CANZUK International - "merger" of UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

[Capsicum]

Here's a typology of a number of categories of colonialism, including settler colonialism and extractive colonialism among others, that some scholars/academics have come up with, from the American Historical Association.

https://www.historians.org/publications-...y/october-2015/a-typology-of-colonialism

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Here's a typology of a number of categories of colonialism, including settler colonialism and extractive colonialism among others, that some scholars/academics have come up with, from the American Historical Association.

https://www.historians.org/publications-...y/october-2015/a-typology-of-colonialism

Thank you. Their definition of settler colonialism is apt.

"Settler Colonialism. Large numbers of settlers claim land and become the majority. Employing a “logic of elimination,” as Patrick Wolfe put it in the American Historical Review, they attempt to engineer the disappearance of the original inhabitants everywhere except in nostalgia."

The founders were very successful in executing this plan. Even in nostalgia.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

These are often the same people who express concern about Canada being viewed as some "cultural blank slate" instead of giving due respect to the foundational nature of its European communities.

The same story may play over and over, though the outcome can be different.

BTW, I would never blame the aboriginal natives for resisting the invaders and for trying to ensure the perennity of their culture; it's perfectly natural that they would.

Each side is pretty much just always trying to do what's best for it; who ends up "winning" depends on a bunch of factors (including luck and timing).

Could you imagine telling, say, Anglo-Saxons in WWII "well, you guys actually invaded this island too, made it your home even though people lived there already who didn't like it at all, so it would be extremely bad etiquette on your part not to retreat to Wales immediately, cramming yourselves in its hills while letting Nazi Germans move into England in your footsteps"...? Things just aren't "fair" that way. A given group may conquer a place, then that same group may later have the gall to resist another group who's trying to conquer them. You can't seriously blame them for resisting; it's what basically everyone will do.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

The same story may play over and over, though the outcome can be different.

BTW, I would never blame the aboriginal natives for resisting the invaders and for trying to ensure the perennity of their culture; it's perfectly natural that they would.

Each side is pretty much just always trying to do what's best for it; who ends up "winning" depends on a bunch of factors (including luck and timing).

Could you imagine telling, say, Anglo-Saxons in WWII "well, you guys actually invaded this island too, made it your home even though people lived there already who didn't like it at all, so it would be extremely bad etiquette on your part not to retreat to Wales immediately, cramming yourselves in its hills while letting Nazi Germans move into England in your footsteps"...? Things just aren't "fair" that way. A given group may conquer a place, then that same group may later have the gall to resist another group who's trying to conquer them. You can't seriously blame them for resisting; it's what basically everyone will do.

Of course, I think we're on the same page. The indigenous peoples fought, lost, and were thoroughly eradicated. The descendants of the foundational European communities of Canada are, for all intents and purposes, the earliest inhabitants of Canada as we know it. They created Canada anew, imbued it with values, traditions and knowledge they brought from their motherland, and control Canada. They won, this is their country. And as the rulers of a sovereign country, they get to do with it as they please, including determining which outsiders, if any, are worthy of admission and the terms and conditions of their stay.

Exercising this sovereignty also includes, as you note, the justified use of force in repelling an invasion orchestrated by outsiders, just like the indigenous people tried to do against the foundational European communities of Canada. I'm not too certain whether current migratory patterns to Canada should arouse suspicions of history repeating itself, but given the circumstances of Canada's founding, heightened caution from members of the foundational European communities is understandable.

I wasn't making a normative statement, although if we want to go there obviously I don't think it's fair and in an ideal world I would like to see humans break down barriers and create a more just world for all humans and the other sentient beings with whom we share this planet. But the world as we know it is set up the way it's set up and it's hard to blame the foundational European communities of Canada for exercising their sovereignty in a manner that is largely considered acceptable in the current geopolitical order. Humans engage in this type of behavior in all sorts of domains, it's nothing new.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

That's fine, I'm okay with that definition of native. I used it in that way to distinguish between people born in Canada and people who immigrated to Canada.

But what you said was:
"We're all immigrants, except for the aboriginal population, right? So your point is moot anyway."

Maybe I'm not picking up what you're putting down but that's a pretty passive aggressive way to get that point across. Maybe passive aggressive is the wrong term... snarky?

Whatever man, express yourself however you please.

Yes it was snarky or at least sarcastic. Maybe I should have used an emoticon.

"We're all immigrants except for..." really gets on my nerves. Especially in light of the fact that it's usually a totally empty statement made by non-aboriginals to give themselves a clean conscience, without any sincere intent to improve things for aboriginals.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I'm not too certain whether current migratory patterns to Canada should arouse suspicions of history repeating itself, but given the circumstances of Canada's founding, heightened caution from members of the foundational European communities is understandable.

.

I am not feeling any sense of this heightened caution on the part of Canada's majority population. Outside of a very small minority of quacks who are getting very little traction.

The current migratory patterns bringing new people to Canada are widely supported by these "foundational European communities" or at least by their appointed élites.

If people did not agree they have more than enough demographic weight to boot out those élites and replace them with others proposing a different approach.

[isaidso]

I'd support free trade with those countries but that's all. We stopped being a British country almost a century ago and have zero interest in turning back the clock.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes it was snarky or at least sarcastic. Maybe I should have used an emoticon.

"We're all immigrants except for..." really gets on my nerves. Especially in light of the fact that it's usually a totally empty statement made by non-aboriginals to give themselves a clean conscience, without any sincere intent to improve things for aboriginals.

BTW, I know you well enough the sarcasm was obvious to me (I'm sure my reply didn't surprise you either ).

I also don't see much caution (except in yearly quota numbers...? if that's what saffronleaf means) in Canada regarding integration. In Quebec there's some of that clearly at play in the public debate, for obvious and reasonable reasons as failing to integrate our immigrants would doom us to ceasing to exist in the medium term. Still, doors are reasonably open. Aren't you an immigrant or at least a son of immigrants, yourself (saffronleaf)? I'm guessing if you're being honest, your experience likely didn't leave you with much to complain about, in the grand scheme of things.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by lio45

Could you imagine telling, say, Anglo-Saxons in WWII "well, you guys actually invaded this island too, made it your home even though people lived there already who didn't like it at all, so it would be extremely bad etiquette on your part not to retreat to Wales immediately, cramming yourselves in its hills while letting Nazi Germans move into England in your footsteps"...? Things just aren't "fair" that way. A given group may conquer a place, then that same group may later have the gall to resist another group who's trying to conquer them. You can't seriously blame them for resisting; it's what basically everyone will do.

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Exercising this sovereignty also includes, as you note, the justified use of force in repelling an invasion orchestrated by outsiders, just like the indigenous people tried to do against the foundational European communities of Canada. I'm not too certain whether current migratory patterns to Canada should arouse suspicions of history repeating itself, but given the circumstances of Canada's founding, heightened caution from members of the foundational European communities is understandable.

Come on, guys, those are not at all fair comparisons to modern day, contemporary immigration. Invaders orchestrating an attack in WWII or wars of conquests are nothing like modern day immigrants settling down and becoming Canadian citizens. The metaphor of the latest crop of immigrants being the next wave of colonizers ready to push you around isn't helpful. Modern day immigrants seeking to apply and get into the country are not coming with guns pointed towards the pre-existing inhabitants, asking the locals to vacate their properties. Modern immigrants aren't going to be able to use any kind of involuntary force imposed on the locals coercing them into giving up stuff or giving them anything.

Even if you make the case that the negative things about immigrants involve their lack of integration or desire to participate in life with or mingle with the other locals and cultural attitudes that cause rifts between the newcomers and locals (which can be true in some cases, while in many, probably most other cases, immigrants and non-immigrants get along fine), at the very least the newcomers' cultural practices and lack of integration are applied to themselves (or their kids, which I agree can be an issue if parents do in fact use unfair coercion on their kids' lifestyles, but I think that's a problem not unique to immigrants)-- it's not them forcing their own cultures onto the general public.

Homesteaders like Ukrainians and Germans on the prairies may have wanted to retain their culture among themselves and their families but they didn't go and grab other groups' kids to send them to residential schools teaching them Ukrainian and German languages. Sikh policemen wanted and got the right to wear turbans but they're not demanding other people wear them. The Chinese immigrants in Richmond might be opening shops and restaurants with their language written all over them, but they're not forcing people to go eat or shop there.

If anything, new immigrants' lack of integration anyways is usually more detrimental to themselves when they miss out on opportunities like work and socialization with locals if they restrict themselves to enclaves or limit their exposure to the wider world, than to others outside. Plus, their kids often are eager to give up the enclave life, and hang out with other Canadians. All in all, I don't see any cases of contemporary immigration that warrant a comparison to conquering invaders imposing new cultures and institutions by brute force, and an attitude of pre-emptive hostility from seeing them that way probably will just do more to alienate newcomers (if the goal is not to alienate them and integrate them).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Of course, I think we're on the same page. The indigenous peoples fought, lost, and were thoroughly eradicated. The descendants of the foundational European communities of Canada are, for all intents and purposes, the earliest inhabitants of Canada as we know it. They created Canada anew, imbued it with values, traditions and knowledge they brought from their motherland, and control Canada. They won, this is their country. And as the rulers of a sovereign country, they get to do with it as they please, including determining which outsiders, if any, are worthy of admission and the terms and conditions of their stay.

Exercising this sovereignty also includes, as you note, the justified use of force in repelling an invasion orchestrated by outsiders, just like the indigenous people tried to do against the foundational European communities of Canada. I'm not too certain whether current migratory patterns to Canada should arouse suspicions of history repeating itself, but given the circumstances of Canada's founding, heightened caution from members of the foundational European communities is understandable.

I wasn't making a normative statement, although if we want to go there obviously I don't think it's fair and in an ideal world I would like to see humans break down barriers and create a more just world for all humans and the other sentient beings with whom we share this planet. But the world as we know it is set up the way it's set up and it's hard to blame the foundational European communities of Canada for exercising their sovereignty in a manner that is largely considered acceptable in the current geopolitical order. Humans engage in this type of behavior in all sorts of domains, it's nothing new.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not feeling any sense of this heightened caution on the part of Canada's majority population. Outside of a very small minority of quacks who are getting very little traction.

The current migratory patterns bringing new people to Canada are widely supported by these "foundational European communities" or at least by their appointed élites.

If people did not agree they have more than enough demographic weight to boot out those élites and replace them with others proposing a different approach.

There's not a homogenous group of "foundational European communities", presumably the people primarily descended (or who have most of their ancestry) from British and French colonists, locked in some sort of bitter political struggle against later waves of immigrants and their descendants, with these distinctive groups forming factions struggling for control over institutions like immigration policies.

There are all kinds of Canadians, some who have descent from those founders, some who don't, who have a spectrum of opinions on immigration. Some immigrant Canadians can be pro-immigration for personal issues (eg. they want to sponsor their families or have others like them be able to come in large numbers). But some multi-generational descent Canadians can be really pro-immigration, and some immigrant Canadians can be really against further immigration. Neither group is a monolith.

I know some people view immigration-related political views in some simplistic way like "group A obviously wants more immigration from countries that have lots of A's, while group B wants more immigrants who are B's. If the A's get their way, the B's will lose. If B's get their way, A's will lose". But I don't think it's like that.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Come on, guys, those are not at all fair comparisons to modern day, contemporary immigration. Invaders orchestrating an attack in WWII or wars of conquests are nothing like modern day immigrants settling down and becoming Canadian citizens. The metaphor of the latest crop of immigrants being the next wave of colonizers ready to push you around isn't helpful. Modern day immigrants seeking to apply and get into the country are not coming with guns pointed towards the pre-existing inhabitants, asking the locals to vacate their properties. Modern immigrants aren't going to be able to use any kind of involuntary force imposed on the locals coercing them into giving up stuff or giving them anything.

I obviously agree with this. I support immigration. But I was trying to make sense of this post:

Originally Posted by lio45

The same story may play over and over, though the outcome can be different.

BTW, I would never blame the aboriginal natives for resisting the invaders and for trying to ensure the perennity of their culture; it's perfectly natural that they would.

A given group may conquer a place, then that same group may later have the gall to resist another group who's trying to conquer them. You can't seriously blame them for resisting; it's what basically everyone will do.

I don't see it as even being remotely close, but unsurprisingly natives comprise a disproportionate percentage of people concerned by the repeat of history in this regard. Perhaps the heightened caution is in this case understandable in light of the circumstances of Canada's founding?

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not feeling any sense of this heightened caution on the part of Canada's majority population. Outside of a very small minority of quacks who are getting very little traction.

There has been a popular wave of nativisim across the Western world, but agreed that it hasn't hit Canada quite as hard. That said, a disproportionate percentage of Canadians peddling nativism are understandably natives. (In the sense of the real, effective natives -- the descendants and the descendants of the countrymen of the foundational European communities).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Come on, guys, those are not at all fair comparisons to modern day, contemporary immigration.

But there's still a parallel some are occasionally trying to make, that goes like "given that your ancestors came here, it's not fair that you should now be in a position to collectively decide/vote to prevent others from doing the same".

It's not a valid argument, but it's nonetheless seen sometimes.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW, I know you well enough the sarcasm was obvious to me (I'm sure my reply didn't surprise you either ).

Everyone knows it was sarcasm, it's just a petty and toxic way to argue a point.

Originally Posted by lio45

I also don't see much caution (except in yearly quota numbers...? if that's what saffronleaf means) in Canada regarding integration. In Quebec there's some of that clearly at play in the public debate, for obvious and reasonable reasons as failing to integrate our immigrants would doom us to ceasing to exist in the medium term. Still, doors are reasonably open.

See post above.

Originally Posted by lio45

Aren't you an immigrant or at least a son of immigrants, yourself (saffronleaf)? I'm guessing if you're being honest, your experience likely didn't leave you with much to complain about, in the grand scheme of things.

In the sense of having material comforts and safety, things were good. But in other ways, there is much to discuss.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

In the sense of having material comforts and safety, things were good. But in other ways, there is much to discuss.

So you were dissatisfied with how open your GTA suburbia generally was culturally...? Seems like one could hardly wish for a better blank slate to immigrate to; you must be setting your bar impossibly high, no?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

That said, a disproportionate percentage of Canadians peddling nativism are understandably natives. (In the sense of the real, effective natives -- the descendants and the descendants of the countrymen of the foundational European communities).

By definition, the people who are complaining that the neighborhood "isn't what it used to" are always going to be the locals, not the newcomers. It's normal and is always the case everywhere.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

There's not a homogenous group of "foundational European communities", presumably the people primarily descended (or who have most of their ancestry) from British and French colonists, locked in some sort of bitter political struggle against later waves of immigrants and their descendants, with these distinctive groups forming factions struggling for control over institutions like immigration policies.

There are all kinds of Canadians, some who have descent from those founders, some who don't, who have a spectrum of opinions on immigration. Some immigrant Canadians can be pro-immigration for personal issues (eg. they want to sponsor their families or have others like them be able to come in large numbers). But some multi-generational descent Canadians can be really pro-immigration, and some immigrant Canadians can be really against further immigration. Neither group is a monolith.

I know some people view immigration-related political views in some simplistic way like "group A obviously wants more immigration from countries that have lots of A's, while group B wants more immigrants who are B's. If the A's get their way, the B's will lose. If B's get their way, A's will lose". But I don't think it's like that.

I'm talking about the kind of people referred when people use the term "Québécois de Souche" or "old stock Canadians" or what have you.

Acajack could probably rattle off a few last names to give you some sense of the lines sometimes drawn.

Agreed that neither group is a monolith, but you don't find too many immigrant nativists (unless they've already conquered the place or something then they become the new natives I guess).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by lio45

By definition, the people who are complaining that the neighborhood "isn't what it used to" are always going to be the locals, not the newcomers. It's normal and is always the case everywhere.

But when some locals complain about not wanting the newcomers around, and other locals do want them around, then it becomes a matter of who speaks for the "us who were here before".

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Agreed that neither group is a monolith, but you don't find too many immigrant nativists (unless they've already conquered the place or something then they become the new natives I guess).

Actually it seems like it's quite common for certain immigrants (even if the term nativism isn't used) themselves to make arguments that they don't want further immigrants to arrive because they already feel settled and assimilated versus the later newcomers, and if they've worked hard to earn their position in the country, they might even feel like a new crop of newcomers, if perceived as low in socio-economic or cultural status, make them and their community "look bad".

In fact, it's common to see this attitude criticized as "slamming the door behind them".

[whatnext]

CANZUK is one the few free trade deals that would make sense, the Canada-US FTA is another. All the countries enjoy similar labour laws and wages as well as similar environmental regulations. When you bring 2nd or 3rd world countries into a free trade deal is when the trouble starts. Unless you compel them to adopt our labour and environmental regs, trade cn never be free.

[Capsicum]

If a connection between Canada, the UK, Australia and NZ is only about trade deals rather than mobility between people and cultural/political influence (Lots of countries for instance are super dependent on trade with China, and the only result is economic -- no political, cultural or social influence with China is felt among the citizens of those countries as a result), then it will have little influence on most peoples' daily lives besides wider availability of some products like British or Australian instead of European cheese or whatever. Environmental, labor and safety regulations should not be that different I think between these well-developed western countries that make up CANZUK.

The real big effect is if there's lots of physical migration between them, EU-style.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

you don't find too many immigrant nativists (unless they've already conquered the place or something then they become the new natives I guess).

When Chinese exclusion acts were put in place in for instance the US and Canada in the later part of the 1800s and earlier part of the 1900s, some of the most fervent supporters were European immigrants themselves fearing competition for jobs (who may have just been foreign born laborers just like the Chinese laborers themselves).

Also, I recall years ago when a boat carrying Tamil refugees arrived in BC, and there were people talking about it on the radio stations, some people who called in to voice their opinions on not allowing them to come were immigrants themselves (for instance, you'd hear a caller from Toronto say something like "I immigrated properly and waited in line... these people shouldn't be able to get in so easily" or something like that).

So, immigrants being against other immigrants is nothing new.