Assimilation vs. Integration

[charter.rights]

Then you aren't as smart as you think you are....

Poutine and shit are chemically and biologically very similar. If not for added flavour like bile and ammonia shit would be indistinguishable from the original poutine as it was being eaten.

[Leafless]

Sure traditions are a component of culture. But traditions alone do not change culture and they evolve with the people while still remaining connected to the culture.

Human achievement and advancement are not the same thing as culture. Culture for the most part is intrinsically linked to language and region.

Human achievement and advancement and the rest of what I said relate very closely to the actual defintion of culture.

The Concise Oxford dictionary defines culture primarily as :

1a-the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. 1 b- a refined understanding of this; intellectual development (a person of culture) 2.-the customs, civilizations and achievements of a particular time or people

[Melanie_]

Wrong!

Culture is static. Traditions change but culture is the same.

There is no such thing as "Canadian culture" independent from adoptive cultures. There is Quebequois culture. A Native culture. Even a Metis culture. But there is no such thing as a distinct "Canadian culture.

And no you cannot take other cultures, blend them together and then call it Canadian culture. It is just that simple.

What is Quebequois culture but an amalgamation of French (from France) with other influences? What is Metis culture but an amalgamation of French and Native? What is current “Native” culture – certainly not the same as 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago. As distinct cultures mingle, new cultures evolve.

As Leafless has posted,

2.-the customs, civilizations and achievements of a particular time or people

This implies that culture can be modified on an ongoing basis, as new achievements are made. The definition itself states that it is relevent to a particular time or people – that means that as the time changes, or the people change, the culture can change as well. That’s called progress!

[charter.rights]

What is Quebequois culture but an amalgamation of French (from France) with other influences? What is Metis culture but an amalgamation of French and Native? What is current “Native” culture – certainly not the same as 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago. As distinct cultures mingle, new cultures evolve.

As Leafless has posted,

This implies that culture can be modified on an ongoing basis, as new achievements are made. The definition itself states that it is relevent to a particular time or people – that means that as the time changes, or the people change, the culture can change as well. That’s called progress!

Culture in the context of historical / group culture is defined as:

Merram-Webster On-Line

Main Entry: cul·ture

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time

Culture develops with language. Quebequois culture is as different from French culture as is Tahitian culture from Gaelic. Each were developed because of region changes in the lives of the people. There were not hybrids as you suggest but distinct and separate cultures arising out of the necessities of living together.

Miqmaq culture is not the same as Algonquin culture. Welsh culture is not the same as Irish culture. They have remained the same culture for thousands of years, yet their traditions have changed as the people have changed and adapted. Culture is static. Traditions and icons are dynamic.

[Leafless]

Culture in the context of historical / group culture is defined as:

Merram-Webster On-Line

Main Entry: cul·ture

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time

5 a:, is a main primary definition? Still it does not define lanuage as being all important that detirmines ones overall culture.

Culture develops with language. Quebequois culture is as different from French culture as is Tahitian culture from Gaelic. Each were developed because of region changes in the lives of the people. There were not hybrids as you suggest but distinct and separate cultures arising out of the necessities of living together.

Culture does not develop with language and cuture is not soley based on language.

Quebec culture is primarily the same as any other province in Canada and has been culturally assimilated by Canadian/American majority culture.

Even the French obsolete language would not exist if it were not heavily subsidized by the federal government.

[charter.rights]

"Quebec culture is primarily the same as any other province in Canada and has been culturally assimilated by Canadian/American majority culture."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Do you live on an ice flow in a northern Alberta river? or are you just eating too much ice cream lately?

Language isn't culture no. And culture isn't language either. They are intrinsically linked and cannot be separate. One cannot experience Quebequois culture in a totally English aspect nor can one experience Quebequois culture in an isolated Alberta dust town UNLESS it was populated by Quebequois. The best you can do pretend and try to emulate what you think is their culture. Unless you are part of it you can never experience it in the same way it exists in Quebec.

French in Quebec has survive in spite of people like you who think they are a doomed people. You should get over the fact that YOU don't represent what a Canadian is any more than a immigrant that takes his oath in downtown Toronto. We're all Canadians and there is no such thing as a "majority" from any particular region, cultural or linguistic background.

Edited March 23, 2008 by charter.rights

[Melanie_]

Culture in the context of historical / group culture is defined as:

Merram-Webster On-Line

Main Entry: cul·ture

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time

Culture develops with language. Quebequois culture is as different from French culture as is Tahitian culture from Gaelic. Each were developed because of region changes in the lives of the people. There were not hybrids as you suggest but distinct and separate cultures arising out of the necessities of living together.

Miqmaq culture is not the same as Algonquin culture. Welsh culture is not the same as Irish culture. They have remained the same culture for thousands of years, yet their traditions have changed as the people have changed and adapted. Culture is static. Traditions and icons are dynamic.

Again, respectfully, I’ll disagree. Your definition states that culture depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. If culture were static, there would be no need to continue learning anything, as the culture would already be set long ago (at what point, then, would we know that the culture was set and no more changes could be made?). It also states that culture is an integrated pattern of knowledge, belief and behaviour, none of which are static – changes in any of these three must therefore be integrated into culture. The last point in this definition states that culture is the characteristic features of everday existence shared by people in a place or time, which means that culture changes as the people and times change. You’ve pointed out that separate cultures arise out of the necessities of living together, which seems to support the idea that culture is flexible.

Language, traditions, and icons are all part of culture, and they all are dynamic, as you say. If these elements of culture change, then the culture itself must adapt to the changes. I agree that the Miqmaqs, Algonquins, Welsh, Irish, etc. all have different cultures, but I challenge you to show that those cultures have remained exactly the same over the past few centuries.

[Rue]

Then you aren't as smart as you think you are....

Poutine and shit are chemically and biologically very similar. If not for added flavour like bile and ammonia shit would be indistinguishable from the original poutine as it was being eaten.

You guys are hilarious. It also explains my clogged arteries and liver failure.

[Rue]

I agree with you Rue.

But then is it not the invention of equality rights, that that ignites racial/cultural fires and is the source of cultural animosity and divisiveness?

I would concede Equality Rights can ignite or I suppose the better word is incite disputes as much as its designed to resolve them. I must concede that point.

I also concede your classic position as to culture not necessarily flowing from language.

In fact you have stated your side of the cultural assimilation position very clearly and logically and so I have not debated with your points because I concede they are legitimate points you are making to counter the ones I would make on the other side and I actually enjoy it when you debate logically. I learn from it.

But for me Leafless I believe it all depends on moderation. I believe your points are relevant if we go to extreme with multi-culturalism. Being extremely tolerant of course can morph into intolerance.

I think the beauty of our laws is that they give us the potential to not be extreme and remain moderate.

I tend to look at the middle point in all this ideology-not too much interference by government, not too little-just the right amount needed to keep us on track and not colliding into one another.

The challenge is in defining this Canadian identity. We know what the aboriginal one is. We know what the British and French ones are. I am not sure though what we are doing with the remaining component of others.

I do think however that whether we like it or not, the aboriginal context of a collective of collectives was embraced in our 1967 Canadian identity when we deliberately chose to have a nation of nations.

Did that condemn us to perpetual civil war or dysfunction Leafless? Some say yes. I say it has set the stage for a continuous and evolving process of identity formation and yes maybe some of it is dysfunctional but surely isome of it is also functional. I believe the aboriginal collective concept of nationhood meshes well with the British parliamentary system. The aboriginal world may be a collective of nations but its cultures from these many nations-well some survive and some face extinction and maybe that is all that is happening with the rest of us-some of our traditions are being swallowed up and made extinct by global realities.

I mean Leafless if the world continues, is it not reasonable to believe all of North America becomes one nation? Are we not now? Is the stuff we call cultural autonomy just a pacifying illusion used to control us through divide and conquer?

Edited March 24, 2008 by Rue

[Leafless]

French in Quebec has survive in spite of people like you who think they are a doomed people.

French an obsolete language in Quebec has only survived because of the massive infusion of federal subsidies, including the Charter (the good part relating to Quebec) a result of totally corrupt traitorous politicians.

You should get over the fact that YOU don't represent what a Canadian is any more than a immigrant that takes his oath in downtown Toronto. We're all Canadians and there is no such thing as a "majority" from any particular region, cultural or linguistic background.

Canada, multiculturally speaking, is primarily an English speaking, Christian MAJORITY society.

It is obvious you cannot handle that and are envious of that FACT.

[charter.rights]

French an obsolete language in Quebec has only survived because of the massive infusion of federal subsidies, including the Charter (the good part relating to Quebec) a result of totally corrupt traitorous politicians.

Canada, multiculturally speaking, is primarily an English speaking, Christian MAJORITY society.

It is obvious you cannot handle that and are envious of that FACT.

Ah but they are not all "white" or of British descent. Obviously you cannot handle that FACT!

But you are further up the bowels of ignorance than you think. Quebec maintains its French language heritage and culture WITHOUT federal subsidies. It is the rest of Canada that they need help with. Bill 101 is law untouchable by federal statute. Unfortunately, yours is just a minor opinion in the greater scheme of things and your point of view is no greater than that insignificant opinion.

Luckily neither being English speaking or Christian has any weight in law or government.

Edited March 24, 2008 by charter.rights

[Leafless]

Ah but they are not all "white" or of British descent. Obviously you cannot handle that FACT!

Not all White, but I would say 83% being White would qualify the statement that the majority of Canadians are White and Christian ( 77.1% being Christian). This is a fact I can handle very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

It does not matter if Canadians are of British decent.

What matters is that our constitution was given to us by the British establishing our form of government with Canada being both a Costitutional Monarchy and a Parliamentry Democracy moulded after the British system of government in which we inherited and emulated many major aspects of British culture.

That is why our English language is our language of commerce and is the majority common language of Canada and WHY it is not French or any other language.

But you are further up the bowels of ignorance than you think. Quebec maintains its French language heritage and culture WITHOUT federal subsidies.

Quebec would not survive without federal subsidies as its minority culture is incapable of providing employment for residents of that province and also would fail as a country if they ever did separate.

It is the rest of Canada that they need help with.

The ROC feeds Quebec and culturally and financially, has done very well for itself.

Bill 101 is law untouchable by federal statute.

Bill 101 otherwise known as the 'French Charter' as been kept alive by Quebec by repeatedly by renewing the 'Notwithstanding Clause ' every five years, which by the way is done by the powers of the federal government, who corruptly and undemocratically approves this request.

This of course discriminates against all English speaking Canadians and flies in the face of the federal governments own 'Charter of right and Freedoms'.

Unfortunately, yours is just a minor opinion in the greater scheme of things and your point of view is no greater than that insignificant opinion.

"The greater scheme of things" lead by dysfunctional governments is what makes this country so damn corrupt.

Luckily neither being English speaking or Christian has any weight in law or government.

Talk about ignorance.

We would not have a country if it were not for the White, English speaking, Christian British who gave us the country and the BNA Act.

No one knows how the space that Canada and the U.S. occupies, without the British, would have politically evolved.

[charter.rights]

Not all White, but I would say 83% being White would qualify the statement that the majority of Canadians are White and Christian ( 77.1% being Christian). This is a fact I can handle very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

It does not matter if Canadians are of British decent.

What matters is that our constitution was given to us by the British establishing our form of government with Canada being both a Costitutional Monarchy and a Parliamentry Democracy moulded after the British system of government in which we inherited and emulated many major aspects of British culture.

That is why our English language is our language of commerce and is the majority common language of Canada and WHY it is not French or any other language.

Quebec would not survive without federal subsidies as its minority culture is incapable of providing employment for residents of that province and also would fail as a country if they ever did separate.

The ROC feeds Quebec and culturally and financially, has done very well for itself.

Bill 101 otherwise known as the 'French Charter' as been kept alive by Quebec by repeatedly by renewing the 'Notwithstanding Clause ' every five years, which by the way is done by the powers of the federal government, who corruptly and undemocratically approves this request.

This of course discriminates against all English speaking Canadians and flies in the face of the federal governments own 'Charter of right and Freedoms'.

"The greater scheme of things" lead by dysfunctional governments is what makes this country so damn corrupt.

Talk about ignorance.

We would not have a country if it were not for the White, English speaking, Christian British who gave us the country and the BNA Act.

No one knows how the space that Canada and the U.S. occupies, without the British, would have politically evolved.

You must live in Alberta. That much ignorance couldn't survive anywhere else in Canada.

[Peter F]

You must live in Alberta. That much ignorance couldn't survive anywhere else in Canada.

It survives in rural southern Ontario.

[Leafless]

You must live in Alberta. That much ignorance couldn't survive anywhere else in Canada.

I live in Ottawa and am fully familiar with the oppressive nature of our undemocratic, discriminatory federal government.

Anyone to make that kind of statement after what has been said is obviously disassociated with the true political reality of Canada or is a French propagandist.

[Leafless]

It survives in rural southern Ontario.

Obviously you are familiar with the arrogance of nationalistic Quebecers.

[Drea]

Leafless, get over the French already! Sheesh.

They have such sexy accents, leave 'em alone...

And they deserve to be arrogant -- they've kept their culture intact in the twenty first century -- our so-called British heritage (I am not a Brit, are you?) got sucked into the "American" way.... that really pisses you off doesn't it? That the French get to have their own culture and language and yours has dissipated?

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute... Imagine if Alberta were the only english speaking province and how it would fight to keep that heritage...

Edited March 25, 2008 by Drea

[DangerMouse]

Leafless, get over the French already! Sheesh.

They have such sexy accents, leave 'em alone...

And they deserve to be arrogant -- they've kept their culture intact in the twenty first century -- our so-called British heritage (I am not a Brit, are you?) got sucked into the "American" way.... that really pisses you off doesn't it? That the French get to have their own culture and language and yours has dissipated?

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute... Imagine if Alberta were the only english speaking province and how it would fight to keep that heritage...

French people overseas would argue this, I was told that they can't even understand the form of french spoken in Quebec. It evolved to some sort of NA version.

Yes, that's Canadian culture! Singing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and The Simpsons and Walt Disney characters. The natives have something to be proud of with their traditional songs, dances, stories, regalia, totems, etc. Natives also have a fullhead of hair, that some lightbulbs totally despise, and they don't have to lay in some sun machine just to get that wonderful complexion--some people despise natives over childlike issues

I also wanted to say that I cannot believe that people use WIKIS as a form of reference. They are updated and editted by some brainwave lightbulbs who don't always have the facts straight. Then some rightwing nut politician comes along and reads and believes what they read

[Drea]

French people overseas would argue this, I was told that they can't even understand the form of french spoken in Quebec. It evolved to some sort of NA version.

As has the English language evolved. Even in different areas of Britain the language is spoken in various dialects.... your point?

[

Yes, that's Canadian culture! Singing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and The Simpsons and Walt Disney characters. The natives have something to be proud of with their traditional songs, dances, stories, regalia, totems, etc. Natives also have a fullhead of hair, that some lightbulbs totally despise, and they don't have to lay in some sun machine just to get that wonderful complexion--some people despise natives over childlike issues

Yes and you are stuck with the same old same old (never created or invented anything new) while the world moves on. While your totems are quaint they certainly are not "art" in any way. Native art is the lamest, easiest to create garbage... we all made a native mask in grade school... took one class to make the finish product. pffft.

You think you are "better" because of "complexion"?

Some people despise caucasians (of which you are 50% by the way) for childish reasons -- body hair and baldness have no bearing on a person's attitude or personality... unless you are a very shallow human being.

I also wanted to say that I cannot believe that people use WIKIS as a form of reference. They are updated and editted by some brainwave lightbulbs who don't always have the facts straight. Then some rightwing nut politician comes along and reads and believes what they read

Hey we agree -- I don't like to use Wikipedia either as it is biased. (Kinda like you innit?)

Stupid bolding by the way-- does that make you feel special? Can't use the same font as everyone else can you? You sitting there thinking "I will look very smart if no one can read my posts!" ?

[Melanie_]

Natives also have a fullhead of hair, that some lightbulbs totally despise, and they don't have to lay in some sun machine just to get that wonderful complexion--some people despise natives over childlike issues

Dangermouse, were you here before with the screen name of Chauchee?

[DangerMouse]

Dangermouse, were you here before with the screen name of Chauchee?

No! The last time I was in "boredom sets in forums" like this was about 6 yrs ago in the National Post forums...there was some twit named Ben who despised indians....I think National Post pulled the forums because Ben sure made non-natives look like idiots

[DangerMouse]

Yes and you are stuck with the same old same old (never created or invented anything new) while the world moves on. While your totems are quaint they certainly are not "art" in any way. Native art is the lamest, easiest to create garbage... we all made a native mask in grade school... took one class to make the finish product. pffft.

You think you are "better" because of "complexion"?

Some people despise caucasians (of which you are 50% by the way) for childish reasons -- body hair and baldness have no bearing on a person's attitude or personality... unless you are a very shallow human being.

Wasn't that class making masks for halloween? You have to laugh because you have nothing in comparison! Opps! Except "Take me Out To the ballgame," and "The Simpsons" and oh by the way: What is the significance of the Square Dance? Your role models include Scott Pederson, Jefferey Dahlmer, JW Gacey, the pig farmer....

[Drea]

Surely is Chauchee...

Hey Chauchee -- Disneyland is in the USA, not Canada.

Gosh, you ought to try doing a bit of simple research before you post.

[AngusThermopyle]

Its true DM, I am totally ashamed of the fact that we never learned the art of discordant unsyncopated drumming and "singing" that sounds like Yoko Ono on a really bad day.

[Leafless]

And they deserve to be arrogant -- they've kept their culture intact in the twenty first century -- our so-called British heritage (I am not a Brit, are you?) got sucked into the "American" way.... that really pisses you off doesn't it?

British heritage is responsible for the U.S. and Canadian White, Christian English speaking culture and traditons which we have further developed to an all around U.S/Canadian culture.

No doubt Western culture is fully reponsible for Canada's success, up to now, since Canadian politicians have reneged on the majority White, Christian, English speaking Canadians and are turning the country into cesspool of uncoperating foreign divisive minority cultures.

That the French get to have their own culture and language and yours has dissipated?

B.S., White Candian culture is alive and well otherwise I probably would not be a majority White, Christian, English speaking Canadian with all the other developed cultural manifestations and traditons that we believe in and practice everyday.

Don't worry Drea Quebec is assimilated except for their language which they use as a cultural weapon against the ROC to benefit its nationalistic ideologies. Other minority cultures are right in line waiting to reap what Quebec has reaped.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute... Imagine if Alberta were the only english speaking province and how it would fight to keep that heritage...

Drea, you are a traitor to Canada and its majority culture and its vibrant British history.