The central issue, and deliberate confusion by the politically correct, is that between culture and race.

The dinner party guest can finesse the question with the statement: I am for a multi-racial society, but a multi-cultural society is an impossibility; do not confuse race and culture.

I have found this statement very effective in disarming the bad guys.

From Miriam Webster:

Definition of MULTICULTURAL
: of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism noun
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ist noun or adjective
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ly adverb

So, in other words .... you're full of it. I dunno where you got this "Official Multiculturalism" of yours, but it seems likely to have been pulled out of a rather dark orifice.

I'd say it's a crock of sh*t, maybe that's why I'm never invited to dinner parties.

Alex, are you actually stating that the most ardent proponents of Official Multiculturalism in Canada don't believe exactly what I stated they believe?

If so, then you sir, are the one who's full of it. The only thing I can't decide is whether you're more ignorant or naive.

From Miriam Webster:

Definition of ALEX
: of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to Stuck on Stupid
— Alex noun "I am as dumb as an Alex"
— Alexed adjective "I am so dumb, I am Alexed"

Get a life ya dummy.

"Alex, are you actually stating that the most ardent proponents of Official Multiculturalism in Canada don't believe exactly what I stated they believe?"

If you're going to call those idiots "the most ardent proponents of Official Multiculturalism", then we may as well call Fred Phelps "the most ardent proponent of Official Christianity". Fair's fair.

Alex, I honestly don't know where you're coming from other than you seem to enjoy disparaging and belittling others. Not very useful and ultimately boring.

This explanation from Mark Steyn might be interesting to those with intellectual curiosity on the subject.

"Alex, I honestly don't know where you're coming from other than you seem to enjoy disparaging and belittling others."

Easy: I hate liars.

Alex. Me and my buddy's will be right over to rape your wife(if you have one) and your daughter,then kill them for allowing it to happen.After all,that is a tribal right,and my culteral right,which according to you is a Canadian's right.
I would call you a twit,but that would be insulting to twits.

Excellent post and Robert of Ottawa is also spot on. Alex, educate yourself for your own sake, for your lack of understanding as to Official Multiculturalism in Canada is telling.

I also doubt that most Canadians are aware of the meaning of official state multiculturalism. Must confuse it with accepting various races and ethnic groups, which has nothing to do with our government's official policy. The supporters of real multiculturalism maintain that all cultures are equal and no one can criticise any of them - the only exception being Western culture. Were that the case then we must accept things such as cannibalism, polygamy, submission of women, forced marriages and honour killings to name but a few.

Kate, how did you teach a vegetable to type?

"Kate, how did you teach a vegetable to type?

Posted by: Alex at May 12, 2011 10:41 PM "

You have to ask Kate how she taught you to type?
Actually I am curious.How did you do it,Kate? My cat would like to know.

I just trll folks I'm against tribilising Canada like Africa.
Thats what Multiculturism meams to me.
Every group for themselves. Except the people born here.
Than we pay for our own demise as a culture, under a ton of trash of murderious ones.
JMO

It doesn't surprise me that "multiculturalism" came to the fore in Canada as there is no such thing as a Canadian identity. This is in marked contrast to the US where there is a very clear American identity and immigrants are welcome as long as they become American. I've lost track of the number of times when I've been talking to obviously non-white people in the US and gotten the answer "I'm American" when I ask them where they're from. When I press they'd tell me they were from the Phillipines or Vietnam but, once they'd obtained their US citizenship they were American. There used to be very few hyphenated Americans.

When I grew up I felt Albertan first, Ukrainian and Croatian next and then realized I was in Canada. I found I had very little in common with most people in Ottawa as my anti-communism and anti-Russian views weren't too popular at universities. The impression I got in Ottawa was that being Canadian meant someone who lived in Ontario or Quebec.

Schools did a really lousy job of teaching enlightenment values to students which used to be the basis of Canadian culture. I think by having no set idea of what it was to be Canadian, people like Turdeau could impose their view on Canada. Canada had nothing like the US where the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution made it quite clear what the basis of American values were.

So what we have in Canada is a large number of groups of hyphenated Canadians many of whom forget about the "Canadian" part. As long as most of the immigrants were from countries that had been affected by the enlightenment, there were few problems ie European immigrants. Now that muslims are allowed to immigrate to Canada, it's just a matter of time before there will be nightly carbacues in the streets and the best way to prevent this problem is to keep them out.

In a dinner party situation, I have no problem discussing which cultures I think are advanced and which are primitive. I keep race out of it as people of all races can accept enlightenment social values.

Multiculturalism only works when immigrants want to integrate into our culture and become Canadians. That means living in our neighborhoods not mono-cultural ghettos, sending their kids to public schools, letting them socialize, date and marry other cultures, learning our language, participating in community activities, wearing 'normal' clothing in public, not expecting cultural entitlements or special treatment etc. What they do in their homes or places of worship is their cultural right, but in public they have to try to be Canadian.

Multiculturalism does not work if immigrants want to isolate themselves, wear costumes in public, try to live like they did in the old country surrounded by only 'their' kind of people, and pursue customs that violate our cultural view of human rights. If they act like that they will be, shunned, ridiculed, and rejected by good, honest, normal Canadians.

If that's racist and bigoted then tough shift, cuz I ain't gonna change no matter what socialist laws they pass.

Half British , half Greek.
Moved here age 35 - proudly Canadian.
Multiculturism can kiss my bum.
My children were born here and are Canadian with no hyphens attached.

Have you listened to Carmen and Sara's take Alex? They're talking literally about Canadian officials directing immigrants into race-specific groups. The radio segment is really interesting, if you care.

loki; Canadians do have a very well defined identity. I know this from all the beer ads I've seen over the years.

In a way it reminds me of the quips about how the Scots became greater English imperialists than the English themselves after they confederated. Immigrants like Sara are often prouder Canadians than people born here.

As an avowed Racist, Bigot, Xenophobe, etc. I have to say that I love Canada and all those who came here from all over the world to be Canadians, speak English, maybe have a beer, watch a hockey game once in awhile.

Go out West or down East and check out the Rockies, or Cape Breton Island ... go camping, fishing, getting a hit of culcha in the big beautiful cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver ... I think It's save to included Calgary in that line which happens to have a Muslim mayor FYI ...

But anyone who came here to cling to a piece of their former turf, can get the hell out and back to where you came from.

* THIS - IS - CANADA * (the visual is me kicking you into a deep pit). The same goes for the elitist idiots who welcome the disgusting turfers in their foreigner ghettos that some immigrants have brought and are encouraged to squat in and collect the money of hard-working tax-paying Canadians forever.

Alex, I kick you into the pit with whatever vermin it is you are defending.

The Trudeaupean lunacy must end with this generation or Canada is gonzo. I think there are now enough of us to make it happen.

followed by a series of "Racist" barbs soon after

Is culture race?
Is race culture?
No to both.
(is no such thing as race)
Where are you ET?

If we were to hypotheticly stipulate that the quote above was truth, if being against multi-cult is racist, then being for multi-cult is racist too.
In fact if culture is race then multi-culturalism is a racial policy.

Official racism

I grew up believing we were all Canadian, but then had that idea dashed when my first child was born. My wife informed me that the hospital needed the ethnic origin of the child, not knowing any better I said Canadian. The next day when I went back to the hospital my wife was crying and said she was told that if we didn't declare the ethnic origin that we would not be able to take the child home. My problem was that the child was fourth generation Canadian and his Great-Great grandfather migrated through Warsaw so by Canadian Law he was Polish, although that may not be true. So we listed our son as Polish. When the second was born my wife forgot what the ethnic origin was so I told her Ukrainian and he was listed as Ukrainian. If we would have had another child it would have been German and so o n. This to me was as stupid as it gets.

One of the tasks I had was the welcoming of the new class to our program on the first day of classes. After I had completed the task I went back to my office and sat down to look at the class list and to my amazement it indicated that there were three visible minorities in the class and I could not remember seeing them when I addressed the group so I asked the department head what that was about and he informed me tat there were three students of Asian descent and I guess I just assumed that they we Canadians since they have always been present in the society that I lived in, from the Owner of the Store in the small prairie town that I grew up in to the classmates in my university classes, the people I worked with, the people in church or the children my children played sports with. Boy was I surprised.

I believe it is crap like that that stands in the way of a true Canadian identity.

The likes of Alex Da Troll are too filled with arrogance & hate to ever be open minded enough to actually *listen* to another person's views but I think great respect & time should be given to listening to Carmen on the podcast. Though she moved here from another country, she truly **GETS** what it means to be a Canadian! Sadly, much more so than a lot of people born here. :-(

Robbie, you're so open-minded your brains have fallen out. There's no such thing as "Official Multiculturalism". There's no SEEEKRET GUBERMENT CONSIRAPCIE!!! to separate Canadians based on cultural or ethnic lines. It doesn't matter how many times you twits repeat these lies, they won't magically become true. Your "views" are completely irrelevant when they're invented whole-cloth and completely inconsistent with reality. I actually DID immigrate here, so I'm quite familiar with how the system works, and I know for a fact that you're simply lying. No amount of weaseling or calling me "closed minded" is going to change the fact that you're a liar who makes up ridiculous accusations in order to excuse his own bigotry.

ryan, if you're referring to the Molson ad, I found it so offensive that I've never bought a Molson product since it came out.

Every time I've gotten into a discussion with people about Canadian culture, the main thing I seem to get is what Canadians are not and, when I lived in Ottawa, it seemed to be especially important for many people to point out that we're not Americans. Lost track of how many times I got the comment "why don't you move to the US where you'll be more at home".

What constitutes Canadian culture depends on where you happen to live. Growing up in Alberta, it was shooting gophers as a kid, barbecues, beer, guns, spending lots of time in the bush and a degree of freedom that is no longer present. Never learned to skate till I was over 30 so hockey wasn't part of my childhood and I considered official bilingualism a perversion that might hopefully be rectified in the future.

Now I do refer to myself as a Canadian, but it took quite a few decades to determine that what Canadian culture represents is a toned down version of enlightenment values (compared to the US). I'd like to see Canada get a lot more libertarian in the future.

The absurdity of "Official multiculturalism" is that a whole governing system is a part of a culture. not the other way. The myth of democracy, parliamentary ceremonies, creation of national heroes are all cultural elements.
Canadian culture? Are the mating rituals same in Toronto and Moose Jaw? Are drinking habits shared in Whitehorse and Montreal?
Distinct culture in Quebec? yeah big deal, so is Mid-west, Pacific or even some small hamlets in Saskatchewan have distinct culture.
People confuse culture not only with a race , but also with a national identity.

The "multicultural" notion that no culture is better or worse than another is nonsense. The standard one uses to judge cultures is to what extent they are coercive. A culture in which coercion is prevalent is a primitive one. A culture of freedom is a superior one. Many cultures are a mixed bag, and each of their many aspects must be judged separately.

The fundamental moral principle of a civilized society is that no person has the right to inititate the use of force or fraud on any other person. One standard leftist trick is to blur the distinction between voluntary and coerced (for example, referring to lottery tickets as a "tax"). The "multiculturalist" notion that all cultures are equal is just another example of this tactic. It would lead to the belief that North Korean communist culture is equal to our own, which is clearly false. But the extreme left cannot allow people to believe that it is false, because then the people would reject leftist totalitarianism. So they use diversionary tactics like multiculturalism in an attempt to confuse.

Many ethnic and religious cultures have their own music, dances, clothing, food, etc., which are in the main not morally objectionable. Anyone may celebrate his own culture, as long as he does so at his own expense. Which is why the "official multiculturalism" grant industry should be closed down.

loki: "Schools did a really lousy job of teaching enlightenment values to students which used to be the basis of Canadian culture"

That's because the Enlightenment has been endarkening itself since Immanuel Kant came along.

Stop feeding the troll. Multiculturalism is the official policy of the federal Canadian government.

Here Alex.

nv53 ...

The "multicultural" notion that no culture is better or worse than another is nonsense.

No, it could be a cultural value, although taking human nature into account it is hard to hold a cultural belief that it can be a cultural attitude:))

Good points xiat - I like your use of degree of coercion in a culture as a metric of how advanced it is. There are subtle means of coercion; eg "citizen" vs "subject" with a "subject" being explicitly subservient to a hereditary monarch whereas "citizens" are independent and legally equal. By this classification the US used to be more advanced than Canada given that there was less coercion in the US, but the "war on terror" and "war on (some) drugs" has led to a substantial decline in American cultural advancement. When one looks at islamic cultures, especially those of the Wahabbist persuasion, they are the most backward of all world cultures.

I'd disagree about Kant and would put a large share of the blame on Rousseau who is probably the most corrosive intellectual influence around. The "noble savage" myth is at the root of all "environmentalist" ideology.

Anyone can type, but not everyone can make sensible points and contribute to a rational conversation.

Great job, Robert. Ignore the mindless, reflexive negativity.

Just to be clear, I'm referring to Alex, who, somehow, after listening to your POV on Roy Green's show, accuses you of being a *bigot*.

It's a sad fact of life that some people are - literally - incapable of parsing the words and utterances of others; their pre-assembled "points" are not altered in the slightest by either evidence or facts.

Well Alex, considering I come from 'ethnic' backgrounds of Irish, English, Scottish, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch it would be pretty silly of me to be bigoted. Admittedly, human beings are capable of amazing things good and bad so it is still possible. I'm just weirdly suprised you would accuse me of it based on my comments. So you think the Canadian girls from Egypt were making stuff up about being directed to Egyptian/Arab groups by immigration officals? The point isn't that it's a 'conspiracy' but that it's a message - that you are from Egypt, you're different, here are people like you to connect with here. My reading of that message is that it comes from 'white' anglo Canadians who see the majority Canadian culture as a white-specific culture. Because they don't want to assimilate other cultures through their percieved majority influence they instead want the country to be a mosaic of hermeretic cultural circles without real connections or influence on eachother. In a way, it's a good and lovely idea and I respect it because I recognize the wrongs like residential schools that it responds to. I find it distasteful and wrong because it assumes races are indelibly different and cannot truly mesh. It's also blind to the fact that most of the people who come here could have stayed in their own country if they didn't want to be Canadian. To me Canadian multiculturalism is a success story because it meshes. 100 years ago Ukranians in the praries were a very separate people. There are still a few Ukranian jokes filtered down to me that speak of a time when the European ethnicities were as separated as the continental ethnicities are now - if not much more so.

It's never a clean and easy process. Absent a strong enough unifying message and with people who don't want to see it happen because they patronizingly think it's racially 'their' culture and so for 'others' to join is for them to lose themselves how can it happen? Time and the Canadian ethos may work the same magic but there's the risk it won't. And then we'll no longer be the greatest example of how people can be together but become a shallower example of how people can live near eachother - if that ghettoization doesn't end up sharpening racial lines so much we're no longer an example at all. You could see immigration officials telling people about their culture/race-specific groups in the country as a smart way to find social support for newcomers. But without a larger, Canadian identity message it becomes a real worry for what the country will become.

I believe that multi-culture is a term used to describe the many different types of yogurt now available on grocery store shelves. When I was young we could only buy yogurt from the local creamery, now it comes in flavors and colors and under various name brands.

Posted by: Black Mamba at May 13, 2011 1:32 AM

And which part of that, pray tell, says anything about no culture being any better than another?

It's hilarious to watch you idiots argue against something you yourselves have made up. It's like watching the crazy guy on the street corner, arguing with himself.

Liberals confuse multiculturalism with cultural ancestry. They really do think of multiculturalism as "more pavilions at folkfest" and believe that culture is somehow benign. They completely miss the fact that immigrants come to Canada (or elsewhere) to escape the culture they are from. Cultures are not benign, they are by definition, coercive. A culture is the expression of the local identity politics - the tribal separation of one group from another, for survival, for gain. Multiculturalism means maintenance of discrete tribal identities, and by extension, the coercive toxic elements that ensure the separation of those identities. They can never be compatible because they exist to be incompatible.
When liberals talk of multiculturalism they are really talking about cultural ancestry - maintaining the identity and tradition elements that are the art of cultures that belonged to forefathers of the immigrants. Sort of trying to make a pluralistic society a living museum of its elements - pavilions at folkfest. Canada, nor any pluralistic nation, can't be multicultural - the cultural identities are inherently mutually exclusive. Balkanization is always the end result, and that's never been a good thing.

Alex, now that you've outed youself as a non-native Canadian, tell us what your cultural ancestry is. I think I can guess fairly accurately by your condescension and demeanor. Tell us and lets see if my "inherent" white bigotry is right...

Multiculturalism is the Homogenization of Humanity. The UN is the Human Resources Dept. of the Multinational Corporation, and the organ of the world's elite. One of their foremost programs is the elimination of the Nation State. In order for this to succeed the Nation State must go, borders must fall. National Armies, and Treaties must be signed acknowledging the UN's paramountcy over the Nation State. Multiculturalism is Homogenization of humanity. It is only employed as a tool against the Western World. It is never employed in the developing world, ie, China, India, Africa etc. It is Cultural Genocide on a grande scale being committed against the West. Perhaps we should say Cultural Suicide as the adherents are willing dupes. You must never, never, never be proud of being White that is now Criminal.

For Alex, the fact that Multiculturalism is embedded in the Canadian Constitution 1982 makes it an obvious fact. That Canada legally has a program of Official Multiculturalism, the courts are commanded to uphold this Official Document of Canadian Law. And it is Officially taught in all our schools. And it is Officially Funded by law by all Taxpayers mostly against our will but funded just the same. Suck it up Princess Alex. You lost the argument.

Robert, my question is why are you having dinner with such @$$holes? ~:D

Multi-culturalism became government policy when Trudeau came to power, right along with metric and the destruction of the military. As I recall from having lived through it, the original purpose was to beat up on all us WASPs for having been mean to the French. We made them "second class citizens" you see, so we all needed to be punished.

Then came the huge wave of immigration, and multi-culturalism shifted magically from including French to including -everything-.

Over the years, Official Multi-Culturalism has changed its aims. It changed from trying to "broaden" Canadian culture to trying to -destroy- Canadian culture. As we all remember from the 1990's and 2000's, "Da Canadian Values" to quote Prison Mouth Chretien include socialized medicine and provincial parks, but not farming, churches and hunting.

And of course now we have a whole new bureaucratic machinery of oppression to speed the destruction of traditional Canadian culture, the Human Rights Commissions. Re-tooled from their original purpose of insuring the New Canadians a fair shake at an apartment in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, they now insure that the Christians (the majority, in other words) are circumspect about what they say in public.

Presently our shiny new Conservative majority is set to back out of the driveway and into a telephone pole with the proposed Crime Bill. This takes multi-culturalism out of the non-judicial hands of the HRC kangaroo courts and puts it firmly in criminal courts. Cops will be reading your email and perusing your web surfing habits without a warrant, and bloggers will go to jail for linking to a site which contains "hate speech".

This is because the peckerheads who write these bills and set regulations are not elected Conservatives, they are Ottawa mandarins who were appointed 20 years ago by the Liberals, and they are not about to let a little thing like a Conservative majority derail their agenda. They set out to destroy traditional Canadian culture, and they are by G*d going to do it.

If you want to know what they have in mind for your future, just watch CBC like a good little robot. You'll be living in Little Mosque On The Prairie, and you will be pretending you like it.

*
had ctv's "canada am" on in the background this morning... and they were interviewing
"canadian" figure skater patrick chan... who said that he is going to start learning
chinese.

apparently patrick, on his last visit to china... felt humiliated, or alienated... and wants to
embrace his ethnicity.

being canadian, it seems, is some sort of step down the multicultural ladder.

thanks for that, p.

*

Thanks, Black Mamba, for providing the FACTS about what OFFICIAL multiculturalism is, right from the horse’s mouth:

“The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which respects and celebrates diversity. The Act also:

. . . recognizes equality rights regardless of colour, religion, etc.”

Of course, the act means no such thing: it was crafted by and has been wielded (like a bludgeon) by our politically correct masters, who hate the British, Judeo-Christian dispensation that’s the political, judicial, and moral foundation of this country—and most of the free, prosperous world. The “Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government . . .”? Ask a traditionalist, male Christian (Stephen Boissoin), who objects to homosexual propaganda in the schools (I’ve seen it up close and personal) or who’s not in favour of same-sex marriage (Damian Goddard, in the last two days).

Have these dissenters from political orthodoxy been treated equally to Muslims, who also, a propos their religious belief, object to homosexual propaganda and same-sex marriage? NO. It’s white, Christian (and, in Ezra’s case, Jewish) males who are hauled before our draconian Human Rights (sic) Commissions or have lost their jobs because they’ve had the audacity to express both the inconvenient truth of our politically correct gulags and their religious/philosophical beliefs. Some equality!

Mark Steyn’s pointed out that (hat tip to Robert Frost) trying to discuss this issue with relativist dupes, who have actually fallen for the multicultural ruse—its purpose is actually to destroy the host culture, not just be nice to everyone—is like playing tennis without a net. Rules don’t count. Hey, the game itself doesn’t count. Just my feelings count. What rubbish!

Actually if you ask Canadians on the street, excluding multiculting loving Tarrana, what they think of Multiculturalism they'll tell you they think it sucks. I often hear people opining that they're sick of immigrants in Canada demanding we support their beliefs whilst they publicly shun our beliefs. Outside of the Ottawa Tarrana bubble Multiculturalism is sneered at for good reason, not all cultures are even remotely equal to our culture.

If I were a cartoonist:

First Frame: Relativist kicking British, Judeo-Christian wolf out the back door.

Second Frame: Relativist running to the front door to greet Muslim crocodile with open arms.

Relativist: IDIOT!

My family was very multi-cultrual until I married a Malay Muslim, talking the talk was a lot easier than walking the walk.

Biologically, there's no such thing as 'race', understanding that term to suggest a separate species. There is one species: homo sapiens, with many adaptations, which include skin colour, hair, height, fat distribution etc. Usually, a biological reason can be found for these variations; i.e., they are adaptations to a specific climate, sun, foods etc.

But there ARE numerous cultures, which are the set of beliefs and behaviour of a population located in a particular geographic domain. And of course these can each be evaluated, since they are creations of the human mind.

Multiculturalism - please note the 'culture' within the word - is an official policy in Canada. There's not only the 1988 Official Act as pointed out by Black Mamba. It includes such niceties as:

"acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage

make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins;"

So, doesn't this mean that if my 'cultural heritage' includes insisting that my wife wear a veil..then...
And if my 'cultural understanding' includes a rejection of the laws of Canada...then..

And, not only is there this 'Multicultural Act' but multiculturalism is also embedded in that other travesty: The Charter of Rights.

Section 15/2 rejects equality rights of individuals IF the 'law, program or activity [that]has as its object the amelioration of condictions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability'.

Note: 'disadvantaged' is subject to interpretation.
Note: the focus is on GROUPS. That is, you can have a program or law (!)that applies only to members of a specific 'race' or ethnic origin! To 'better' their ..whatever. This section on Equality Rights specifically rejects equality of individuals if that individual is a member of a 'special group'.

And, then there's Section 27 of the Charter: "This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians'. Hmm. Not the culture of Canada but of wherever your ancient ancestors came from...you don't even change those old ways; you come to Canada to preserve the old mindset.

And this focus on 'differences' and 'inequality' applies to the workforce. Try getting a government grant without showing proof that you have included a strong ratio of 'visible minorities' and various other 'different groups' in your team. The focus isn't on merit or ability; it's on CULTURE...and these had better be different. Or..no grant.

And how about the Liberal heritage of giving vast federal sums to immigrant groups for 'community centres' and 'heritage language instruction'...[as long as they vote Liberal]...

Multiculturalism was a political strategy to divide and conquer anglophone Canada. Quebec took charge, alone of all the provinces, of its own immigration, and the result is - the lowest proportion of 'visibles' in all of Canada (and 99% in Montreal only)..and in insistence on integration.

Are cultures equal? Of course not. Any simpleton, when presented with the facts of: the ability of that set of beliefs/behavior to support and continue its population in health and capacity to work with other peoples ....has to EVALUATE that culture.

Note the 'capacity to work with other peoples'. That's important. A set of beliefs and behavior that can only function in isolation from all others...is dysfunctional; it shows that the beliefs and behavior lack any tactics for adaptation. Sounds like a certain culture with which we are familiar, doesn't it..

ET! We missed you! Slay Alex for us!

canucklehead - "Well Alex, considering I come from 'ethnic' backgrounds of Irish, English, Scottish, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch it would be pretty silly of me to be bigoted."

So in other words you're about as white as it's humanly possible to be ;-)

But no, of course I understand you, so am I. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke (because I don't have time to look up the actual quotation), people came here to get away from foreigners.

Alex is doing this thing of latching onto an obscure, pointless detail, i.e. we must find the official document where it explicity states in exactly those words that all cultures are to be considered equal, when in fact it's already been demonstrated that "multiculturalism" has been government policy for decades and non-WASP cultures are given priviledged status by the state. If we could find that one precise phrase we would instantly convert Alex, but otherwise we are liars with the IQs of vegetables.

The Left having no good arguments, it's always Revenge of the Nerds time with these guys now.

Damn ET, I wish you'd stick to what you call anthropology and leave the biology alone. You are profoundly ignorant of things biological, and your pontificating only cements the fact. There are races of humans, despite your view that there is not.

I think where Alex has gone wrong is in several areas.

First, of course, was his statement that 'there's no such thing as official multiculturalism' in Canada. This claim is false: there's the Canadian Multicultural Act of 1988. That's official. And of course, there's the 1982 Charter with sections 15/2 and 27.

But second, Alex's Webster definition of 'multicultural' has nothing to do with the definition of multiculturalism in Canada. The Webster definition refers to an INDIVIDUAL who has enough varied beliefs and behavior such that he can 'adapt to diverse cultures'. That has nothing to do with Canadian multiculturalism which is the opposite of anyone adapting but focuses on preservation of old beliefs and behaviour.

And third, Alex declares that there's nothing that says 'no culture is better than another'. Well, yes there is. That's found in the rules on the TREATMENT of otherness. If you treat someone's beliefs and behaviour from X culture as equal to that of the beliefs and behaviour from Y culture - then, de facto never mind de jure - you have a LEGAL definition of equality where indeed, 'no culture is better than another'.
And this is the basis of the Multicultural Act.

You can see this insistence on both a group identity with individuals submerged within their distinct cultural group, and the assertion of equality of all these different groups - in the Implementation Section of the Multicultural Act which insists that members of these different groups are to be treated in an equal manner.

But, the Charter actually asserts INEQUALITY! That is, if your group is defined as 'disadvantaged' which de facto means a minority, both visible and proportional, then your group is NOT EQUAL but is privileged! Because 'any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups'...trumps Section 15/1 of equality treatment!

The keyword is 'conditions'. What the heck are the conditions that disadvantage me..if I am of a particular 'race', ethnicity, religion, age...blah blah? That's so open, so ambiguous as to be without meaning and therefore, open to activism.

So, I'm afraid that, based on facts and logic, Alex has no grounds to stand on. Fun.

Gosh, Skip, it's odd that you define me as 'profoundly ignorant' of 'things biological'. Hmm.

Then how is it that I'm asked to review biological articles for the Journal of Theoretical Biology and Biosystems? And how is it that I've published in biological journals? How is it that I work with professionals in biology (and physics, and information/computer sciences). I think those editors know a bit more about biology, I suspect, than do you.

Science has long rejected race among humans, acknowledging that the different variations - and there ARE variations - are simply that: variations of a single species: homo sapiens. Within this Set, there are those many subsets. In fact, there have been found more variations within a 'subset' than between sets. I suggest you google 'scientific analysis of race'.

If this post goes through, here's a site. Read it through.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Race

The physical characteristics of these subsets don't determine the cultural beliefs and behaviour. And it's these beliefs and behaviours that are of interest - and are also, the focus of the Canadian Multicultural Laws.

Skip:
"Alex, now that you've outed youself as a non-native Canadian, tell us what your cultural ancestry is. I think I can guess fairly accurately by your condescension and demeanor. Tell us and lets see if my "inherent" white bigotry is right..."

By the way you phrased that, I can guarantee with 99% certainty that you're wrong. But feel free to guess - it should prove quite amusing.

ET:
On point 1, I, of course, meant that there's no such thing as the "Official Multiculturalism" of which he speaks. The Canadian Multicultural Act has as much in common with his definition as a Ford Model T does with a McLaren F1. My apologies if that was unclear.

On point 2, until you provide a (sourced) official definition that takes precedence over the dictionary definition, your objection is meaningless.

On point 3, you're completely out to lunch. The "rules on the TREATMENT of otherness" deal with treatment of the INDIVIDUAL. Their intent is to ensure that nobody is mistreated solely because of their cultural or religious association - they make no statements about the doctrines or internal social norms of any groups. If that Scottish weirdo next door insists on blaring his bagpipes at 2 am every day because it's part of his "cultural heritage" our legal code takes precedence, but you don't get to discriminate against him just because he happens to like the bagpipes. Where the laws, customs, or beliefs of other groups clash with our own, we acknowledge the superiority of our own society and enforce our laws; where no such conflict exists, we allow them the same personal freedoms as all other Canadians.

As for the charter "asserting inequality", that's about the only thing you've gotten right. We had similar issues within the military with the old SHARP program, and I was glad to see it tossed out. I'd certainly be in favor of revising the charter, although I guarantee that the result would still be objectionable to the majority of the bigots around here. Certainly Skip and his "inherent white bigotry" would not be pleased. The only change that's necessary is the removal of the list of identifiable groupings - simply change the phrasing so that everyone is afforded equal protection, without recognition of any "special status".

Sorry to kick the stool out from under ya, but I'm sure you'll recover.

I for one enjoyed seeing Alex getting torn a new one on this thread, although I must give him full marks for wanting to debate the issues at hand,well done sir.

Alex: The whole "cultural mosiac" VS "melting pot" thingie we learned/were indoctranated with in school? Thats Official right?

Thanks bob! A compliment always makes up for clueless brouhaha from the peanut-gallery. Cheers!

ET, thank you for the "stuffed shirt" analysis. You and I both know that the link between science (as it equates to fact) and publishing is tenuous at best.

"Science has long rejected race among humans" ...actually science hasn't done anything of the sort, but cultural norms have. And as to "I think those editors know a bit more about biology, I suspect, than do you.", well you can keep on thinking, my 40+ years as a biologist would beg to differ. Of course, this really is an argument in semantics, as much of taxonomy is. The taxonomy of humans has always been about semantics, not science. Definitions unfortunately change, and definitions with regard to people change all the time. Doesn't alter the fundamental biological character one bit. Believe whatever you want, doesn't of necessity make you right. You constantly conflate pleiomorphism with race. They are not the same thing, but sometimes they are. Work that out.

Anyone who relies on a third-rate dictionary like Merriam-Webster to prove his "point" is an uneducated buffoon.

From a BBC article:

The Oxford English Dictionary offers a broad definition of multiculturalism as the "characteristics of a multicultural society" and "the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported".

Can you understand that last sentence, Alex? It's a government policy of supporting and maintaining identity politics. And I translate "identity politics" to mean "I'm part of such-and-such a group, gimme, gimme, gimme", to paraphrase Abe Simpson. For years, the Liberals played this game very well (and still do in Toronto, Vancouver, and to some extent in Montreal), which was all they needed with their Quebec fortress to secure government. The Bloc (and now the NDP) were the first to diminish this hold, and Chretien's majorities were more the result of the fracture of the right than of any great love for him or the Liberals.

Now Harper and Kenney have turned the tables, and the Tories have made inroads in ridings that were unthinkable even six years ago. Now it is the left that is fractured, and the Tory style of multiculturalism that is accepted. A lot of immigrants left for Canada for better economic prospects, it's true, but once here, with a different perspective of what's going on in their homelands (corruption, murder, revolution), they've realized what a good thing they've got, and they don't want it changed all that much. They just want some respect. That's the real strength of Kenney's approach - I've seen it in person.

Alex, thank you for simply illustating my point. Its certainly consistently amusing that you assume you "know" things about people on this site. It would be fascinating to watch you and your ego pass through a door at the same time - seems there would be hardly room for both. Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing?

"Can you understand that last sentence, Alex?"

There's only one sentence, Kevin.

"It's a government policy of supporting and maintaining identity politics."

Yes, let's just reword the definition we just quoted in order to make it say what we want it to say. That ought to work.

"And I translate "identity politics" to mean "I'm part of such-and-such a group, gimme, gimme, gimme", to paraphrase Abe Simpson."

Of course you do; and that's the issue. You don't actually care about what's going on - you only care about slagging anyone different than you.

YAY, ET has returned! We missed you!

Its fun watching the Alextroll parse and squirm and define its way out of looking a fool. Too LATE, Alextroll. your beclownment is complete.

Of course multi-culturalism is the official policy of the Canadian government. Also all the provincial and city and county and town ones too. Why, one would have to be a ... what's the word I'm looking for... a TROLL to say otherwise.

By the way, for those of you who didn't study population biology in school ET is (duh!) 100% correct. Races do not exist in the DNA. The intellectual construction "race" was created for political and economic reasons, not biological ones. Fairly evil political and economic reasons, I might add.

Alex - Robert's operational description of multiculturalism is exactly identical with the operational definition of the Official Multicultural Act. That is - all beliefs and behaviour are 'cultural constructs' and are equal to each other. That is, you don't evaluate the beliefs/behaviour.

I've provided the sourced definition of Canadian multiculturalism - as has Black Mamba. The definition is found in the Canadian Multicultural Act and also the Charter. The definition refers to beliefs and behaviour of a group:

"multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage".

Your dictionary definition is irrelevant; your definition, again, refers to an individual's ability to adapt to diverse cultures! That's not what the Cdn Act deals with!! The Cdn Act deals with the preservation of group beliefs and behaviour. You don't seem to understand the difference!

No, you are quite wrong about the act being about treatment of the individual and his ethnic or religious ASSOCIATIONS. The Act is not about associations (which is Section 2 of the Charter). The Multicultural Act is about the group beliefs and behaviour that you hold and act on. Not who you associate with.

Playing the bagpipes at 2:00 am is not part of the Scottish culture. The belief/behaviour has to be indicative of the heritage group - so that having four wives is a reality among Islamic groups in Canada even though our laws forbid it!

"Canadian lawmakers are "perturbed" to find out that husbands can claim welfare benefits for multiple wives in Ontario. Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services, responded to a report from the Canadian Society of Muslims that estimated that "several hundred" men in the Greater Toronto Area are in polygamous marriages and are receiving welfare payments for their multiple wives. Bigamy remains illegal in Canada and the rules officially bar applicants for welfare from claiming for more than one spouse."

Furthermore, culture is not outlined within laws. That is, there is no law in Canada that bans wearing a face veil; there is indeed a cultural norm that rejects it as isolationist and enslaving. But, you say that we acknowledge our customs as superior..and 'enforce our laws'. Your merging of 'cultural norms' with 'laws' leads you to make this error...and the face veil remains.

The multicultural act focuses on the 'special status' of identity groups; namely "the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage".

This is not about the individual; it is not about the laws; it is about the primacy given to maintaining beliefs/behaviour that were developed in another time and space - and quite frankly, this act inhibits people from merging, diffusing, evolving these old beliefs and behaviour and developing more modern and shared ones.

That's why, in Canada, you get ethnic groups filled with seething hatreds for 'what was done to us' 500 years ago over in such-and-such land by 'those people'..and why these hatreds are retained. That's why you get religious groups unable to interact with other groups..and so on.

Again, Robert's description of the Act was operationally correct - and your dictionary definition was irrelevant. Enjoy.

Alex, instead of just slagging people who think differently than you, why don't you define multiculti for us. After all, the constitution, bills of rights and HRCs, liberals and others who share your view can't administer, support and defend what they don't know, so tell us, please, what is multiculturalism?

"Robert's operational description of multiculturalism is exactly identical with the operational definition of the Official Multicultural Act."

Yep, you just pissed away what little credibility you had left. I already asked you for a sourced, official definition - instead you've provided more unsupported opinions, and quoted portions of the act which say nothing at all about equality of cultures. I won't waste any more time on you.

Skip: ET already quoted the definition as given by the charter, he merely chose to then go on and (intentionally?) misinterpret what it says. Just scroll up and read the part in quotes.

I'm still waiting for your guesses about where I immigrated from. I'll help you out: it's not Kenya OR Hawaii!

And the beclownment continues.

You know Alextroll, if you're going to have an intellectual exchange, at some point you have to provide some support for -your- side of it, not just complain of a lack of acceptable citations on the other side.

ET said: "Playing the bagpipes at 2:00 am is not part of the Scottish culture." Well, actually... ~:D

ET, welcome back.

"Where the laws, customs, or beliefs of other groups clash with our own, we acknowledge the superiority of our own society and enforce our laws; where no such conflict exists, we allow them the same personal freedoms as all other Canadians."

I am curious to know when that was ever not part of our legal heritage. That used to be the standard; it is not the definition of multiculturalism.

skip - of course pleomorphism can be defined as 'race' - and that's my point. [I don't mean the form as a phase in a linear evolution.] The subsets of the single homo sapiens species are just that: subsets. And not different 'races'.

The use of the term 'race' to describe biological variations of the same species suggests that their biological differences are major rather than minor - and set them up as somehow 'not human'. The focus ought to be on the cultural constructs; not the biological variations.

As for the link between publishing and science - your rejection of this is illogical. Sure, there is fallacious science that gets published; but since all science must be published in order to be communicated, then, a reliable publishing house will ensure, as far as possible, the validity of its publications. Your trying to reject my reviews of biological articles and my own publications in biological journals - is illogical.

"By the way, for those of you who didn't study population biology in school ET is (duh!) 100% correct. Races do not exist in the DNA. The intellectual construction "race" was created for political and economic reasons, not biological ones. Fairly evil political and economic reasons, I might add."

That would be a socialogical construct for race, not an intellectual one. There is a straightfowrard biological definition for race that does exist in the DNA, at least to the extent that DNA specifies phenotype. Anyway, this discussion of race is irrelavant to the thread. MC is not about race but about identity politics.

ET - do you not think the political implications of frank discussions on race influence the sorts of things that get published (or, indeed, influence the sorts of questions deemed worthy of investigation to begin with)?

From a layman's perspective, it seems perfectly illogical to want to assume that natural selection would NOT render a diversity of localized traits (i.e. "races", or whatever; why does the name matter?) over the period of several thousand generations.

Skip - you're right, this is rather off-topic. Sorry for fanning the flames!

Alex - "I'm still waiting for your guesses about where I immigrated from. I'll help you out: it's not Kenya OR Hawaii!" - self-involved much? Do we get a prize if we get it right? I'm going with Tierra del Fuego (although there is something a little Germanic about your ploddingness...).

This race thing is essentially a question of semantics (not that I'm anti-semantic).

"I am curious to know when that was ever not part of our legal heritage."

I'd be shocked if you were honestly this ignorant of Canadian history, but, on the off chance, go google how we treated Canadian citizens with japaneze ancestry in WW2. Or look up some info about the treatmen of Chinese immigrants back while we were building our railway.

"self-involved much?"

Yes, you are, since you seem to think every question is meant for you. Let Skip have a turn, would ya?

"skip - of course pleomorphism can be defined as 'race' - and that's my point. [I don't mean the form as a phase in a linear evolution.] The subsets of the single homo sapiens species are just that: subsets. And not different 'races'.

The use of the term 'race' to describe biological variations of the same species suggests that their biological differences are major rather than minor - and set them up as somehow 'not human'. The focus ought to be on the cultural constructs; not the biological variations.

See, this where you get it wrong. Pleomorphism cannot be defined as race. Races may have a charactereristic of being pleomorphic, and, in fact, though rarely, being pleomorphic mae be the identifying characteristic that defines the race, but they are not interchangeable. Biologically, there are human races; socialogically there are "not". The rejection of "race" in humans is a sociological phenomenon, not a biological. Humans have, within an extensive propensity to breed out pleomorphically, a genotypical tendency to breed true to certain specific phenotypes. That is all a race is. The rest is semantics. The rejection of race in humans was never about taxonomy or biology- it was always about sociology.

Alex can't even count. My post began with two sentences, of which I questioned his understanding of the latter. His response? "There was only one sentence".

And if Alex doesn't see identity politics as one group's grab of some of society's resources for their own specific use/promotion/preservation, then what exactly does he see it as? Can he answer this question, instead of just deflecting and insulting?

Vegas line says no.

"...go google how we treated Canadian citizens with japaneze ancestry in WW2"

Although I'm no apologist at all for that very unjust internment (hey, libs, in the U.S. it was Roosevelt - you know, that guy you love? - he's the one what did it), the issue there was not "your cultural practices conflicting with ours" but rather the fear that there may, in time of war, have been a third column in Canada/America. Really, it's not a difficult distintion.

Funnily enough I recently had the nerve to email Five Feet of Fury on the internment topic; I was looking for the name of a specific incident she'd once posted on. Here it is: Link.

Makes you think.

incisor - that's my point. Natural selection would vary the same species (homo sapiens) to adapt to the local environmental situation (cold, hot, a lot of sun, etc). My point is that these local adaptations are merely subset versions of the same race or species: homo sapiens.

And yes, political views do influence science - witness the Climate Change scam.

And Alex - Black Mamba is right; the Chinese and Japanese examples were 'clashes with our own beliefs' and the people were thus rejected. As BM said, this is not the Multicultural Act's definition...which outlaws any such rejection or evaluation of others. All are acceptable; all are thus, equal.

So, I disagree with Skip that there are human races (plural); I consider there is only one species/race..with many subset variations.

The problem emerges when cultural beliefs and behaviour are merged into these biological subsets, and we start to see others as essentially biological Others - and therefore, as unable to change and adapt.

And, the Cdn Multicultural Act encourages the retention of the cultural beliefs/behaviours of ethnic groups. It thus defines them as 'hereditary' (heritage group)much like a biological trait.

Further to Robert's radio show arguments. You can't talk about multi-culturalism in Canada without including the growth of government as well.

In a free country, having a policy of treating all citizens the same is redundant. Citizens are by definition all equal under the law.

But this isn't about equality before the law, this is about government controlling the behavior of the populace. Specifically, Quebec Liberals in the late 1960's MAKING the rest of the country learn French and MAKING big companies in Montreal hire Francophones, something they previously pretty much refused to do.

Then the government grew. And grew. And grew some more, until today something on the order of 30% of those employed work directly or indirectly for government. What started out as a special deal for French speakers in Quebec has become an entire industry of public employees searching for new groups to give a special deal to.

Ever finer distinctions of groups are being made, to the point where a Hindu temple (I forget where) that was started by members of the Untouchable caste has been forced by the Multi-Culti squad to accept members of other castes.

What we are faced with in 2011 is nothing less than the creation of Officially Approved Canadian Culture. Canadian Culture(tm) is whatever the Ministry of Canadian Heritage/Multiculturalism says it is. There's a whole friggin' department of government devoted to making up and enforcing our "culture".

Not coincidentally, the CBC is part of that portfolio. So like I said before, if you're interested in knowing what they have planned for our culture, just watch the Ceeb. Your heritage, morals, history or whatever else don't figure in to it -at all-.

Bottom line, official multi-culturalism wouldn't be of any concern without the immense government bureaucracy and welfare apparatus that runs it. In fact, there's an argument to be made that Canadian immigration stays high just to give all those seat polishers something to do.

Welcome back ET.

Me thinks Alex has just completed either a cultural competence or a Canadian feminist historical perspective course. I noted that Alex has used the jargon verbatim that is found in the educational propaganda provided therein. I wonder if Alex participated in the generous group shaming that inevitably occurs during instruction of this propaganda towards anyone who suggests that multiculturalism is indeed divisive, and is in fact a counter-productive strategy to fight bigotry and racism.

I suggest Alex do some real historical research on his/her own to uncover the fact that, without exception, empires throughout history have used identity politics to distract the citizenry from revolting. A united citizenry can topple an empire faster and more efficiently than several large "foreign" armies combined.

Alex, I have a question for you as does the 2011 census. Lets say 50%+ of any given neighborhood in any city has identified that it has either self identified Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Kenyan, Cuban, Ukrainian, Jamaican, Native etc residents; do you think that the newly erected or existing government buildings in that particular neighborhood be architecturally designed (exteriors and/or interior) to reflect the identified 50%+ culture of that neighborhood?

Keep in mind that means hanging art, laying rugs, choosing furniture and tapestries, etc, and of course; hiring public servants from that culture.

A most frustrating thread.

While not exactly what Steyn was discussing in Robert’s link, I can only conclude that discussing whether Canada’s official multiculturalism policy as written and applied includes cultural relativism that promotes the equality of all cultures at the expense of Canada’s historical culture is like playing tennis with a troll who says your ace is nothing more than a social construct...” In fact if you look at what the troll is doing you see constant retreat to new definitions or descriptions of facts being cited or arguments being made as lies or opinions.

I posit that Alex the troll is a Democrat who emigrated during the Bush years.

Me, I wonder if Alex is a grrrll. Argues like a chubby, pasty faced 2nd year English major that all the boys ignore.

lol, Mamba :) Yet the Dutch and English for one used to hate each other like crazy. It's almost like twins insulting each other's looks, but it was real enough, you know what I mean anyways.

But what am I saying, is Dutch-English rivalry in the dictionary? Ooops. O well.

btw, "not anti-semantic"... very very funny, lol. Speaking to that off topic, apparently there are greater genetic variations within 'races' than between them. This confirms to me that I'm not just being funny when I tell people I'm black.

ET, just into paragraph two, I figured that was you: welcome back! And thanks.

BM:

"the issue there was not 'your cultural practices conflicting with ours' but rather the fear that there may, in time of war, have been a third column in Canada/America. Really, it's not a difficult distintion.

It was one example of citizens being victimized because of an identifiable trait. The reason for that persecution is irrelevant. If you wanted a specific example of discrimination based on cultural differences, you should have asked for it. I DID also mention the treatment of Chinese migrants, which is much closer to what you were supposedly asking for. You ignored that, which is telling. Stop sticking your head in the sand and go look at the "Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act". If you want further examples, look up the Christie Pits riot, to get a feel for the anti-Jewish sentiment (and the open discrimination) which existed in Canada prior to WW2. For further reading along the same lines, look for articles discussing the rejection of the St. Lewis - a Jewish refugee ship - in 1939.

Again, while I'm aware that few children pay attention in history class, I'm appalled that you could honestly believe that our history as a nation is free of discrimination and persecution of minority groups. While we've generally been more accepting than the Americans, we've certainly had periods of xenophobia and bigotry.

'Late to the thread.

In a nutshell, official multiculturalism = divide and conquer by our politically correct, leftard, overlords of the past 40 years.

It worked for them. Not for us.

Yeah, welcome back, ET. 'Nice to 'see' you!

Alex, so you are parroting what you learned in a feminist historical perspective in Canadian history and/or Multiculturalism: cultural competence course?

You forgot to mention that the world is run by white old men and that white people must forever be ashamed of all the atrocities committed, despite reparation having been made to said cultural groups.

You also forget to misinform us that native tribes did not ever go to war among themselves and that they lived in a peaceful harmonious utopia before the white man came with small pox tainted blankets to wipe them all out.

So, you in favor of customizing existing and new government buildings to reflect the culture of 50%+ of the self-identified cultural group living in any given neighborhood?

Do you realize that past census' did not have Canadian listed as a choice? How can you possibly argue that identity politics is not alive and well in Canada? Being an immigrant yourself, I suggest you stop trying to teach others Canadian history. And why are you hyper-focused on racism and bigotry, particularly the distant past? Are you ashamed of Canada or being Canadian? I'm proud to be Canadian and I don't hate myself, so I guess that makes me a bigot right?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/htm/MJResearch/ResearchProcess/census.htm

ET:
"And Alex - Black Mamba is right; the Chinese and Japanese examples were 'clashes with our own beliefs' and the people were thus rejected."

I think you misread what BM wrote. You're agreeing with me, not her.

"As BM said, this is not the Multicultural Act's definition...which outlaws any such rejection or evaluation of others."

Yes, it rejects discrimination against individuals on the basis of group identity, which is as it should be. Or are you honestly suggesting that arresting Canadians of Japanese origin, and having a head tax on Chinese immigrants, is just peachy?

"So, I disagree with Skip that there are human races (plural); I consider there is only one species/race..with many subset variations."

On that we agree.

"The problem emerges when cultural beliefs and behaviour are merged into these biological subsets, and we start to see others as essentially biological Others - and therefore, as unable to change and adapt."

Yes - this is the foundation of racism, homophobia, religious discrimination, etc.

"And, the Cdn Multicultural Act encourages the retention of the cultural beliefs/behaviours of ethnic groups. It thus defines them as 'hereditary' (heritage group)much like a biological trait."

First sentence, yes, second sentence, nonsense. If we encourage people not to be anti-semitic, are we defining "jewish" as a biological trait? Or are we merely trying to create a society in which all people can be treated equally as long as they comply with our laws?

Your thinking seems rather muddled here. You use logical premises and go through rational steps, then throw it all away in the last minute in order to prop up an irrational conclusions. I don't get you.

"...I'm appalled that you could honestly believe our history as a nation is free of discrimination and persecution of minority groups."

And so continues the self-beclownment of Alexthetrollgrrll.

Did you ever pause to wonder -why- there were any Japanese people in Canada to intern in the first place? If Canada was so bigoted and racist, how did they all get here? Yes, Mackenzie King (Liberal) imprisoned thousands of Japanese Canadians. Yes, it was both criminal and stupid to seize their property and not return it.

Incidentally it wasn't racism. They rounded up Germans, even Mennonites, in Ontario too. Hint, Germans are WASPs too.

Postulating a serious shootin' war between Muslim nations and Canada on the order of WWII, do you suppose that all the wonderful official multi-culturalism we currently "enjoy" would last a New York minute? In the face of a -real- threat, not just the pretend threat we have right now, Mounties would be rounding up Muslims and dumping them in the Yukon faster than you can say Allah Akbar! Might build them a camp first, but maybe not.

One government's protected class is the next government's scapegoat. The oppression doesn't change, just the target.

That is what we would all like to avoid. The way to do that is NOT multi-culturalism as an official policy.

My apologies, but this thread is getting sincerely bor-ing, as Alex has, yet again, taken over.

I admit I haven't read all of the comments, but I've read enough!

Alex has a problem with understanding things mentally. Henceforth I shall ignore him harder.

Sad Fact: The Calgary Board of Education announced today that while they are cutting funding (and thus service) of mandatory French classes -- they are also planning a taxpayer-funded Arabic second language program.

Multiculturalism is naked tribalism with tilted favour poured upon those latecomers to the country. How perverse.

Take. This. Country. Back.

"Alex has a problem with understanding things mentally. Henceforth I shall ignore him harder."

:D If the first part weren't amusing enough, the last part just kills it :p You do realize, don't you, that I have never once started a conversation with you? Apparently you're a failure on multiple levels ...

What I heard Sara and Carmen communicating is that, as new Canadians, they felt they were being stereotyped and that it was taken for granted that since they were both from Egypt that they would want to associate with other Egyptians.

They were both somewhat confused by this given that they understood that Canada encouraged multiculturalism as opposed to subculturalism or segregation, if you prefer.

They were both prepared to embrace Canadian culture, yet found it difficult to discern what Canadian values are other than multiculturalism which was anything but.

What disturbs me is the trend towards creating ethnically exclusive neighborhoods complete with government offices and buildings that look and behave more like foreign embassies than provincial/federal government service buildings.

I just read this comment on Ace of Spades HQ, and darn if it doesn't check out. Amazing.

"You want the real killer, the real coup de grace? America had legalized slavery because of multiculturalism.

...The colonies (here, Virginia) had a system of indentured servitude, but not permanent slavery. Various people were indentured, some were Europeans paying for the Atlantic passage, some were captured against their will in the slave trade and brought over. But all were free after a certain number of years and their children were not obliged at all.

A former indentured servant, an Angolan named Anthony Johnson, had been freed after a few years and got prosperous enough to get an indentured servant of his own, another African named John Casor.

Casor wanted to be free, again after a few years had passed, to work for a nearby white farmer. Johnson did not want this at all and sued to keep him as a slave. His argument was that, as an Angolan, he could not be told by Virginia that he could not practice his native tradition of slave-owning.

And he became the first genuine slaveowner in the colonies.

Thanks to multiculturalism.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 13, 2011 10:32 PM (73tyQ)

Ah, yes. A bunch of white slave owners figured out that if they let this negro have a slave for life, they could use it as an excuse to keep their own slaves for life. This is, of course, multiculturalism.

You really live in a world of your own, don't you?

Black Mamba: The information you posted is indeed an accurate part of North American history, yet is not widely decimated as it does not fit with the only "evil white men" had slaves/servants leftist revisionist view of history.

It is a good point Mamba quoted in explaining what kind of multiculturalism people are worried about, which is why I'm not suprised at all you didn't get it Alex.

But let me say I'm pretty impressed. I've never seen a half-decent trolling last this long in an SDA thread and what I actually like is that in the last third of this thread you're running out of pat troll tricks and actually made some real conversation. Of course you've ignored people who didn't bother with the "it's not in the dictionary" brilliant argument but I don't blame you.

Slavery in general was considered a cultural component of the american south and there was a serious divide among people who opposed it, some of whom thought it would be wrong to impose on the south's cultural practices and so wanted only to prevent new states from being slave states. If more people had believed in a multiculturalism that considers all cultures as equally valid where could you find the traction for ending slavery? It applies to the modern situation in places like nothern europe where some cities are at or approaching majority muslim. There are serious spikes in attacks on gays and jews and of course a very very different atmosphere for women. If cultures are considered equally valid then there is no answer to this dilution of rights and values. The country is seen as a blank sheet onto which any group has an equal intrinsic right to claim a space. For the current nation to reduce or end immigration for example becomes a violation of the equal rights of other groups to live there, and is considered racist because the cultural groups are viewed as indelibly racial groups.

My opinion is that an essential part of Canada is in being an immigrant nation - we would lose our character without significant immigration. But if we act as though there it would be wrong for immigrants to become part of the main culture and respect and accept the core values of it - however ironically it is that a part of that main culture involves valuing the histories and differences of the different cultures that have come together - then Canada could also lose our character in even more serious ways... as some cities in Europe are, I would say, definitely in the process of doing.

canucklehead: "But if we act as though there it would be wrong for immigrants to become part of the main culture and respect and accept the core values of it ... then Canada could also lose our character in even more serious ways... "

In case you haven't noticed it, canucklehead, we've decimated our "main culture," which is Euro-Christian. Under the Liberal hegemony, led by Trudeau's atheistic Leftists, our British/Judeo-Christian heritage, upon which our democratic laws and institutions are built, has been systematically and intentionally trashed.

'Little wonder it's difficult for immigrants who wish to assimilate to do so, seeing as what we've substituted as "a culture" (more like an anti-culture) involves anything-goes-and-the-more-flamboyant-the-better lifestyles, unmoored from our historical and faith-based foundations.

In many cases, the hedonistic, anti-historical substitutes for "culture" today run counter to many immigrants' sense of morality and decency and they're hard-pressed to know what Canada's actual heritage/culture is, because it's been relegated to the dust bin.

A nation that loses its story, as central Canada has done (Quebec, no), is vulnerable to takeovers by Strong Men, who usually don't have the best interests of the most people at heart. It's time to take back our Judeo-Christian/British heritage and to realize how it's because of this heritage that we are the country of choice for many immigrants fleeing tyrannical regimes.

Canada, one of the freest, most democratic nations in the world, didn't just happen.

I agree with batb that multiculturalism was instituted as the means to deliberately hollow out the Judeo-Christian/British heritage of this country: on the other hand, Quebec’s culture has been altogether protected and has a huge presence in the public square. This was engineered by Trudeau, a London School of Economics socialist, if not Marxist. A person called George Irbe has written about Trudeau:

“The Canadian people were stripped of the one and only absolutely benign and dependable system for the protection of individual freedom in the world – the British common law. In its place [in 1982] Trudeau gave to the people the French kind of constitution, which submits the interpretation of a set of enumerated individual rights to the pleasure of a group of judges who are unelected and who are accountable to no one. Furthermore, this colossal constitutional change was implemented without consulting the citizens by referendum, as they rightly should have been consulted. It was a robbery of precious rights . . .”

This government deception and intrusion into our lives was added to in 1988: [I posted this earlier]

“ ‘The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which respects and celebrates diversity. The Act also:

“. . . recognizes equality rights regardless of colour, religion, etc.’

“Of course, the act means no such thing: it was crafted by and has been wielded (like a bludgeon) by our politically correct masters, who hate the British, Judeo-Christian dispensation that’s the political, judicial, and moral foundation of this country—and [much] of the free, prosperous world. The “Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government . . .”? Ask a traditionalist, male Christian (Stephen Boissoin), who objects to homosexual propaganda in the schools (I’ve seen it up close and personal) or who’s not in favour of same-sex marriage (Damian Goddard, in the last two days).

“Have these dissenters from political orthodoxy been treated equally to Muslims, who also, a propos their religious belief, object to homosexual propaganda and same-sex marriage? NO. It’s white, Christian (and, in Ezra’s case, Jewish) males who are hauled before our draconian Human Rights (sic) Commissions or have lost their jobs because they’ve had the audacity to express both the inconvenient truth of our politically correct gulags and their religious/philosophical beliefs. Some equality!”

Official Multiculturalism in Canada has been a very powerful tool to denigrate and marginalize the Judeo-Christian/British institutions of this country—the very institutions that used to protect our freedoms.

"But let me say I'm pretty impressed. I've never seen a half-decent trolling last this long in an SDA thread and what I actually like is that in the last third of this thread you're running out of pat troll tricks and actually made some real conversation."

Judging by how it gets thrown around, I doubt there's a single person around here - other than myself - who actually understands what the word "troll" means. There are, however, one or two people with the intelligence needed to have a decent conversation. You're not one of them.

Alex: "I doubt there's a single person around here - other than myself - who actually understands what the word 'troll' means."

O.M.G.

Now, he's actually claiming to be self-aware ...

"Ah, yes. A bunch of white slave owners figured out that if they let this negro have a slave for life, they could use it as an excuse to keep their own slaves for life. This is, of course, multiculturalism.

You really live in a world of your own, don't you?
"

The belief that all cultures are equal can result in something exactly like this, yes. There is nothing there that doesnt contradict any tenant of multiculturalism. He was right to post what he did, and YOU are the one out of touch. You do konw that white slave traders bought African slaves from other Africans, right?

Correction; meant to say theres nothing there that contradicts any tenet of multiculturalism.

If respect for the cultures of others is central to the concept of "multiculturalism" and "political correctness," then why is anti-Semitism allowed to flourish on college campuses in both the United States and Canada? Shouldn't there be a single standard for all in the conflict against bigotry in all of its forms and not just one standard for some and another standard for others?

"You're not one of them."

See, now we've thrown enough insults back and forth that I hardly remember that you led off by calling me bigoted. Sweet success, I feel all better now. I actually am curious about who you consider intelligent enough to have a conversation with now that you say you think so.

batb, yeah it's especially interesting that more culturally conservative immigrants now also feel comfortable enough with the Conservatives to change over. I would never have imagined an election with Toronto going half Tory. I think it puts Canadian conservativism in a lot better position than in the states. Anyhow the odd thing to me has been how much post-Christian influences in the culture retain values. I think the whole same-sex marriage thing ended up as a plus for traditional values because so much of the argument for it was that same-sex relationships could be just as loving and stable. From being more of an anything-goes fringe it won that fight less by overturning the basic values than by respecting them. It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones so the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone. I don't really agree that the source has been wiped out of our culture though, since it isn't really controversial when Harper says things like "God keep our land" - although I'd guess things are still heading that way.

canucklehead: "I don't really agree that the source has been wiped out of our culture though ..."

Try the public education system, where the mention of the Christian God is pretty much verboten (I know; my kids went to public school), whereas celebrations of Earth Day, Native spirituality, and visible minority faiths are common.

Most public school students have no idea what Christians believe about Christmas or Easter, as the narrative has now swung to Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman from the birth of Jesus Christ and the closest some students get to the meaning of Easter is, "Doesn't it have something to do with a dead rabbit?" I'm not kidding. A friend of mine in the public system, when asking students through Holy Week, what Easter was, got the dead rabbit response. The kid was serious.

Then, there's the gagging of Christians and Christianity -- or slagging and/or rididuling of them/it, take your pick -- in the public square. Here's an instructive anecdote: A friend of mine bought a Christmas card at the Hospital for Sick Children gift shop about 15 years ago, of a picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd holding a lamb in his arms. It was a photo of the stained glass window of the chapel at Sick Kids. Keep in mind that the Hospital for Sick Children was originally founded by Presbyterians.

When I expressed an interest in buying those cards the next year, to send as my Christmas cards, she said, "Oh, you won't be able to get them next year." When I asked why, she said that the gift shop at Sick Kids had decided not to sell specifically Christian cards at Christmas because it might offend the families with other faiths. HUH? (BTW, the only "Christmas" cards you can now get at the Sick Kids are ones with Frosty, Santa Claus, and winter scenes.)

What about the banning of "Christmas" from "Christmas" Concerts, which have become Holiday Concerts, and from "Christmas" trees, which have become Holiday Trees?

There's beginning, thank Heavens, to be a push back on these "bans" but it's been late in coming. I'm not sure where you've been for the past 25 years, canucklehead, or perhaps you're just too young to know the before and after narrative.

Canada, since the socialist, atheistic, London-School-of-Economics trained Liberal elite under Trudeau and co., has been moving to secularism, which has meant the putting down of the Judeo-Christian faith of our forefathers and mothers, of Canada's collective heritage. Trudeau and co. replaced Christianity and our British heritage with secularism and Francophone ascendency. Sadly, the fact that you seem unaware of this reality means that he and his illiberal henchman have done a thorough job of brainwashing.

The tide is turning, but it's a slow turning.

canucklehead writes, “It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones [right on!] so the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone.” ’Very good point.

My opinion is: not for very long. We’ve pretty well spent the moral capital in the Judeo-Christian account: look around. The public (and, I suspect, private) behaviour of all age groups is deteriorating rapidly. A common question is, “Where are the adults?” Basically, they’re missing in action. A society where self-control is severely lacking, hedonism—my way!—reigns, and few people seem to graduate from toddler behaviour isn’t going to do very well on the “Responsibility” file.

I’ve heard many people, who agree with me, say, “But, of course, things will have to change”, and they mean for the better. I disagree. Civilizations rise and fall: ours, meaning that of the Judeo-Christian West, is on the way down. “You can’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.” When a critical mass of a society is sows’ ears, things don’t look promising. People like that don’t tend to produce silk purses. Spend some time in a public school: undisciplined kids abound and the system, full of undisciplined and unprincipled people who look like adults, steps back and allows (especially the worst) offenders to be serial disrupters. Our civilizational confidence is so low, we allow the same thing in our society at large—and even when dealing with a deadly and determined enemy.

So, considering “that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones . . . the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone.” IMO, it can’t and it won’t. Kyrie eleison.

"It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones"

It's nice to see I was right about you.

Just out of curiosity, can you quantify the difference between "Jude-Christian" values, and the values of early, pre-Christian Roman or Greek society?

Who's "you"?

I was speaking to the knucklehead but, since you agree with him, it obviously applies to both.

Watch the HBO series, "Rome", to see the values of the quite barbaric "pre-Christian Roman . . . society".

Then see who the knucklehead is.

Really? Your answer is "watch TV"?

Let's hope the knucklehead can come up with something a little better.

’Come to think of it, I guess I never learned anything about anything by watching TV. Silly me for ever thinking I did.

arrrrgh

well, I doubt I could get very far on that question. I want to read the book about the Roman empire by Edward Gibbon but since I haven't I don't know much. I doubt the pre-Christian Roman and Greeks had particularly much in common with Judaic values since they were both developed separately if what you're getting at is that Judeo-Christian values themselves are borrowed. (which is a great point if I can say that without sounding lame) You could probably say that western culture is made up of a lot of both - although I strongly expect that pre-Christian Rome really was a lot more barbaric. Still, it's also not like you'll find democracy in the Bible although people will make the case that modern democracy depended on biblical values. (George Washington's quote about freedom and rights depending on the conviction that they are God-given).

I don't really rule out that Judaic values were partly borrowed too. Obviously Christianity relies on a lot of Judaic values itself. The way I view Judeo-Christianity as a source for morality is as a backbone of moral certainty - in teaching that morality comes from something certain and transcendant. I just don't see how people can continue to believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs without believing in God.

yet to respond to you too lookout, I'm not as sure about that as I used to be. I have a close relative who doesn't believe in God and she's arguably even more fiercely moral than she was when she did. It's weird... logically for an atheist to believe something is 'wrong' in what people do makes as much sense to me as also criticising a rock for rolling down a hill one way instead of another. They're just material things either way if matter is all there is. So do people eventually realize that or not? I would think so. (Not that secular and atheist are the same thing but I interpret a secularized culture as not recognizing a transcendant moral authority so the effect is similar) There are things that make me more optimistic. There seems to be a backlash to the really hedonistic hippie wave. My favorite example was a Maclean's cover story claiming the death of the sexual revolution - with a crying playboy bunny on the cover. It was hilariously subversive of the old-guard libertine values of the 60's. So my view is that we're on an upswing although that doesn't mean the overall direction isn't still down.

anyhow... this has turned out pretty interesting for me. I notice I nearly contradicted myself three times in two sentences... oh dear.

canknucklehead, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Certainly, as in the case of your relative, individuals may have a strong sense of morality: I'll bet it's based on the Ten Commandments, which are embedded in our society. I'm sure this "fierce" morality did not spring, fully formed, from her mind!

However, as the morality of the Ten Commandments is systematically mocked and/or ignored by a critical mass of society at large, and even deconstructed by our legislatures and courts, one notices a steady decline in both personal and group behaviour. Once consciences are no longer informed by such codes as the Ten Commandments, which acknowledge God and an obligation to Him (humility), as well as care of the other: “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (altruism), and self-control: the “Thou shalt nots . . .”, people believe themselves entitled to do “their own thing” minus accountability. Just visit your local school: why, despite countless—and counting!—anti-bullying programs and behaviour codes, do so many kids (and their self-satisfied, boorish, excuse-making parents) treat each other and their teachers with such a lack of respect?

Unmoored from a sense of God and His love, with the corresponding expectation that we will love, serve one another, and be accountable, I believe that society becomes coarsened. We become like “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles”: “. . . in the futility of their minds;/ they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart . . .” (Ephesians 4) Yes, we can do it our way, but the prognosis for a “kinder, gentler” society—constantly preached, in vain, by our secular institutions—is pretty grim.

"I doubt the pre-Christian Roman and Greeks had particularly much in common with Judaic values since they were both developed separately if what you're getting at is that Judeo-Christian values themselves are borrowed."

Sort of. I'm not "getting at" anything, I'm just curious to see if you can list off any of these "christian values" which the eeeevil atheists stole from you, which didn't also exist in pre-christian societies. Personally, I don't think that you can. Christianity only adopted the values which you cherish in the last few hundred years (if that); prior to that, christian nations were every bit as barbaric as muslim nations. You're grabbing on to secular values which predate christianity and were only re-introduced during the enlightenment, and then claiming that christianity is responsible for them.

I wasn't trying to make that point, though - I was honestly curious to see your response. If you had provided a valid list, I would have had to reconsider my position.

"You could probably say that western culture is made up of a lot of both - although I strongly expect that pre-Christian Rome really was a lot more barbaric."

You couldn't be more wrong. For an example of the kind of "morals" that christianity introduced to the Roman Empire, read up on Hypatia of Alexandria. Just type her name into wikipedia if you don't feel like digging through books. Early christianity was crude and barbaric - if you had been a Roman citizen living in that time, I suspect you would have felt just as strongly antagonistic towards christians of that time as you do towards muslims today.

And no, before you start getting self-righteous, I'm not trying to imply any kind of moral-equivalence between islam and christianity. I'm only pointing out that the "values" which you're so proud of generally predate your religion, and that your religion had a huge role in suppressing those values for about a thousand years. That christianity managed - with much pushing and pulling from secularists - to drag itself back into civility ... that's laudable, and I'm thankful for it ... but it's ridiculous for you to go around claiming that christianity is responsible for the emergence of those values.

"It's weird... logically for an atheist to believe something is 'wrong' in what people do makes as much sense to me as also criticising a rock for rolling down a hill one way instead of another."

I would love to explain it to you, but that's a much more involved discussion than would be appropriate for this comments section. It's a great subject to discuss in a nice quiet pub over a few beers; much harder through a digital medium. However, as a simple thought experiment, ask yourself the following question: "Would it be morally right for me to rape and murder a child if God told me to?". If the answer is yes, then your beliefs are consistent, but I'd say you're probably a dangerous, immoral lunatic. If the answer is "no", then you clearly have an inherent morality which doesn't require any gods to sort out. If you answered "no", then you have a starting point for figuring out why morality inherently CAN NOT be based on fiat rules handed down by gods or prophets; why it is necessarily an internal value judgment based on personal beliefs and experiences.

P.S. I may have been slightly off the mark about you earlier :) In this case, I'm glad to be proven wrong.