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

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

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.
.

Even during the bad years there's always been a small segment of the Anglo-Canadian population that's semi-secretly envious of Quebec being, more... itself.

Most of those would never dream of going native of course because there are characteristics of Quebec society (some which actually make that authenticity possible) that are less palatable to them.

Over time though the less pleasant aspects of Quebec's uniqueness have become dulled by a variety of mitigating factors both internal and external.

It may be that Quebec has lost a bit of its uniqueness as a result, but most would still describe the status quo as relatively "balanced".

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

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.

Do you think kids who see themselves as having shared experiences as people of colour growing up together in Canada have gradually come to develop a common identity? Historically our country's visible minority population was small and widely dispersed (descendants of African Americans and Black Loyalists scattered in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and in other provinces in various towns, Sikhs, Chinese and Japanese in the other side of Canada in BC, etc.) with later all of the post 1960s visible minority immigrants arriving in the big cities numerically overwhelming the earlier waves. Back then, before this immigration, most of the demographic in Canada who was seen as a racial minority was mostly too small and disorganized to be a common bloc.

I know in the US, African-American, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans do find some common cause as "minorities" and do have a history of collectively uniting for various common political causes, both in the past and now, but on the other hand also have had histories of tensions with one another and don't always see themselves as a "bloc".

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The reason that, contrary to the U.S., there is little conflation between the racial purity/dilution crowd and the “culturally concerned” crowd in Anglo-Canada, is because one the two concerns are largely siloed due to the cultural landscape of Anglo-Canada.

...


(A lot of their influences actually come from American right-wing commentators which are often easily accessible in Canada.) I have some of these people who are friends of my friends on Facebook, and the memes they post are more often than not American in origin, or obviously American-originated rhetoric repurposed with a Canadian twist.

This latter group is most definitely proud to be Canadian, but their identity and cultural focus is definitely continental (North) American – whether they realize it or not.

To be fair, the Anglo countries (the US, Australia, Canada), despite having differences like the "two solitudes" specific to Canada, and the history of African Americans specific to the US, do have a shared history on racial attitudes in immigration.

As much as one country favoured immigration from the UK (at least for English Canada since French Canada wasn't that much of an immigrant-receiving society for a lot of earlier history, besides the settlers), if not the English in terms of favorability, then northern Europe, then southern or eastern Europe, and lastly non-Europeans (Africans and Asians). The Anglo countries did not disagree on this type of preference.

As much as one country passed Asian/Chinese exclusion laws acts in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the others also did, because the social attitudes on Asian immigrants were similar. Again, the Anglo countries did not disagree on this.

As much as one country then liberalized its immigration policy in the 1960s and 70s, so that European countries were no longer specifically favored, and the developing world's immigrants (in theory) could come, the others also did. Again, the Anglo countries did not disagree on this.

So, because the Anglo countries seemed to have organized and changed their attitudes towards immigrants and racial minorities in similar ways, if not in lockstep, it's not that unreasonable to fear that one country's attitude (eg. the rising nativism in one place) is going to lead to a corresponding change in a similar way in the other.

Though, obviously it's not appropriate to completely assume that the US and Canada will match each other entirely on cultural attitudes towards race and ethnicity, both now and in the future, for much of history they did influence one another's attitudes so that an ethnically similar immigrant that faces hostility in one would face hostility in the other, and when one started becoming more welcoming, so did the other.

[Acajack]

I have always thought they followed similar patterns, but I never fleshed it out like that.

[Acajack]

Since this has become the de facto immigration and diversity thread, here are a few interesting links. (Don't be put off by the inflammatory headlines.)

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/open_vs_ordered_october_10_2017b.pdf

https://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News...Racism_%2818092013%29_Forum_Research.pdf

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

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



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.


.

I believe that saffronleaf was only being semi-serious.

And there most definitely is a subtle value judgement in these conclusions he is drawing, and which lead him to propose hypothetical "solutions" to address them.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe that saffronleaf was only being semi-serious.

And there most definitely is a subtle value judgement in these conclusions he is drawing, and which lead him to propose hypothetical "solutions" to address them.

bingo.

will respond in a little while to your other posts, you raise some good questions about parallel societies and the like.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Though, obviously it's not appropriate to completely assume that the US and Canada will match each other entirely on cultural attitudes towards race and ethnicity, both now and in the future, for much of history they did influence one another's attitudes so that an ethnically similar immigrant that faces hostility in one would face hostility in the other, and when one started becoming more welcoming, so did the other.

I don't think the two countries have influencedeach other directly WRT immigration much; rather, immigration to the two countries has broadly been shaped by similar forces (historical, economic, &c.). For example, both experienced large waves of immigration from certain source countries (e.g., Ireland) in response to acute crises. Both also experienced labour shortages at various moments in history that pushed the door open wider than it otherwise would've been. And, to a degree, both have been shaped by similar ideologies or by interpretations of morality/history/economics (e.g., abolitionism, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or post-Holocaust remorse).

However, there have been and continue to be influences that have affected only one of the two countries or have affected one more than the other. While the US has Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine and the City on a Hill, Canada has British imperialism, la revanche des berceaux (and the ensuing demographic panic) and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The discourse on immigration to the US has been heavily focused on Latin America—due, in part, to proximity, but also to the historical relationships between the US and various Latin countries/territories (esp. Puerto Rico, Cuba and Mexico).

Conversely, the discourse on immigration to Canada has been strongly influenced by the country's language dynamics (a complex history I'll not delve into here) and by British imperialism. For various reasons, by the early 20th Century, the moral justification for continuing imperialism had shifted from that of the civilizing colonial power to one which proclaimed an Empire of equal subjects.* Restrictions to immigration in Canada were forced to work within this moral framework, leading to the continuous journey regulation, for example. As the Empire of equal subjects morphed into the Commonwealth of equal nations (though not necessarily because of this), immigration from our now-peer nations in South Asia and the Caribbean (as well as Hong Kong) took off.

*Although this was undoubtedly proclaimed more loudly and forcefully to the Oxbridge-educated leaders of the Indian home rule movement than to those crafting immigration policy in Ottawa or Canberra (or, for that matter, Pretoria).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

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.

If the shared commonalities are based on the immigrant experience though, then, you'd expect skin colour to not be needed as a proxy, and then second-generation Canadians, regardless of race, would have commonalities, not just visible minority second generation ones (yes, proportionally, more visible minorities are immigrants than white Canadians, but after getting to know people, there's no need for physical appearance to be used as proxy for whether someone is an "immigrant" or is a generation removed from one or not).

Thus, you'd expect a Jamaican kid of immigrant parents and a Polish kid of immigrant parents to socialize together based on this common ground, that neither shares with black Canadians or white Canadians with no recent immigrant roots overseas (eg. say for over three generations).

Alternatively, if the colour line and racialization is the common experience, not the common experience being the immigrant one, the opposite would hold true.

Is either of these what one expects though?

Do we see the immigrants of different race socialize (the Polish and Jamaican kid on one side, the black and white multigenerational Canadians on the other) together?

Or the individuals of the same race, but different immigration histories socialize together (eg. the Polish-Canadian and white Canadian on one side, the Jamaican Canadian and black Canadian on the other)?

Originally Posted by Acajack

Since this has become the de facto immigration and diversity thread, here are a few interesting links. (Don't be put off by the inflammatory headlines.)

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/open_vs_ordered_october_10_2017b.pdf

https://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News...Racism_%2818092013%29_Forum_Research.pdf

Double digit percentages of people think various minority groups (eg. racial minorities, religious minorities, Francophones) etc. have too much influence in the country. Assuming the sample of people surveyed is representative.

Are there any estimates for how many people think the, well, dominant, or majority groups (eg. how many people think English-Canadians have too much influence) have too much influence?

That would be an interesting standard to compare the previous results to.

[CityTech]

Here's an interesting opinion poll on the CANZUK idea.. freedom of migration is broadly supported by people of all 4 countries, with over 70% polling results in all 4.

In Canada, the idea was supported by 76% nationwide.. the lowest province of support was (not surprisingly) Quebec, and even there it was supported by 63%.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/wp-co...ional-National-Regional-Polling-2018.pdf

[JHikka]

lol, no third-party polling firm? Ok.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Because the EU works so well...

I know a lot of Europeans enjoy the free trade, open borders, ability to move between the nations for work and study.

This suggestion is even better because unlike Europe, all 4 of our nations are similar both in social benefits, welfare, taxes, culture, economy, etc. We won't have a flood of people moving to one nation for better jobs/benefits.

Canada honestly has one resource we lack, people. And you have the UK which has lots of people but little land.

In the end yes there are concerns about immigration, we can lower the requirements to immigrate between the 4 but not eliminate them.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by JHikka

lol, no third-party polling firm? Ok.

No, but if you read the pdf, the question asked wasn't misleading and the methodology was sound.

This is the question asked:

At present, citizens of the European Union have the right to live and work freely in other European Union countries. Would you support or oppose similar rights for [UK / Canadian / Australian / New Zealand] citizens to live and work in [other 3 countries], with citizens of [other 3 countries] granted reciprocal rights to live and work in [the UK / Canada / Australia / New Zealand]?

[Acajack]

Not saying this is my view, and I realize these countries are all fairly diverse, but has anyone ever opined that this CANZUK scheme might be a bit... racist?

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not saying this is my view, and I realize these countries are all fairly diverse, but has anyone ever opined that this CANZUK scheme might be a bit... racist?

Nope. No more racist than the Trans-Tasman agreement between Australia and New Zealand or the EU agreement. How would you suggest that CANZUK is more "racist" than these?

[misher]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not saying this is my view, and I realize these countries are all fairly diverse, but has anyone ever opined that this CANZUK scheme might be a bit... racist?

I'd say its discriminating based on culture. I'd be open to including most red areas on this map that were given independence peacefully and still maintain an Anglo oriented culture with some limitations given whats happening in some of them like South Africa and Iraq. Likely we'd have to put requirements in to prevent them from moving somewhere for welfare or to commit crime.

People forget that unlike most nations in the world Canada actually needs more people. The UK has a population of 66.5 million to our 37.6 million. If people would financially benefit us overall and want to come here we'd be crazy to say no to them. We're growing our population by 1% annually and I think for the major cities this amount of growth is fine, but immigration to the interior seems to be getting ignored. We need to grow the nation "overall" rather than just grow the urban centers. I think we should aim for 2% annually but require 50% of that to go to rural areas. You can never have enough farmers, tree planters, and miners? There are ways to convert some of our less desirable land to agricultural if we have the will and the labour. We have a LOT of land that we could be exploiting.





[IMG]LANGHAM, Sask. — As North American farmland values continue climbing, farmers are eyeing areas where potentially productive soil remains covered by forest and scrub brush.

LANGHAM, Sask. — As North American farmland values continue climbing, farmers are eyeing areas where potentially productive soil remains covered by forest and scrub brush.

In regions like the prairie parkland, some of the best land is also the stoniest land, which explains why it remains in the natural state. The old low-tech slash-and-burn method is still employed, but that old D9 bulldozer method leaves nuisance bush piles and rows across the landscape.

The debris disrupts field operations for years, especially with today’s big equipment. The other economic factor is that slash and burn can cost years in lost crop production.


ADVERTISEMENT


All this points producers toward the latest generation of big crushers, grinders, pulverizers and mulchers that can rip rocks and stumps buried a foot below the surface and grind them into dust and toothpicks. It immediately turns a patch of bush into a prepared seedbed.

One of the world’s largest and most innovative manufacturers in this arena is FAE of Italy. It builds crushers ranging from small skidsteer units to giant machines that turn mountains to molehills. There are two FAE distributors serving Western Canada: PrimeTech Shredding in Edmonton and GB Equipment in Quebec.

The price of farmland is perking interest in the land-clearing technology, according to Sylvain Benoit of GB Equipment.

Benoit attended the recent Ag in Motion to show off some of the latest FAE machines. He explained how most farmers today plan their land-clearing operation.

“First, the farmer sells off the wood for a profit, because it’s a shame to waste profitable timber or firewood. This helps offset your costs of clearing,” said Benoit.

ADVERTISEMENT


“Now you’re left with branches, stumps, some rotten trees, roots and lots of debris that will get in the way of your farming equipment. To recover your investment, you need to put that field into crop as soon as possible, the very next planting season.

“One of the best machines for that is the SFM grinder. It’s designed mainly for farmers who have woodlands they want to convert into farmland.”

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not saying this is my view, and I realize these countries are all fairly diverse, but has anyone ever opined that this CANZUK scheme might be a bit... racist?

Not really. The 4 countries involved have managed to develop a somewhat similar culture (in most cases because the British culture got stamped hard on the land during the colonial times), so it makes sense they could potentially make a Union arrangement eventually.

The other commonwealth nations for the most part generally don't have a culture that is as similar as these 4; usually because the British Footprint didn't stamp down as hard on them (or the local populations were more resistant to it), so they don't really fit in the common base these four countries have.

The reason why Canada, New Zealand and Australia have such similar cultures is a tragic part of their histories; but it is the history. Looking at them as the countries of Today, they have enough similarities that it makes sense somewhat for them to work together when appropriate, including possibly a common union at some point.

[Acajack]

Again, it's not necessarily my view but it does run against the contemporary conventional wisdom of *certain* outspoken people (and not just on SSP) that Canadian cities don't have anything more in common with London or Sydney than they do with Manila or Mumbai.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Again, it's not necessarily my view but it does run against the contemporary conventional wisdom of *certain* outspoken people (and not just on SSP) that Canadian cities don't have anything more in common with London or Sydney than they do with Manila or Mumbai.

And yet they handle our tech support and a lot of our medical work.

The Philippines is our #1 source of immigrants and India is our #2. 0.5% of our population every year is basically one of these two ethnicities.

I’d say we will soon have more in common with these two nations than Britain or Australia.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Here's an interesting opinion poll on the CANZUK idea.. freedom of migration is broadly supported by people of all 4 countries, with over 70% polling results in all 4.

In Canada, the idea was supported by 76% nationwide.. the lowest province of support was (not surprisingly) Quebec, and even there it was supported by 63%.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/wp-co...ional-National-Regional-Polling-2018.pdf

Yes it is not surprising given the perception (largely rooted in historical reality) that the Canadian government for a century or two used immigration as a demographic weapon to marginalize Quebec within Canada and even francophones within Quebec itself.

As such while I'd be surprised if Quebec tried to block this if it ever got any steam, but they'd certainly come to the tables with demands of their own ("sounds great for you guys but what's in it for us?").