If asked at a dinner party in front of strangers, many Canadians would likely think twice before saying they disagree with Official Multiculturalism in Canada. Failure to answer that question “correctly” might very well cause a bullseye to be drawn on one’s forehead, followed by a series of “Racist” barbs soon after.
Stepping back a moment though, when someone says they support “multiculturalism”, what exactly are they actually stating they believe in? Many undoubtedly think they’re affirming “support for multiple ethnicities in Canada”. But that’s not what multiculturalism means whatsoever!
Official Multiculturalism proponents in our country firmly believe that all cultures around the world are exactly the same; no better or worse than Canadian culture. Furthermore, anyone who does not believe this baseline premise is tarred & feathered with any number of pejoratives such as: Racist, Bigot, Xenophobe, etc.
I, for one, think such Multicultural views are absolute nonsense. Turns out that some immigrants do too. In fact, some moving to our country don’t appreciate our federal government trying to guide them into the sub-culture of their homeland and much prefer being an unhyphenated Canadian.
This past weekend I had the great honour of being a guest on Roy Green’s radio program, along with two ladies, Carmen & Sara, who left Egypt to move here, plus a regular guest on the show, William Gairdner. You can listen to the entire segment here.
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.”
😀 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.