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

[Acajack]

The link between "race" and "culture" and threats to the latter posed by the former is just as tenuous in Quebec.

European origin people from the British Isles or even from places like Italy (who assimilated to the anglos for much of the 20th century) are much closer racially to francophone Québécois than people from Haiti, but guess who integrated almost seamlessly into our culture and wasn't even a threat at all, but actually helped to reinforce it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14bEvVD7Fs

In fact, there is a bit of frustration among some in the long-established anglophone community in Quebec (usually multi-generational, born and raised), who get upset at how certain people almost fresh off the boat can get quickly accepted as one of the gang, whereas they're still viewed as "the other guy" who isn't at home here. Or an "interloper", to use a term that has been mentioned.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That said, my point is more that I don't see (and also don't see why) Latin American mestizo kids, Jamaican kids or Sikh kids will necessarily hang out with each other a lot more than with "white" kids, simply because of the darker skin pigmentation they have in common.

That wouldn't make much sense in the Canadian context, and to be frank it has never really happened either in countries that had much higher degrees of racial discrimination and even strict segregation between a favoured race and everyone else who was seen of lesser value (usually of diverse, darker shades of "colour").

Things might be different in Quebec so ymmv, but it's not that a Latino kid and a Jamaican kid would hang out based on their skin color, but more based on shared experiences. And the skin color is just a proxy for that, albeit a not entirely accurate one.

I think it's especially acute among second generation Canadians. There's a definite sense of feeling a bit different from the parental culture and the local culture, and that feeling of difference is an important shared experience for people and not just in Canada.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who's expressed concerns about racial dilution and purity?

I think you're making a mistake in equating matters of race with matters of culture. It's like you're imposing an American frame of reference on Canada.

I understand that in the U.S. for historical reasons there is a perception on the part of many that even non-British "Europeans" meld in very easily into the anglo-normative dominant culture, and this is often viewed in opposition to other groups whose integration is not so smooth.

I don't think this applies to Canada at all, and when I have a few more minutes I'll explain why.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well said, there is a bizarre assumption floating around recently that diluting the white population in western countries with immigrants will solve all such problems and everything will become rainbows (even though the vast majority of immigrants come from far more conservative / religious / divided regions than most western countries).

It is just as silly and ridiculous and potentially damaging as the ultra conservative views regarding immigration coming from the far right.

That's not too egregious and I'm sure you can find a way to explain it away. Don't have the time at the moment to go through all the posts here to dig up examples. But I'm sure you've seen it and you can look to the usual suspects and such. White nationalism exists in Canada.

Here are some other recent articles about White nationalism in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-campus-right-wing-populism-1.3932742

And this one that my friend also had the benefit of seeing:

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/69795...posters-decrying-anti-white-propaganda-/

Not to mention that in many places people use terms like culture as a proxy or dog whistle in modern discourse.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I find that that saffronleaf's posts seem to express a subtle sympathy for what I like to refer to as ''Multiculti 2.0''.

He's not the only one hinting at this, and the idea seems to be that it's acceptable or even desirable to have various immigrant groups to set up what amounts to quasi-parallel societies within Canada. Even within cities where these groups rub shoulders with people of all origins. The onus is on the wider Canada (both citizens and authorities) to not only be accepting of this, but maybe even to be supportive of it. And of course to occasionally even grant exemptions to entrenched Canadian ways (even those regulatory in nature) to these parallel realities.

Difficult to take seriously and rebut a point when someone starts their point using derogatory terms like "Multiculti".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Difficult to take seriously and rebut a point when someone starts their point using derogatory terms like "Multiculti".

I am sorry. I didn't know that "mutliculti" had derogatory connotations. I just thought it was short form, like "vis min".

I won't use it anymore.

But my point still stands.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Do you honestly think race-based immigration quotas to placate a tiny minority of white supremacists is actually a good idea?

I'd prefer not to have race-based quotas for obvious reasons. It's an awful idea and to some extent tongue-in-cheek, but increasingly these questions are being raised. It's not as bad yet as in other countries, but the wave of nativism gripping the world shouldn't be ignored. I don't know what to do about it, but maybe appeasement is something that can be looked at.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am sorry. I didn't know that "mutliculti" had derogatory connotations. I just thought it was short form, like "vis min".

I won't use it anymore.

But my point still stands.

Thanks. I will get to it, have to run off at the moment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

That's not too egregious and I'm sure you can find a way to explain it away. Don't have the time at the moment to go through all the posts here to dig up examples. But I'm sure you've seen it and you can look to the usual suspects and such. White nationalism exists in Canada.

Here are some other recent articles about White nationalism in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-campus-right-wing-populism-1.3932742

And this one that my friend also had the benefit of seeing:

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/69795...posters-decrying-anti-white-propaganda-/

Not to mention that in many places people use terms like culture as a proxy or dog whistle in modern discourse.

I don't think anyone would deny that these groups and views exist in Canada. Of course they do.

But because they don't exist in the same societal continuum that they exist in the U.S., a plan to bring in more people *who look like them* just to make them happier makes little sense.

Many of these people would only be happy if all people in Canada who aren't white went "home" (sic) and if no more were let in. As if...

Better dialogue and more initiatives to foster integration between foreign-born and native-born Canadians are probably the key to stymying this trend.

That's actually one of the reasons that I am opposed to the trend of "Multiculturalism 2" that I see taking root.

I recognize the desire for and comfort level that comes with being around people who look, speak and act like you, but there also have to be at least some bridges with wider society.

Otherwise we're not really a "society".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I'd prefer not to have race-based quotas for obvious reasons. It's an awful idea and to some extent tongue-in-cheek, but increasingly these questions are being raised. It's not as bad yet as in other countries, but the wave of nativism gripping the world shouldn't be ignored. I don't know what to do about it, but maybe appeasement is something that can be looked at.

I can't see Canada ever having race-based quotas for immigration.

If anything, our selection system at the moment is one of the world's best.

We could do a bit better in terms of integration, etc. but even there it's not so bad.

Still pretty darn close to a global gold standard.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I'd prefer not to have race-based quotas for obvious reasons. It's an awful idea and to some extent tongue-in-cheek, but increasingly these questions are being raised. It's not as bad yet as in other countries, but the wave of nativism gripping the world shouldn't be ignored. I don't know what to do about it, but maybe appeasement is something that can be looked at.

But my point still stands that it would only be appeasing an unpopular, counter-cultural minority with little political, economic, or cultural clout.

A government pursuing something like that might appease 10% of the population, but they'd outrage the other 90%. As I mentioned earlier, Kellie Leitch's proposed "cultural values test" for immigrants was not even half as radical as what you're suggesting yet it was widely condemned, even from within the Conservative party.

I think you're highly overestimating the influence that white supremacists actually have on wider society - and a few posters on college campuses aren't indicative of much. I mean, I regularly see posters advocating for communist revolution, banning meat, and all sorts of other wacky fringe causes - none of which actually have any real political traction.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

“Culturally concerned” types in Anglo-Canada are generally members of the chattering classes. They listen to CBC Radio and read the Globe and Mail. They bought tickets to go see Stuart McLean and read his books. If they are concerned about Canada’s cultural uniqueness relative to the U.S. juggernaut, they also tend to view multiculturalism and diversity in a positive light. In their eyes, it’s actually one of the great things that makes Canada different from the U.S. So notions of racial purity and dilution are non-starters for them. They abhor them and actually would associate them with the undesirable aspects of American society that they don’t want to see take root here in Canada.

I don't think the "chattering classes" are that different between the US and Canada.

While Canadians love to brag about multiculturalism to distinguish themselves from the US, the stereotype of the avid NPR-listening crowd down south and the CBC-listening crowd up north who supposedly both avow similar views, and are criticized similarly for bandying around buzzwords and images of "diversity" as being pretentious, liberal/left wing, elitist by certain people.

They can be criticized from the point of view of some coming from a more right-wing perspective as bowing too much towards accommodating diversity or selling out whatever they see as the country's founding or "national identity". But they can also likewise be criticized from the point of view of some coming from a more left-wing perspective as being too much about style rather than substance -- for example showing off ethnic garb or thinking multiculturalism is about food festivals. Some of these critics from that perspective argue that such symbolic things detract from and gloss over social issues, political issues, economic issues the actual minorities face (eg. say difficulties in minorities in finding equality on the job market).

A common criticism about a certain subset of left-wing Americans is similarly that their love of diversity is shallow -- you see complaints of hypocrisy by other Americans sometimes that the people in US elite circles talk about diversity but social circles are often not diverse, that their kids don't go to schools with lots of racial diversity despite their ideals of teaching kids in education systems of the value of it, or live in neighbourhoods that are.

[Acajack]

It's a classic for Canadian chattering classes to minimize or even neglect to remember the huge number of Americans who are fairly like-minded. Which is kind of ironic when you consider that in sheer numbers the arguably like-minded American population is more numerous than the entire population of Canada.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Many of these people would only be happy if all people in Canada who aren't white went "home" (sic) and if no more were let in. As if...

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

But my point still stands that it would only be appeasing an unpopular, counter-cultural minority with little political, economic, or cultural clout.

A government pursuing something like that might appease 10% of the population, but they'd outrage the other 90%. As I mentioned earlier, Kellie Leitch's proposed "cultural values test" for immigrants was not even half as radical as what you're suggesting yet it was widely condemned, even from within the Conservative party.

I think you're highly overestimating the influence that white supremacists actually have on wider society - and a few posters on college campuses aren't indicative of much. I mean, I regularly see posters advocating for communist revolution, banning meat, and all sorts of other wacky fringe causes - none of which actually have any real political traction.

Right, if certain people are basing their xenophobia or dislike of others on racial grounds rather than specifically being opposed to immigration for other reasons broadly speaking, then such people would not care if the race they dislike was foreign-born or native-born or not, or even if they had longer family roots in the country than the other person.

Someone like that would tell a fourth-generation person of said racial/ethnic origin to "go back to where you came from" as well as a first-generation one anyways, and you can't compromise with that really without tearing the country apart.

Is anyone really proposing a Liberia-like scenario for visible minority Canadians?

Some Americans, including a few US presidents, for instance in the 1800s supported a movement to have free African-Americans be repatriated to Africa, (leading to the formation of the country of Liberia) who mostly opposed it on the logic that the US was their home and fought for their rights at home, though some did settle there since the country exists today.

A similar history existed with Sierra Leone, and freed African-Americans as well as Black Loyalists in Nova Scotia as well as Afro-Caribbean people also freed in the British colonies.

The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people, who are not of the "foundation European" stock or whatever it's being described as in this thread, who aren't going to leave, and who know Canada as their sole one and only home.

We can debate who is allowed to enter in the future, regardless of who is currently belonging to the nation now, but favoring or appeasing any one group of people whose ideology is allowing "their race" to have more people immigrate or have favors over other races/groups is not going to turn out well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Right, if certain people are basing their xenophobia or dislike of others on racial grounds rather than specifically being opposed to immigration for other reasons broadly speaking, then such people would not care if the race they dislike was foreign-born or native-born or not, or even if they had longer family roots in the country than the other person.

Someone like that would tell a fourth-generation person of said racial/ethnic origin to "go back to where you came from" as well as a first-generation one anyways, and you can't compromise with that really without tearing the country apart.

Is anyone really proposing a Liberia-like scenario for visible minority Canadians?

Some Americans, including a few US presidents, for instance in the 1800s supported a movement to have free African-Americans be repatriated to Africa, (leading to the formation of the country of Liberia) who mostly opposed it on the logic that the US was their home and fought for their rights at home, though some did settle there since the country exists today.

A similar history existed with Sierra Leone, and freed African-Americans as well as Black Loyalists in Nova Scotia as well as Afro-Caribbean people also freed in the British colonies.

The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people, who are not of the "foundation European" stock or whatever it's being described as in this thread, who aren't going to leave, and who know Canada as their sole one and only home.

We can debate who is allowed to enter in the future, regardless of who is currently belonging to the nation now, but favoring or appeasing any one group of people whose ideology is allowing "their race" to have more people immigrate or have favors over other races/groups is not going to turn out well.

No one worth listening to, who has any power or who might obtain power, is saying that, so...

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a classic for Canadian chattering classes to minimize or even neglect to remember the huge number of Americans who are fairly like-minded. Which is kind of ironic when you consider that in sheer numbers the arguably like-minded American population is more numerous than the entire population of Canada.

That's a criticism I agree with. I don't doubt that there are at first glance, ways that Canada has done a good job of selling itself as the more "tolerant country" which might appear influential from an outsider's perspective -- Canada's prime minister says nice things about minorities within the country, all the while the US president trash talks them. Canada teaches and puts up posters of multiculturalism for its schoolkids, versus the American melting pot, or supposedly it goes. I don't doubt that the US has had a slew of racial tensions in its history related to slavery that Canada doesn't have (if only because Canada had fewer, non-aboriginal minorities as a share of its population, not because it was more tolerant through most of its history, as the few minorities who did live through the centuries found). I also see that clearly the US has a large region, the South, that traditionally was and still is way more conservative than most of Canada (though the Canada of the 1950s and earlier was also pretty conservative, both Anglo-Canada and pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec).

However, in modern times, I'm not sure that the average fellow in NYC is any less open to diversity than the typical Torontonian, or the average Montrealer or Vancouver more so than the average San Francisco, or Boston, or Seattle resident. At least not miles ahead in niceness or tolerance as many would like to think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Right, if certain people are basing their xenophobia or dislike of others on racial grounds rather than specifically being opposed to immigration for other reasons broadly speaking, then such people would not care if the race they dislike was foreign-born or native-born or not, or even if they had longer family roots in the country than the other person.
l.

No more than they usually care if people who look *too* different for their liking are totally assimilated and compliant with their culture dominated by white people. It still does not placate some of them.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No one worth listening to, who has any power or who might obtain power, is saying that, so...

True, the kind of person that posts the flyers/posters on walls that saffronleaf linked to don't have any clout from the point of view of serious chances at influencing government.

I can still see though how the presence of that kind of thing at all can put the demographic who are the people disliked by the makers of those flyers, on alert. It might be only a tiny group of a few people, out of cities of hundreds of thousands, or million, running around with papers and tape copying and pasting them all over the place. But a small and really vocal minority can influence perception and make it seem like they're more influential than they are.

[Capsicum]

I must say, from reading these threads (both the current one and some others) on multiculturalism and immigration -- there are some political views (or combinations of political views) expressed here that are pretty different from the conventional discourse.

For example,


Expressing the view or possibility that French-Canada is even less hung up over race or blood in some ways than Anglo-Canada.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The link between "race" and "culture" and threats to the latter posed by the former is just as tenuous in Quebec.

European origin people from the British Isles or even from places like Italy (who assimilated to the anglos for much of the 20th century) are much closer racially to francophone Québécois than people from Haiti, but guess who integrated almost seamlessly into our culture and wasn't even a threat at all, but actually helped to reinforce it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14bEvVD7Fs

In fact, there is a bit of frustration among some in the long-established anglophone community in Quebec (usually multi-generational, born and raised), who get upset at how certain people almost fresh off the boat can get quickly accepted as one of the gang, whereas they're still viewed as "the other guy" who isn't at home here. Or an "interloper", to use a term that has been mentioned.

Expressing the view or possibility that the US is equally or even more tolerant to immigrants than Canada.

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a classic for Canadian chattering classes to minimize or even neglect to remember the huge number of Americans who are fairly like-minded. Which is kind of ironic when you consider that in sheer numbers the arguably like-minded American population is more numerous than the entire population of Canada.

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

While the US has a million issues, including electing a White nationalist as President, at least about 25-50% of the country (those on the left) view immigration as a pillar of the country's national mythology. And the respective immigration systems reflect these realities to some extent. The majority of immigrants to Canada arrive based on the points system, a system designed to address specific labor needs. Conversely, the majority of immigrants in the US come through other programs, much of it through family sponsorship. As hated and mocked as it is by a majority of the country, there's still a not insignificant percentage on the left that fight for amnesty for people unlawfully present and want the country to live up to the 'bring me your huddled masses' mantra.

Expressing pro-multiculturalism views but agreeing that European settlers deserve the title "natives", rather than "only aboriginals are natives".

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).

Expressing pro-multiculturalism views but suggesting that bringing back some amount of race-based immigration policy is still an option on the table for reasons of appeasement to the other side.

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I'd prefer not to have race-based quotas for obvious reasons. It's an awful idea and to some extent tongue-in-cheek, but increasingly these questions are being raised. It's not as bad yet as in other countries, but the wave of nativism gripping the world shouldn't be ignored. I don't know what to do about it, but maybe appeasement is something that can be looked at.

And me, despite being Anglophone Canadian, expressing the view that Quebec does multiculturalism well in addition to its own cultural preservation, and being in favor of both Francophone and allophone cultural preservation.

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I must say, I do like the idea of marginalized languages coming back and turning the tide against the forces of assimilation. It's a very romantic image, but I think in many cases rather impractical.

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Quebec seems to be on the word stage, a successful example in turning the tide against assimilation in the opposite direction (with institutional backing) in a way that many other formerly dominant (on at least a regional, if not national level) but now marginalized regional groups didn't. Having even Anglos themselves in one's midst "assimilate to your culture" is no easy chore considering how eager the rest of the world is eager to lap up Anglo-American culture.

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I actually admire Quebec's (and Quebec's Francophone immigrants) version of multiculturalism/inter-culturalism whereby immigrants don't really assimilate to the US cultural juggernaut or even just plain French Canadian culture, but almost a kind of true hybrid (eg. Francophone African cultural influences are added on to Quebecois ones), rather than Anglo-Canada's immigrants who don't really keep their culture but still just assimilate to US culture

So, all of these views seem quite uncommonly brought up among mainstream Canadian media.

I do apologize if I am misrepresenting anyone's views here, but I just thought it was interesting that though we're all discussing multiculturalism here and we all agree on some things, we all kind of have slightly different worldviews that deviate from the standard narrative.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I must say, from reading these threads (both the current one and some others) on multiculturalism and immigration -- there are some political views (or combinations of political views) expressed here that are pretty different from the conventional discourse.
(,,,)


So, all of these views seem quite uncommonly brought up among mainstream Canadian media.

I do apologize if I am misrepresenting anyone's views here, but I just thought it was interesting that though we're all discussing multiculturalism here and we all agree on some things, we all kind of have slightly different worldviews that deviate from the standard narrative.

Fascinating, isn't it?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Expressing the view or possibility that French-Canada is even less hung up over race or blood in some ways than Anglo-Canada.


.

Quebec isn't completely colour-blind, but yes generally speaking language trumps race as an issue here.

And increasingly, views on "secularism" and stuff like gender equality also trump race as well.