that alot of black cultural ties in with carribean migration into miami and newyork.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Stryker

The black sea regions I think are better identified as eurasian.

For much of the regions history there's been huge migrations from turkic peoples, ottomans and other peoples from the eurasian step.

remember crimea was once the homeland of tatars.

No question there are ethno-cultural blends, as you would expect, where the continents meet. (To acajack's point, I find it weird to think of Israel and Yemen as "Asian" countries even though they are...) But the point is that there is a common understanding as to where Europe ends and Asia begins.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yep... what's interesting is that on a map that has the water blue and all land the same color, Africa seems to be a "logical unit" for interconnectedness and proximity, but when you pay a bit more attention to detail, you realize that the Mediterranean Sea is much easier to cross than the Sahara, and that geopolitically, a place like Tunisia is much more likely to end up a vassal of, say, Rome, than of any place in subsaharan Africa.

That's tricky, Egypt is easily the most dominate member of north africa, and if you look into history it is very clear egypth was very much tied into east africa/sudan/ethiopia.

I think its more logical to call rome part of a middle eastern/eurasian empire than to call north africa part of a european empire.

It's often very wrongly assumed that regions like gaul approached anywhere near the importance of the eastern regions of the empire.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by esquire

No question there are ethno-cultural blends, as you would expect, where the continents meet. (To acajack's point, I find it weird to think of Israel and Yemen as "Asian" countries even though they are...) But the point is that there is a common understanding as to where Europe ends and Asia begins.

If you look at that map I think it's a no contest situation.

Asia doesn't exist as a cultural area, a historical geographic area, racial area etc.

The divide between regions of asia based on the india ocean versus the pacific coast is immense.


I think it's largely a product of hindu nationalism/western ignorance that asia isn't based on its water ways.


It's very very very very very clear that the middle east exists as a cultural region with the inclusion of India.

The Mediterranean region of the asia is clearly a transition region, and I think it should be simply refereed to as western eurasian and not asian.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yep... what's interesting is that on a map that has the water blue and all land the same color, Africa seems to be a "logical unit" for interconnectedness and proximity, but when you pay a bit more attention to detail, you realize that the Mediterranean Sea is much easier to cross than the Sahara, and that geopolitically, a place like Tunisia is much more likely to end up a vassal of, say, Rome, than of any place in subsaharan Africa.

It was always weird to me when people would refer to Cairo as "the African metropolis", but now the explosive growth of Lagos, Nigeria has pushed it ahead of Cairo and into first place. So it's more of a moot point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

No question there are ethno-cultural blends, as you would expect, where the continents meet. (To acajack's point, I find it weird to think of Israel and Yemen as "Asian" countries even though they are...) But the point is that there is a common understanding as to where Europe ends and Asia begins.

Are you sure you didn't mean Armenia as opposed to Yemen?

Armenia is a far bigger outlier in Asia (and also the Middle East more specifically), whereas Yemen is totally typical of the Middle East in demographics and culture.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It was always weird to me when people would refer to Cairo as "the African metropolis", but now the explosive growth of Lagos, Nigeria has pushed it ahead of Cairo and into first place. So it's more of a moot point.

To be fair Lagos isn't really recognizable as a metropolis in the "western" context. It's a smallish colonial core surrounded by sprawl that looks more similar to a never-ending African village than a planned city. Even in the context of sub-Saharan Africa it seems haphazard.

I agree that Cairo was never really a good choice because it's more of a Middle-Eastern city.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Humans are "funny like that" in that they don't respect geographic boundaries.

The Asian part of Russia all the way to the Pacific is about 95% European (Slavic) demographically.

Africa north of the Sahara is also an interesting case and it often feels weird to describe the region and its people as "African". In terms of human geography it's really part of the Middle East.

Those are two great points, actually. It's never really covered in great depth in public school (at least not in Alberta), where the focus is on the Cold War and Russian Revolution, but Russia has a long history of colonization not unlike the British, French, Dutch, or Spanish, it's just that instead of scattering around the world, Russia expanded organically eastward and overtook indigenous groups relatively closer to home. It's kinda trippy streetview-ing through a place like Sakhalin, closer to Tokyo and Beijing than Moscow, let alone London, and seeing it predominantly white with European vernacular.

And yeah, when people speak of Africa as a vernacular region, it's really sub-Saharan Africa, where "black" people are Africans, not Muslims in the north. It's funny, too, because technically a Moroccan emigrant to the US is no more an "African American" than someone from the Congo. It gets more tripped up in places like South Africa, which have a sizable non-indigenous population.

[ue]

Originally Posted by niwell

To be fair Lagos isn't really recognizable as a metropolis in the "western" context. It's a smallish colonial core surrounded by sprawl that looks more similar to a never-ending African village than a planned city. Even in the context of sub-Saharan Africa it seems haphazard.

I agree that Cairo was never really a good choice because it's more of a Middle-Eastern city.

What about Nairobi or Johannesburg? Or Kinshasa?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

I think it has to do with which Caribbean countries black folk in toronto come from.

I'm very much alarmed how blacks in canada are being equated by african american's.

The 20 dollar bill fiasco smacks of us importing an american narrative.


However the fact is toronto is basically an extension of the west indies, whcih means that alot of black cultural ties in with carribean migration into miami and newyork.

Montreal's black community also has strong West Indian origins but it's overwhelmingly from one country: Haiti. Whereas in Toronto, Jamaicans are the largest group but there are tons of people also from other (mostly anglo) islands in the Caribbean. In Montreal you don't have this so much.

The black population in Montreal is also "Africanizing" a lot faster than in Toronto, which means that Haitians are now being outnumbered by people from francophone African countries. If Haitians don't already make up less than 50% of the black population in Montreal, it's only a question of months or a few short years before that happens.