Multiculturalism VS Integration: What do you support and why?
 

Since the thread on what is your favorite Canadian cities has deviated on a debate on racial segregation/integration based on the Canadian Geographer' s article that furry canuck has provided us, let's discuss these topics in that new thread. This is obviously a sensitive issue so please make sure to make your comments in a way that is as diplomatic as possible without auto-censorship. I'm sure we can have this discussion without creating chaos and mayhem. Please assume forumers are writing in good faith. On a thread like that there will inevitably be many different views. I'm particularly interested to hear what new Canadians/Queberers have to say about these issues as ultimately they are the ones who are the most affected by it.

Personally as you all know, I oppose multiculturalism. I think this is a very flawed concept to begin with. If you value cultural diversity as I do, you can't logically support multiculturalism. Imagine if we were to blanket the world with the concept of multiculturalism as currently implemented in English Canada and UK notably. It will result in the complete dissapearance of all national cultures and suppression of national identities because every countries in the world would be exactly the same. In other words, if you push the concept of multiculturalism to the extreme in theory, there's no need to have countries because there is no longer any specific cultures, just one global culture. That's why proponents of multiculturalism in Canada (Liberals and NDP) are telling new immigrants that there is no definite culture in Canada and that we are all immigrants in this country (That's obviously an intellectual fraud). Indeed, according to multiculturalism in what is known as English Canada, old-stock Canadians are not considered the host society or the historic founding people, they are reduced to the status of an ethnic community among many others. That completely obliterate 400 years of history. When you think about that, multiculturalism is a cultural genocide.

So how does multiculturalism works in practice ? In Canada it's almost as if the federal government was opening branches of foreign countries on the Canadian soil. Since we are telling immigrants to remain what they are and that there is no need to integrate into the mainstream canadian society, most of new immigrants in Canada live exactly as they were living in their country of origins. As a result of that you have as Joe Clark once said, a community of communities that live side by side with almost no interactions with each other.

Since English-Canada is a community of communities instead of a nation in the classical sense, how can all these micro nations-communities cohabit under one government ? In the long term the only way to acheive pacific cohabitation is through a ruthless dictatorship like the Tito regime in former Yougoslavia. My biggest fear for English-Canada is that sooner or later, these communities will start to compete for the control of political institutions. Unavoidably, the better organized and structured communities will seize the control of the public institutions while weaker communities will be left out of the dance. This will create alienation and resentment among many of our fellow citizens. Actually it's currently happening. Remember when the Toronto police foiled a major terrorist plot not so long ago in which Canadian institutions were targeted. In that case, the conspirators were all homegrown terrorists of arab origins but they could have been of any origins including old-stock Canadians. The conspirators didn't plan terrorist attacks because they were of arab origins, they did it because of a strong feeling of alienation. I'm not condoning them, I'm trying to explain their motivations. That's what multiculturalism can do. This ideology of multiculturalism is favourable to the rise of natural selection and by extension, exclusion and segregation. Multiculturalism is not inclusive so people can't share a strong bond with each others, share common values and beliefs and so on. I'm only trying to warn you about the danger of multiculturalism, nothing else.

In comparison, integration recognize that there is a definite culture and seek to integrate new immigrants to that culture. This definite culture is shape by the contribution of people of diverse origins and will continously evolve because of the contribution newcomers are making. That's what is known as an integrationist melting pot. That's what the USA and Quebec are among others. Now is integration a flawless model ? Absolutely not as inequalities still subsists. But with integration, we can at least create a strong bond between citizens, we can have a good national cohesion, we can share common values because new immigrants know what are the common values that the host society cherishes. This is possible because in the USA, everybody is American regardless of the race, religion and country of origin. There is no such thing as hyphenated-americans. Not surprisingly, Americans have a very strong sense of nationhood and patriotism. That's what we strive to recreate in Quebec.

In retrospect no model is perfect. But when you weight the pros and cons of both model, it's pretty obvious to me that integration is a far better and superior option than multiculturalism.

blablablablablabla blablabla blabla blabla :sleep:

In my experience any 'policy' on integration or multiculturalism is moot. First generation immigrants, understandably seek out people from the same background, language, religion, culture (just as many of us would as ex-pats in other countries) because that is what they are comfortable with. People will learn the official language and other custom to be able to function in that society (I've yet to come across an immigrant I've not been able to communicate with at all).

Integration is de facto for second generation immigrants. They are born into this dominant Canadian or Western society just like any 4th or 5th generation Irish, English, German, French or any other citizen. Some will learn the language, practice some of the customs or religion of their backgrounds, but will be essentially just as "mainstream" as anyone else.

Canada is a post-national state. The furthest thing that a country can be from a nation. What I like about that is that it is a welcoming place for all outsiders and backgrounds. Our bigger cities epitomize this. Of course a dominant english (or french) speaking western democratic and modern society is what binds us together to a degree and that's what makes society function effectively. I don't see multiculturalism, or pluralism threatening that, nor do I see different cultures as competing. People in Canada are very good at co-existing with everyone else.

Any culture is a constantly evolving, organic thing. Allowing this to happen is simply the natural way of things, not cultural genocide. In any case, the change is self-induced so I'm not sure why you see this to be so reprehensible.



African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans don't exist? Yeah, right.

How would an "integration" model differ from multiculturalism? I've never gotten a good sense of this from any of its proponents, just empty rhetoric over "cultural genocide" and the need to build some sort of mystical emotional bond amongst random strangers.

In any case, I don't believe you are being very honest here. Your so-called models of integration, Quebec and the USA, are no more "integrated" than the rest of Canada. You conveniently choose to ignore that segregation does exist within those nations, and in some cases at a greater degree. Your claim of their being no hyphenated Americans is laughable.

Hey Sebastien. Great idea for a thread, given how often this topic pops up and pollutes other threads.

I think that's the aim, actually. A globalist agenda.

Well, in truth, Canada did have non-English/French immigrants before the multiculturalism act. But they were expected to assimilate to a WASP/French host culture. This never destroyed the culture of the Ukranians, Dutch, Germans, etc, but it allowed them to compete successfully in the host culture and become fully Canadian (non-hyphenated). Imagine if those immigrant groups were let in under multiculturalism. We'd have a lot more Quebec-like situations around.

Well, there is interaction between communities, but as these communities reach enough critical mass (a la Toronto), there is a declining need to go outside the community for anything.

Good question. The answer is simple. We're all going to sit under the multicultural rainbow holding hands and singing kum-bah-yah. :rolleyes:

I think the key here is that we need do define "Canadian values". What do the majority of Canadians (throughout different ethnic origins) value? What do we want to keep and what doesn't matter so much to us? It'd be nice if a public survey of Canadian attitudes was taken so we could determine this. But that will never happen under a multiculturalist government structure.

Not true at all. Ever heard of "African-Americans" or "Asian-Americans"? The difference there is that they are PC methods used to describe racial differences, rather than the vast and stringent cultural differences we have in Canada.

It just depends how far you take it. Multiculturalism at its extreme results in civil war. Integration at its extreme results in fascism and the suppression of basic freedoms.

both...this isnt a question of which but combination of both

This is perhaps going to sound strange but this is what I think.

Countries outside of the Americas/Australia should only have systems of integration only. According to Mark Steyn in his book, America Alone, something like 50% or more of students in Dutch (Netherlands) schools are Muslim immigrants. What is that going to do to the Netherlands 50 years from now? Will it be indistinguishable from Morocco, Syria or Pakistan? Similar situations are occuring in France, Germany and the UK. I oppose multiculturalism of those countries. Europe could become nothing more than a continuation of the Middle East.

I more openly support multiculturalism in Canada and the United States because these countries were built by people from all places. I don't find it to be a shame if one day old-stock English-Canadian constitute a small portion of the population. However I do find it would be a shame if the English in England are no longer a majority in their own country. It would be the same thing as what's happening in Tibet, the Tibetans are being outnumbered in their own area by Han Chinese.
________
Group Sex Webcams

Wow, your opinion is very similar to mine.

Bigot. ;)

In all seriousness though, the only difference I would make in that is that Europe should not be focusing on immigration AT ALL to grow its population, but rather stabilizing it through incentives to increase the birth rate.

As for North America and Australia, I agree with your point. I have no problems with these places being multi-ethnic and multi-racial. However, I do think that there are certain characteristics about our countries that make us desirable to immigrants in the first place and we should strive to preserve those. We also need a certain degree of conformity (ie. language and laws) just to run our country effectively.

The idea that multiculturalism poses a serious threat to the majority culture in any country is entirely bullshit. It's a big, fat, fucking lie propogated by conservatives who are offended by the sight of burkas or by seeing someone dare speak Chinese in public. It's stupid, petty, and outrageous.

As Josh said, most second generation immigrants are already very well integrated into the majority culture. That's a natural outcome. And within in majority culture smaller groups will form that choose not to fully integrate. That's also perfectly fine. They can't simply hijack the majority culture. That is a process that is more gradual.

As far as the nation goes, that's an outmoded concept as national borders around the world dissolve, companies shift jobs, and laws are standardized between political units. A global world requires the continual flow of people and goods around the world. And people bring bits of their culture with them. No nation is culturally pure, that is another stupid myth. For example, France has had a large number of black muslims for centuries... and are they any less "French" or do they simply not comform to the image of France that Westerners have constructed in their minds?

Ironically, the OP has it ALL backwards, and it is only convenient that the only true host cultures, that of native Canadians, are completely omitted from his post. By pushing exactly this integrationism across the nation, that of making sure everyone is like English or French immigrants, Canada has committed cultural genocide against its founding cultures. By putting natives on reserves, and by ignoring the contributions of immigrants of Eastern European and Chinese origin to building Canada, it has purged of itself all "unecessary" cultural elements. And these cultural purists are exactly the same types crying foul over multiculturalism, that rather benign policy that thus far has eased some of the suppression of other Canadian cultural groups.

The opposing categories are multiculturalism versus ASSIMILATION(ism), not "integration." Places can be multicultural and integrated (as with every major Canadian city) and can be assimilationist and segregated (as with every major US city). Assimilation and segregation go hand in hand because assimilationism marginalises those who don't, can't or refuse to "assimilate" and the end up being segregated from the dominant culture, spacially culturally linguistically and so forth. This is not the same thing as voluntary enclave building as happens in ethnoburbs all over North America. This is ghettoisation and it doesn't happen in Canada for the most part.

The US is a weird example because while its policy on IMMIGRANTS has always been one focussing on assimilation (a policy that "worked," largely, until around 1960 with the huge influx of Spanish-speaking US citizens from Puerto Rico and of course increased immigration from Latin America that engendered a critical mass of Spanish speakers who had no need to assimilate), but of course the US has always in practice comprised two separate and unequal "societies," one white, one black, and black "assimilation" never worked and in fact de facto segregation of black people is still very much extant in the US. In many parts of the US racial segregation (black vs non-black) is greater than it has ever been. Right now.

Fail.

Multiculturalism is a good thing, as long as it doesn't violate Canadian/Western values.

For example, things like Sharia law have no place in western civilization.

Thank you

I'd more consider it cultural evolution, which as a Canadian I'm proud of. 3 out of the last 4 girls I've dated were non white, first generation Canadian. I myself am first generation Canadian all be it from England. The girl I'm seeing now is part Persian, part, Scandinavian, and part Irish 100% sexy. Anyway, 400 years ago the white Europeans came over here and just about wiped out an entire civilization. Canada is becoming a world leader at becoming multicultural.

I'd like to thank everybody who have contributed to this thread so far. I've read all of your comments with great interest. I will comment on a few of your comments:

I fully agree with that. Former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow of Ukrainian origin is a very good example.

Once again I agree. That's basically my whole point. It's possible to live in a fully multi-racial, pluralistic society only and only if we share common values. Right now, there is many people in this country who disagree with something as basic ans fundamental as men-women equality.

I find it reprehensible because it doesn't take into account the historic role of old-stock Canadians as a founding people of this country. I will never agree to a concept that reduce the founding people of a country to an ethnic group among many others. As it stands now, old-stock Canadians in Toronto have become a minority in the country of their ancestors and I can't accept that. Less and less people in a city like Toronto identify as a Canadian and I do find it reprehensible. It's either you're Canadian or your not. You can't be Canadian only at 20%.

Of course they exist. Afro-American have been in the USA since the beginning. They are not immigrants. As such they are more or less a co-founding people in my opinion. As for Hispanic, Indian and Asian-Americans, they obviously exists as well. However, they do consider themselves as American first and foremost. That's the difference with Canada.

I agree in theory. However, in a city like Toronto in which old-stock Canadians have become a minority, how can these immigrants integrate even in the 3rd or 4th generation if there is no longer a critical mass of old-stock Canadian to integrate them ? Therefore, new immigrants will integrate to their own community and won't become mainstream. We've got to remeber that after WW II, we received a lot of Europeeans immigrants but the quantity of these immigrants was nowhere near as close as what we see now with massive immigration. Also, as Europeeans, these immigrants because of cultural proximity were much more easier to integrate.

I think it would be a shame and a tragedy in both cases. Why do we think it's worth to protect endangered species like the great blue whale or bengali tigers but we don't think it's worth to protect the great english canadian culture and society ? I just don't get it. It's worth nothing that it's only in the western world that we have to deal with these questions. Aren't western caucasian civilizations worth protecting just like African and Asian civilizations ?

Right on. Those muslims who disagree with that should stay in their country as they are undesirable elements in a western society. Same is true for any other religion. Sikhs who wants their kids to wear the kirpan at school should also be send packing. This is exactly the kind of things we don't need in Canada. Heck, even a muslim country like Turkey doesn't tolerate things like Sharia, headscarfs and burkas so there is no reason why we should tolerate it here.

I forgot one :

Humm, the last 4 girls I've dated...maybe you don't fully understand the concept of monogamy!!!! The good thing about muslims is they have the right to have up to four women but as one of my muslim friend used to say you only multiply the trouble by four!!!

furrycanuck I give you all the props today. This thread is beyond stupid, and if Sebassitien likes the US style better, maybe he should move there.

^^ I think he probably meant 4 girls in succession, not at the same time. Nothing to do with monogamy.

Either way, many of your viewpoints that seem to imply entitlement of "old stock" (WTF?!?! :rolleyes:) Europeans (read: white) in Canadian society, quite frankly, I find offensive. It just smacks of xenophopia.

The thing I love about Canada, and why I think it will be a very successful country into a more globalized future is that it is set up to adapt to a more diverse and global society. On the other hand, other countries that push for assimilation and fear the diversity and plurality that come with dissolving borders and a more global culture is where marginalization and conflict (see Parisian suburban riots) will occur.

I support multiculturalisum because with out it, Canada would not be what it is today. :yes:

these two words do not represent two different patterns of practice, only two different ideologies of description. immigration in north america - places like germany are different - follows the same pattern whether it is in toronto or los angeles.

these words represent differing government strategies on how to introduce and present the phenomenon to a populace, not different phenomena.