Multiculturalism in Canada

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

And "usually" mean the same thing, sure. But people complain, even on the purportedly diversity-loving too-White complaining SSP Canada, all the time about Richmond. Remember the furor over a few stores opting to have Chinese language signage? Nearly every thread about Vancouver descends into Sinophobic rants, especially if Richmond is brought up.

Last such thread on SSP Canada IIRC was about some condo boards' language problems... and it's unarguably okay to raise and discuss this issue, because it is one.

You and I don't have anywhere near the same standards if you consider that an unilingual Pole who expects his suburban Warsaw condo building to be administered at least partly in Polish is being xenophobic; no point in even attempting to have a reasonable discussion about such things with you.

[ssiguy]

Gay Pride parades have almost nothing to do with gay rights. Gay rights are yesterday's news. Gays in Canada have total equality {except transgendered which is not the same} and people have moved on. People may say not everyone is accepting but that will just take time and no number of parades will change that.

Pride parades have nearly no relevance anymore EXCEPT to the local economy. This is why cities and businesses back them financially. Pride parades are about money and little else.

Pride parades have as much to do about gay rights as the Santa Clause parade has to do with the life of Christ.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, Richmond is becoming one of the least diverse places in Metro Vancouver.

This is anything but false. There are pretty much either asians (65%) or white people, most of which aren't even Franco-Germanic. Even New West, which is seen as one of the whiter areas in inner Vancouver is only 61% white. However, outer regions remain pretty white.

Something all Vancouver shares is a lack of Black people, and pretty much all of the Black people come from Africa, not America.

Originally Posted by Marshal

I prefer supporting things so long as they are not harming anyone/thing.

I think "gay" parades are dumb in many ways. So?
"Gay Pride" parades are a whole lot less dumb. But they are still kind of dumb. The thing is, so are all parades.

I hate all parades equally, just somehow gay parades seem more dumb. Just like a straight parade is stupid. It's like great, you can love the same sex as you, great, you accomplished what you sought after. You can get married. If you want to crush stereotypes, well, having a parade isn't going to do anything. The only way you can "crush stereotypes" or "stigma" is not by having a parade but by having conservative gays / opposing views from mainstream LGBTism.

[saffronleaf]

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.

That's exactly right. That's why it is stupid to host a specific parade similar to the gay pride parade in a heteronormative society. Or have a White History Month in majority / plurality white societies. Or men's days in patriarchal societies.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

More "suspicion".

Have fun with your new religion, guys.

Ha, what a well thought out response. Enjoy your majoritarian woe is me narrative.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, Richmond is becoming one of the least diverse places in Metro Vancouver. It's becoming nothing more than a vast ethnic ghetto. It's no surprise that home sales in Richmond collapsed farther and faster than any other municipality once rules were put in place to stem the flood of money laundering being done through real estate.

Yes, agreed that Richmond is becoming more homogeneous. And people happily express their utter disdain for Richmond because of its homogeneity. Same with Brampton.

Yet many of those same people get their panties in a bunch when anyone dare complain about a place being too homogeneous if that homogeneity involves one specific race (read: White). All other kinds of homogeneity are fair game to talk shit about.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Last such thread on SSP Canada IIRC was about some condo boards' language problems... and it's unarguably okay to raise and discuss this issue, because it is one.

You and I don't have anywhere near the same standards if you consider that an unilingual Pole who expects his suburban Warsaw condo building to be administered at least partly in Polish is being xenophobic; no point in even attempting to have a reasonable discussion about such things with you.

The one I recall was about storefront signage. But sure, if that's all you want to extract from those posts, go for it, champ. You and Acejack can sit back and cry about someone saying a city is too white on an urban planning forum, discuss alarmist hypotheticals about 200,000 young male Syrian refugees descending on lily white idyllic Quebec City, and rally against other homogeneous towns that don't have the right kind of homogeneity.

[dleung]

I wish they weren't from Quebec, if only to not perpetuate stereotypes

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Yet many of those same people get their panties in a bunch when anyone dare complain about a place being too homogeneous if that homogeneity involves one specific race (read: White). All other kinds of homogeneity are fair game to talk shit about.

There's a website called Tumblr you might want to have a look at.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

The one I recall was about storefront signage. But sure, if that's all you want to extract from those posts, go for it, champ. You and Acejack can sit back and cry about someone saying a city is too white on an urban planning forum, discuss alarmist hypotheticals about 200,000 young male Syrian refugees descending on lily white idyllic Quebec City, and rally against other homogeneous towns that don't have the right kind of homogeneity.

FYI, I'm not complaining about anything (I've pointed out many times that Richmond BC can do what it wants, I don't care), so far I simply said that if reaching a metro area population of a million was desirable for some reason, it would be easy enough to do that by just letting anyone in, an idea which has a lot more drawbacks than advantages and won't happen. Surely you can't argue against that...? Population doesn't matter, except for SSP dick-measuring contests; I'd rather have a good economy and a lower-than-what-could-be population, all things considered.

Save your outrage for when it's needed...

[ssiguy]

Multiculturalism is a failure when it creates cities like Richmond or enclaves like Vancouver's entire wealthy Westside.

If you have just a couple of dominant ethnic or racial groups {like Vancouver's South Asian and especially Chinese communities which is both huge but also very wealthy and politically powerful} you get little actual integration and more isolation. Instead of getting a cosmopolitan city and population you get ethnic ghettos where people don't see the need to socialize outside of their ethnic/racial groups.

Vancouver has gone from being a multicultural city to a bi-cultural one as the one largest ethnicity is also much more wealthy, connected, and politically and economically influential. The Filipino population is actually nearly the same size as the Chinese in Vancouver but are almost irrelevant due to the wealth and political connections of the Chinese. It's very unhealthy when you have one ethnicity dominating all other far out of proportion of their population. It creates resentment, isolation, ghettoization, and
distrust amongst the other ethnic groups who are ignored and the Caucasian population who rightly feel the single group is not even interested in becoming part of the greater community.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Multiculturalism is a failure when it creates cities like Richmond or enclaves like Vancouver's entire wealthy Westside.

Isn't that true when it creates cities like Quebec City?

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If you have just a couple of dominant ethnic or racial groups {like Vancouver's South Asian and especially Chinese communities which is both huge but also very wealthy and politically powerful} you get little actual integration and more isolation.

Isn't that true for cities like Quebec City? Except you don't even have two dominant groups.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver has gone from being a multicultural city to a bi-cultural one as the one largest ethnicity is also much more wealthy, connected, and politically and economically influential.

Isn't that true for most of Canada, except with a different ethnicity occupying that position?

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Filipino population is actually nearly the same size as the Chinese in Vancouver but are almost irrelevant due to the wealth and political connections of the Chinese.

How sad. Hope we can help the Filipino population.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's very unhealthy when you have one ethnicity dominating all other far out of proportion of their population. It creates resentment, isolation, ghettoization, and distrust amongst the other ethnic groups who are ignored

Isn't that true for most of Canada, except with a different ethnicity occupying that position?

Originally Posted by ssiguy

and the Caucasian population who rightly feel the single group is not even interested in becoming part of the greater community.

Poor old Caucasians, the victim in all of this. Let's help them too, along with the Filipinos.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

FYI, I'm not complaining about anything (I've pointed out many times that Richmond BC can do what it wants, I don't care), so far I simply said that if reaching a metro area population of a million was desirable for some reason, it would be easy enough to do that by just letting anyone in, an idea which has a lot more drawbacks than advantages and won't happen. Surely you can't argue against that...? Population doesn't matter, except for SSP dick-measuring contests; I'd rather have a good economy and a lower-than-what-could-be population, all things considered.

That's fine, I generally agree with that. Whoever came up with the Syrian hypothetical though, I found that rather distasteful.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Isn't that true when it creates cities like Quebec City?



Isn't that true for cities like Quebec City? Except you don't even have two dominant groups.



Isn't that true for most of Canada, except with a different ethnicity occupying that position?



How sad. Hope we can help the Filipino population.



Isn't that true for most of Canada, except with a different ethnicity occupying that position?



Poor old Caucasians, the victim in all of this. Let's help them too, along with the Filipinos.

I find your post more than a bit bitter and resentful and that attitude scares me - none the less, you're right. As a nation that has embraced multiculturalism, we shouldn't be surprised when areas where cultures other than English/French achieve a majority, they claim the right to conduct business and generally carry on day-to-day life in their preferred language.

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.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM5

I think we need some broad ground rules.

We have those. Laws are the codification of social norms. And they apply everywhere in Canada, so far as I know.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

We have those. Laws are the codification of social norms. And they apply everywhere in Canada, so far as I know.

Agreed, and in a democratic society if a majority of people feel threatened by the pace of change, they will likely vote for candidates that promise to pass laws which protect the way of life that makes them feel more comfortable. These laws may be short sighted. They may be protectionist or conservative in nature. They may even be xenophobic. They are likely to make those who feel differently uncomfortable.

I don't believe that people are likely to stand idly by while their life changes for what they perceive as the worse. People will usually prefer their culture over others - I consider this the majority position. Some people don't - I consider this the minority position.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM5

These laws may be short sighted. They may be protectionist or conservative in nature. They may even be xenophobic. They are likely to make those who feel differently uncomfortable.

Totally agree. That's why we have the courts and the Charter - to make sure that the laws of the majority are also fair to minorities.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Totally agree. That's why we have the courts and the Charter - to make sure that the laws of the majority are also fair to minorities.

You got me, I really don't know what the Charter says, but I doubt that it can prevent people from voting in tougher immigration laws, or laws that require signage in an official language (ahem, Quebec) or requiring education in one of the official languages. Or for that matter, a law that does away with official recognition of schools run by religious organisations. What you do on the weekend or after school is your business, but it won't get counted as officially recognised "education".

I think that what conservatives call "Canadian Values" can be implemented this way, they won't violate the Charter and people will be less likely to feel that their way of life is threatened.

[Aylmer]

I won't post the whole Charter here, but it's worth 5 minutes to go take a look at it.

An important thing to remember is that almost all provisions of the Charter apply to all those in Canada, even non-citizens (the only notable exception being voting). In contrast, the US Constitution does not apply evenly to everyone within their borders. So someone claiming asylum or applying for citizenship while in Canada can challenge immigration practices which may be discriminatory or unfair on the basis of their Charter rights.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

I wish they weren't from Quebec, if only to not perpetuate stereotypes

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.