Richmond, B.C., considers banning Chinese-only signage

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by tremblay

To stay on topic, it would make more sense for me to add Cree/Innu/Inuktiku/Attikamec/... as official languages of Canada or Quebec than Mandarin let's say. It would also bear more deep-rooted political signification.

Goode pointe.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

imagine if other government policies were like immigration, where you either favored a specific maximalism or were some horrible form of bigot? taxes, infrastructure, etc.?

"opponents of the new bypass road are nothing more than a collection of lynch mob-descended monsters!"

how would you ever discuss anything?

I don't think anyone has reacted in such a manner. This discussion has been rather lengthy and not very hostile. Seems as though you're creating things to play the victim role.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think anyone has reacted in such a manner. This discussion has been rather lengthy and not very hostile. Seems as though you're creating things to play the victim role.

Gimme a break. You strongly insinuated that I was a bigot (even using the word) and geotag said that I was a person who sees embracing other cultures as something negative.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Gimme a break. You strongly insinuated that I was a bigot (even using the word) and geotag said that I was a person who sees embracing other cultures as something negative.

No, you insinuated that being multilingual is a piece of evidence that someone is not a bigot, and I merely pointed out that a polyglot can be a bigot.

Seems like you desperately want to come out as the victim / be offended.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Seems like you desperately want to come out as the victim / be offended.

I guess it's my inner Lucien Bouchard or something. (Pick whichever one you want for your psychoanalysis...)

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think anyone has reacted in such a manner. This discussion has been rather lengthy and not very hostile. Seems as though you're creating things to play the victim role.

okay... i'll accept this. let's not bait each other or think about people having unsavory reasons for this or that post. it's beginning to descend into accusations of ill faith and it would be better if it didn't.

that noted, what's left to say?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

No, you insinuated that being multilingual is a piece of evidence that someone is not a bigot, and I merely pointed out that a polyglot can be a bigot.
.

I never used the word bigot. The only reason I raised language abilities was because I was being accused of being closed-minded to learning more languages and about other cultures.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Every generation likes to think it has found the answers that all of the preceding ones have been looking for, but the truth is that human history is fairly cyclical. There have been very open, generously-spirited and globalist periods throughout human history. One can make the argument that each subsequent outburst pushes the envelope a bit further (often due to technological advancements), but really the period we are going through isn't dramatically different from anything we haven't seen before.

The scary part of it is that the pendulum can often swing back quickly and brutally. Think Berlin of the 1920s vs. Berlin of the 1930s.

Some advances in civilization are quantum leaps that will never revert: the mastery of fire, the invention of the wheel, written archives, fiat currency, the limited liability corporation, the wind sail, the internal combustion engine, securitization, electricity, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors. Each of these has propelled ever increasing degrees of collaboration which beget even more innovation and ever improving quality of life. Tribalism as a barrier to collaboration counters self interest. It only benefits the few at the top of the hierarchies it imposes. Conceivably, a plateau in technological innovation could be an inflection point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doug

Some advances in civilization are quantum leaps that will never revert: the mastery of fire, the invention of the wheel, written archives, fiat currency, the limited liability corporation, the wind sail, the internal combustion engine, securitization, electricity, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors. Each of these has propelled ever increasing degrees of collaboration which beget even more innovation and ever improving quality of life. Tribalism as a barrier to collaboration counters self interest. It only benefits the few at the top of the hierarchies it imposes. Conceivably, a plateau in technological innovation could be an inflection point.

It is true that there is a point of no return for certain things, but as you say most of these will be technological in nature. But there isn't anything in technology that makes us unable to hate anymore, for example. Human character traits, even the negative ones, are there to stay. Even if they are suppressed or lapse for a while they usually come back at some point.

[saffronleaf]

Even if things are cyclical, it seems odd that you guys are suggesting confidently that civic states will become nation states. Civic states and nation states are both relatively modern forms of political organization. Humans lived in tribes for most of human history (and tribes still exist today alongside other forms of political organization). Subsequently, humans lived in mixes of monarchies, theocracies, and empires. These still exist today alongside other forms of political organizations.

If things are truly cyclical, then we should see all types of states transforming from one type to another; not necessarily just one change going in one direction (i.e., civic states becoming nation states).

Personally, I don't think it is necessarily cyclical. While humans lived in tribes for most of their history, once monarchies / theocracies / empires came into existence, they never really left. Same for nation states and civic states.

It seems that forms of political organization are rather enduring; new ones are unlikely to eliminate old ones, but they seem to have longevity.

[Procrastinational]

Just some food for thought...
Recently, in a discussion with some friends, this idea happen to come up. It wasn't my idea but I find it to be an interesting theory.

Perhaps part of the reason Anglo-Canada has failed to establish a definitive culture and identity is due to the constant influence of other cultures coming in and changing the culture here faster than one can be established. I guess in other words, would a well defined culture be more likely to form in the absence of influence from other cultures?

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is true that there is a point of no return for certain things, but as you say most of these will be technological in nature. But there isn't anything in technology that makes us unable to hate anymore, for example. Human character traits, even the negative ones, are there to stay. Even if they are suppressed or lapse for a while they usually come back at some point.

The processes of self-domestication and neotenization have made humans less aggressive and more cooperative. These processes, as well as cognitive adaptations to new environmental phenomena, have also made humans more intelligent in certain respects.

Human nature is not static, and the environment can play a significant role in shaping how humans behave.

[kool maudit]

i think that certain types of political organizations suit certain circumstances. obviously the scale of the human population, as well as our wealth and command of technology, bring the prospect of global order to mind at the moment.

in the sense that a truly global order would be impinged upon by phenomena such as powerful religious blocs, or ethnic identities that manifest on more than the level of folklore (i.e., that cause people to view themselves as loyal to that identity above and beyond their loyalty to the non-discriminatory, utilitarian global order) are not desirable for globalists.

in that sense, all of the current taboos make a lot of sense, and we see great efforts being made to erase previous assumptions of more-than-a-component-of-globalism legitimacy ("white privilege" and the like). the pressure right now is for us to equalize on all levels save the economic, and i think the plan is for us to erase those things very quickly while the global superstructures establish themselves.

this is dangerous (insofar as it seeks to rearrange very ancient forces), but as doug points out, it also basically works for the vast majority of humanity, who have never really desired much more than ease and comfort, and who have been talked into other loyalties (religion) by past orders who promised that these self-definitions would provide the requisite levels of "the good life". as they are ancient and powerful, however, their attempted erasure will provoke great disruption among those who do not wish to abandon them, and we are seeing this too.

history is cyclical in the longest sense. within historical periods, though, it's linear; as long as societies grow in complexity, we will progress from tribe to nation to world.

the wild card here is collapse. in historical memory, the best example is the great retreat of cosmopolitanism at the fall of classical antiquity (cities like alexandria and antioch weren't really seen again until the 19th century). but more powerful "reset" buttons than that could take the form of cataclysms.

cataclysms do happen. were our society to collapse or mostly die off, it is doubtful that we would immediately seek to restore the present order from the ruins. tribes and such would come first. in that sense it is cyclical.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

The processes of self-domestication and neotenization have made humans less aggressive and more cooperative. These processes, as well as cognitive adaptations to new environmental phenomena, have also made humans more intelligent in certain respects.

Human nature is not static, and the environment can play a significant role in shaping how humans behave.

I would submit that our less aggressive and more cooperative contemporary nature (at least in much of the world) is hugely dependent upon a relatively evenly widespread level of prosperity. One can argue that the prosperity progress has been fairly linear in nature for most of our lifetimes - at least it mostly has. But we really do need it to continue in order to keep the lid on the boiling pot.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Just some food for thought...
Recently, in a discussion with some friends, this idea happen to come up. It wasn't my idea but I find it to be an interesting theory.

Perhaps part of the reason Anglo-Canada has failed to establish a definitive culture and identity is due to the constant influence of other cultures coming in and changing the culture here faster than one can be established. I guess in other words, would a well defined culture be more likely to form in the absence of influence from other cultures?

This sounds like Anglo-Canadian exceptionalism. Has Anglo-Canada really been a more diverse society for longer than the United States has? Or Brazil? Or Australia? To the point where it would be unique in the world, even compared to these guys?

I'd say that waves of immigration with increasing diversity arrived in various countries around the same time and sometimes earlier than they did in Anglo-Canada.

I think the reality of Anglo-Canada is that it's never really been able to decide if it's a) something of an offshoot of the U.S. but with a few unique twists or b) something entirely different and quasi-foreign from the U.S.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Even if things are cyclical, it seems odd that you guys are suggesting confidently that civic states will become nation states. Civic states and nation states are both relatively modern forms of political organization. Humans lived in tribes for most of human history (and tribes still exist today alongside other forms of political organization). Subsequently, humans lived in mixes of monarchies, theocracies, and empires. These still exist today alongside other forms of political organizations.

If things are truly cyclical, then we should see all types of states transforming from one type to another; not necessarily just one change going in one direction (i.e., civic states becoming nation states).

Personally, I don't think it is necessarily cyclical. While humans lived in tribes for most of their history, once monarchies / theocracies / empires came into existence, they never really left. Same for nation states and civic states.

It seems that forms of political organization are rather enduring; new ones are unlikely to eliminate old ones, but they seem to have longevity.

Hopefully I am reading what you said correctly with this response...

I do think that there are multi-ethnic/multi-racial nation states that exist out there. The U.S. is a good example, as are Brazil, Australia, Argentina.

Canada in my view is a civic state at the moment and will remain so because of the francophone-anglophone element more than anything else.

In spite of the talk about places like Richmond, Brampton and Markham, there is no movement towards a large-scale parallel societal set-up in those places or anywhere else that would be equivalent to the societal superstructure of anglophone Canada and francophone Canada.

If you take Anglo-Canada as an entity, it might appear to some at this particular snapshot in time that it is a civic state with all sorts of emerging parallel societies realities but if you look more closely it's more of a romantic idea (for some) than something that is going to take root.

You know, the most ethnically diverse province in Canada might actually be Saskatchewan. In the sense that it is the province where the single largest ethnic origin group has the lowest percentage. No single group there is more than 20-25%. I suppose that at some point Saskatchewan might have looked like it would be a kind of Switzerland or even India on the Prairies. But if Saskatchewan were an independent country today it would be a nation state like Argentina, not a multi-national civic state like Switzerland, India or even Canada. People are of different origins but over the past century they have come together to form a Saskatchewanian "us". They've integrated some of the culture of certain groups without those groups being a majority (think of perogies) and also the various groups have taken on the culture that is specific to Saskatchewan as an English-speaking province of Canada in North America: hockey, football, curling, country music, etc.

If you want a glimpse of the cultural future of Toronto or Vancouver, for example, look to Saskatchewan. Not India or Singapore.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

i think that certain types of political organizations suit certain circumstances. obviously the scale of the human population, as well as our wealth and command of technology, bring the prospect of global order to mind at the moment.

in the sense that a truly global order would be impinged upon by phenomena such as powerful religious blocs, or ethnic identities that manifest on more than the level of folklore (i.e., that cause people to view themselves as loyal to that identity above and beyond their loyalty to the non-discriminatory, utilitarian global order) are not desirable for globalists.

in that sense, all of the current taboos make a lot of sense, and we see great efforts being made to erase previous assumptions of more-than-a-component-of-globalism legitimacy ("white privilege" and the like). the pressure right now is for us to equalize on all levels save the economic, and i think the plan is for us to erase those things very quickly while the global superstructures establish themselves.

I agree with this to a large extent, but I don't think that "globalists" all have the same view. For example, there are individuals who are OK with Old World nation states, but simply do not find that model to be compelling for the New World Anglo states, given that these states are the product of recent colonization and continual mass migrations.

So some globalists may be location-specific globalists; i.e., they might think that Anglo Canada and the US should operate in a cultural free market type of system, but they might be fine with Old World nation states adopting or maintaining a unicultural model.

Originally Posted by kool maudit

this is dangerous (insofar as it seeks to rearrange very ancient forces), but as doug points out, it also basically works for the vast majority of humanity, who have never really desired much more than ease and comfort, and who have been talked into other loyalties (religion) by past orders who promised that these self-definitions would provide the requisite levels of "the good life". as they are ancient and powerful, however, their attempted erasure will provoke great disruption among those who do not wish to abandon them, and we are seeing this too.

This is where I sense a possible problem. What do you mean by ancient forces? Just based on the language you've used before and the language here, it almost feels like you think that nation states and ethnic communities with millions of people are sort of the default norm for states and forms of political organization. However, tribes (which consist of 150-200 individuals related to one another genetically) have been the overwhelmingly dominant form of political organization. Imagined communities on the basis of racial or linguistic similarities are a recent phenomenon (in the context of how long human history is) -- I do not see it as an ancient force. Just as imagined communities on the basis of civic similarities are a recent phenomenon.

Originally Posted by kool maudit

history is cyclical in the longest sense. within historical periods, though, it's linear; as long as societies grow in complexity, we will progress from tribe to nation to world.

the wild card here is collapse. in historical memory, the best example is the great retreat of cosmopolitanism at the fall of classical antiquity (cities like alexandria and antioch weren't really seen again until the 19th century). but more powerful "reset" buttons than that could take the form of cataclysms.

cataclysms do happen. were our society to collapse or mostly die off, it is doubtful that we would immediately seek to restore the present order from the ruins. tribes and such would come first. in that sense it is cyclical.

That is interesting to speculate about, but I don't see it as all that much more than that. Yes, people may return to worrying about their tribes (in the literal sense; units of related individuals) and perhaps joining religions. I don't know. It would be interesting, but humans have changed physically and physiologically, and perhaps how humans would react today to a cataclysmic event is different from how humans would have reacted 1000 years ago.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I would submit that our less aggressive and more cooperative contemporary nature (at least in much of the world) is hugely dependent upon a relatively evenly widespread level of prosperity. One can argue that the prosperity progress has been fairly linear in nature for most of our lifetimes - at least it mostly has. But we really do need it to continue in order to keep the lid on the boiling pot.

There is a lot of interesting literature on human self-domestication and neotenization; it is a process that changes humans physically and physiologically, with attendant changes in human behavior.

It is possible that prosperity can ameliorate aggressiveness, but even independently of that, humans have changed physically and physiologically over the years in a manner that generally leads to greater cooperativeness and less aggression.

It's actually a really interesting topic and there are different theories helping to account for this empirical observation.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

This is where I sense a possible problem. What do you mean by ancient forces? Just based on the language you've used before and the language here, it almost feels like you think that nation states and ethnic communities with millions of people are sort of the default norm for states and forms of political organization. However, tribes (which consist of 150-200 individuals related to one another genetically) have been the overwhelmingly dominant form of political organization. Imagined communities on the basis of racial or linguistic similarities are a recent phenomenon (in the context of how long human history is) -- I do not see it as an ancient force. Just as imagined communities on the basis of civic similarities are a recent phenomenon.

One thing is sure though, communities, whether tribal, racial, or cultural, have always, throughout human history, had fully or nearly fully functional communication means connecting the individuals within it.

In other words, historically, communities where half the people are like GlassCity and the other half are writing their signs in Mandarin only... are not really communities, in the historical sense. i.e. they're lacking a very core element, mutual intelligibility of the people constituing it.

"Communities featuring linguistic similarity" is indeed an ancient force.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In spite of the talk about places like Richmond, Brampton and Markham, there is no movement towards a large-scale parallel societal set-up in those places or anywhere else that would be equivalent to the societal superstructure of anglophone Canada and francophone Canada.

If you take Anglo-Canada as an entity, it might appear to some at this particular snapshot in time that it is a civic state with all sorts of emerging parallel societies realities but if you look more closely it's more of a romantic idea (for some) than something that is going to take root.

You know, the most ethnically diverse province in Canada might actually be Saskatchewan. In the sense that it is the province where the single largest ethnic origin group has the lowest percentage. No single group there is more than 20-25%. I suppose that at some point Saskatchewan might have looked like it would be a kind of Switzerland or even India on the Prairies. But if Saskatchewan were an independent country today it would be a nation state like Argentina, not a multi-national civic state like Switzerland, India or even Canada. People are of different origins but over the past century they have come together to form a Saskatchewanian "us". They've integrated some of the culture of certain groups without those groups being a majority (think of perogies) and also the various groups have taken on the culture that is specific to Saskatchewan as an English-speaking province of Canada in North America: hockey, football, curling, country music, etc.

If you want a glimpse of the cultural future of Toronto or Vancouver, for example, look to Saskatchewan. Not India or Singapore.

It's not the same, though.

- Saskatchewan had a large influx of migrants of different ethnolinguistic communities, but then at a certain point the rate of migration to Saskatchewan really slowed down, and remained that way for a while. This break in immigration meant that there was time for the existing communities to accommodate and reciprocally acculturate until the differences gradually faded. The current influx has no natural reason to ending; sure, the government could enact legislation. But if left intact, the drivers of immigration from South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia will continue to exist for a very long time. This will be a long-sustaining influx of immigrants, with a few countries highly over-represented.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time often did not have time to visit their homeland frequently, unlike the current influx. Given technological advances that have made flying by air more affordable, plenty of recent immigrants go back to their homeland frequently.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time often did not have the telecommunications technology we have today, such as cell phones and Skype.

- Saskatchewan immigrants of that time did not have access to satellite TVs, which give the recent flux the opportunity to maintain stronger cultural linkages with their homeland.

- Saskatchewan settlement patterns were different from modern settlement patterns. Saskatchewan remained somewhat rural. This may make it more difficult to have the critical mass in a high enough concentration to enable immigrants to make the reciprocal acculturation process less asymmetrical.

- While Saskatchewan immigrants were ethnolinguistically diverse, they also shared quite a lot in common; faith in Christianity, same race, and, to some extent, a shared European history. Such features may account for why some immigrant communities take longer to assimilate than others.