Visible Minorities to be majority in 25 years

[wyly]

Interesting too that Gregor Mendel's findings back in the 1800s are thought to be racist by wyle.

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

that's an invention on your part...this entire subject is beyond your ability to understand...

[Guest TrueMetis]

poorly worded post on my part...I never meant to imply Darwin was a racist(he might have been I don't know)...what I meant was from his work others attempted to justify racial differences through science...eugenics was a direct result of Darwins work, Hitler fully supported evolution and used it to justify racial injustices...

You also know nothing about Hitler. Hitler never once mentions Darwin in any of his works or speeches and he certainly did not support evolution, his writings in Mein Kampf point in the other direction.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)

As for eugenics Galton probably used that as a basis for his work but so what? I don't know whether Darwin knew about it but I can say with certainty it would have appaled him considering he was opposed to slavery.

My link

[DogOnPorch]

that's an invention on your part...this entire subject is beyond your ability to understand...

Ummm...try gardening for a hobby. Mendel was correct. Still is correct.

[GostHacked]

So when can this white male apply for a minority status and get all the benefits it implies?

[M.Dancer]

So when can this white male apply for a minority status and get all the benefits it implies?

When they marry. Although the benefits are great, the terms are staggering.

[Shwa]

So when can this white male apply for a minority status and get all the benefits it implies?

Anytime, but be careful what you ask for because you just might get it!

[wyly]

You also know nothing about Hitler. Hitler never once mentions Darwin in any of his works or speeches and he certainly did not support evolution, his writings in Mein Kampf point in the other direction.

Nazism ideology is clearly linked to Darwinism through Ernst Haeckel, racial superiority, weeding out weak and inferior genetics and races

"National Socialism is based on scientific foundations"

"National Socialism on the other hand must always, if it is to fulfill its job in the future, be organized according to the latest knowledge of scientific research"

"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable"

-Martin Borman

As for eugenics Galton probably used that as a basis for his work but so what? I don't know whether Darwin knew about it but I can say with certainty it would have appaled him considering he was opposed to slavery.

I never accused Darwin of anything, but being opposed to slavery is not the same as saying you believe blacks are equal to whites...

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

-Abraham Lincoln

[wyly]

Ummm...try gardening for a hobby. Mendel was correct. Still is correct.

try getting an education and you'll have some inkling of we're discussing...

[DogOnPorch]

try getting an education and you'll have some inkling of we're discussing...

Says the fellow that thinks Mendel was some sort of a racist.

[JB Globe]

Irrelevent. The fact is what you have in both situations is masses of newcomers coming in and pushing aside those already there by sheer numbers, substituting their cultural values for what was there before.

Find me one historian that agrees with this idea of yours, because according to the basic dictionary definition of either immigration or colonialism you're wrong.

I'll say it again - with immigration, the nation can turn off the taps whenever it wants to and cease all immigration. It can also set all of the terms of whether immigrations can integrate, or whether they must completely assimilate into the host nation's culture, which does not change a bit.

With colonialism, the indigenous peoples have extremely little/no say in any of the terms that the colonial power sets. In fact in many cases, most colonial powers didn't even recognize indigenous peoples as human beings, and thus they weren't even considered a part of the colonial enterprise, never mind having any say in it.

In one case the "immigrants" have all the power to make whatever decisions they want, in the other case the immigrants only have the ability to make decisions as dictated by the country they are immigrating to.

I don't think it could be any more clear than that.

I think you're being completely irrational with continuing to insist on this point - you really should just let this one go.

What you mean is they're aware of the fragility of culture and are emotionally commited to ensuring their culture does not melt away in the face of the greater numbers of others. Why is that acceptable for them but not acceptable for English Canadians.

I never said it was acceptable, in fact I said I hoped they didn't turn their culture into some sort of static dogma entrenched in law, but of course you won't admit that because you can't go without mischaracterizing my argument.

Fact of the matter is that even without any immigration, culture within Canada would be changing, so to treat it like it's some sort of monolith that is unchanging throughout time is ridiculous.

Immigrants tend to be far more religious than Canadian born, and I made no absolute statement. I merely posed a question. What do you do if the newcomers - who by and large are considerably less welcoming towards homosexuals - shift the cultural values of this country to the point where the majority population decides to cut back on gay rights? It'll be a bit late at that point to ask them to leave, won't it?

Frankly, the absence of immigrants doesn't eliminate homophobia. The Reform party was homophobic, and they were homegrown evangelicals. They spearheaded the effort against same sex marriage in this country.

As for immigration - while new Canadians may indeed be more religious than Canadian-born citizens, there are significant jumps away from orthodoxy/conservatism religious interpretations and towards more progressive secular ones with each passing generation.

This happened with the children of Catholic Italian/Portuguese immigrants & Greek Orthodox immigrants in the 1940's - 60's, and it's happening with the current 1st generation Canadian children from families of various religious backgrounds.

And there's no reason to believe it won't continue, so long as we maintain the notion in this country that you can subscribe to a non-Christian religion and at the same time still be fully Canadian. When religious minorities are made to feel fully part of a country, they're not going to feel motivated to try and change it.

What I inferred was that the cultural values of immigrants, be they Sikhs or Hindus from India, Muslims from Pakistan, or Christians from the Phillipines or Boliva, are much more religious and conservative in social beliefs, and as their numbers rise, will become more powerful in Canada.

For the record, you realize that you can be very religious and still be progressive, right? Religiosity doesn't automatically mean someone is a homophobe or thinks women are inferior. This is especially true in de-centralized religions such as Hinduism.

But as I said before, the children of these immigrants are not as conservative as their parents, you're still making the assumption that non-white/non-Christian Canadians are always going to be more conservative. How conservative/religious are the descendants of Chinese railway workers vs. Jewish-Russian railway workers like my great grandfather who also worked on the railway in the West? My guess is going to be they're pretty similar. And again, I highly doubt that 1st generation Sikh Indo-Canadians are any more religious or conservative than 1st generation Catholic Italian-Canadians were decades ago.

But MOST importantly - all of these various religious groups have their own beliefs, practices and agendas. There is no conspiracy among Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Confucianists - they are not working together to overturn same sex marriage along with the Catholic church. This notion that all religious affiliations are working together to undermine Canadian democracy and/or equality is simply without any precedent, and I defy you to find me an example of this, in Canada or even abroad.

This is what I mean by the chicken-little predictions of a less-white, less anglo-dominated Canada.

Because it's damned expensive, costing the government, according to a Fraser Institute report, something close to $20 billion per year.

Yet, according to a Royal Bank report in 2005, immigration contributes to the economy, and recommended RAISING immigration levels.

A 2002 U of Montreal report found that there is no impact to Canada's per-capita-income from immigration.

Because it engenders rises in violent crime

Wrong.

Violent crime has been falling in Canada since 1992, same with the overall crime rate.

The cities with the highest murder rates in Canada are also the cities with the lowest immigration rates in Canada: Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, etc.

The fact is, high levels of immigration in Canada have coincided with steady declines in crime and violent crime, and the safest cities in Canada have high levels of immigration. These cities are also much safer than their American counterparts of the same size, which have relatively low levels of immigration.

and in anti-semitism.

The most anti-semitic period in Canadian history occurred when immigration was at a fraction of its current size in the 1930's-40's. Also, you don't see Jewish groups advocating for reducing immigration as a means of reducing anti-semitism precisely because they know that anti-semitism is just as likely to be found among white Christians as it is among most immigrant groups.

The only real factor that makes any sort of difference is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without which, you would probably not see increased levels of anti-semitism among Muslim-Canadians. Of course, the opposite is true as well, in that the conflict also drives Islamophobia up among a segment of the Jewish population as well.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a long-running and high-stakes conflict with religious and ethnic undertones generates polarization and then bigotry on both sides. But thankfully, Jewish groups realize that this is not grounds for reducing immigration, but rather for dialogue and constructive debate.

Because it increases overcrowding in our cities

Most Canadian urban areas consist of on average around 50% suburban development. In the case of Ottawa, it's higher than that, and in Calgary, I'd argue it's around 90%. Our population density in cities is well below that of Europe and a fraction of places like Japan. There are for example, still numerous surface parking lots all over downtown Toronto. We still have a lot of room to grow.

Also, density doesn't automatically = lower quality of life. Some of the densest cities in Europe are also among the best to live in, for example.

Because the more foreigners you bring into the country the more watered down our local cultural values and beliefs will be.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

That's the last of your reasons against immigration - I'm still not seeing any substantial evidence that immigration is harming Canada's economy or values. Even on the economic front - there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. However all of the reports indicating immigration is damaging come from conservative think tanks, and several of the pro-immigration reports have come from the research units at financial institutions with no political agendas.

There are whole areas of the country in places like the GTA and lower mainland where you can go blocks without seeing a native born Canadian.

That's just simply not true. It's a statistical improbability that there is any several block radius in Canada that does not have any Canadian-born residents. It IS however possible that you can find small pockets in urban areas where there are almost no visible minorities (ie - I mentioned Rosedale in Toronto before)

The only way you could say these areas that have majority visible-minorities don't have anyone Canadian is to say that non-whites aren't Canadian - you're not saying that, are you?

Well, given more than half the residents at Ottawa's juvenile detention centres are Somalis I suppose you could say they're "establishing connections".

Are you making the argument that Canada should get out of the refugee business and using Somalis as an example? Keep in mind that this would require turning away people like your hero, Hirsi Ali, had she applied to Canada.

I've never heard that stat before. But of course, Somali Canadians are mostly refugees, not immigrants. More accurately, they're refugees from conflict zones. As such, they weren't selected based on educational/skill criteria like immigrants (or even like refugees from post-conflict zones are, ie - WWII "displaced persons"). Add to that fact they were fleeing a brutal war, and many people are victims of trauma and abuse. Throw into the mix racism based on their race and religion, and you have a potent cocktail. Refugees typically have a much harder time than immigrants because they usually arrive with no possessions or savings, therefor usually there are higher rates of poverty and crime.

That has more to do with any specific situation than some inherent tendency to violence and criminality.

Yes, they're rather notorious in Ottawa for their high level of cultural sophistication and dedication to law and order and public welfare.

So are you going to acknowledge the unique set of circumstances that Somali Canadians face? Or just continue to make sarcastic remakes that avoid dealing with the facts?

Sounds like cliche'd nonsense to me.

It's basic sociology.

In general when you belong to a group that makes a up a majority of a country, and that dominates it's political, economic and cultural centres, you don't have to interact with people of another group who make up a minority of that country's population in order to lead a prosperous economic life. If you were a minority, you'd be condemning yourself to a life of isolation and poverty if you did the same. Therefor, you have to integrate and learn to relate to people who are different from you are.

Most of our immigrants come from relatively homogenous areas where suspicion and hostility towards other ethnic and national groups is endemic and often results in violence between such groups.

Sorry, so are immigrants from homogenous areas or are they from areas that have a mix of ethnic groups and nationalities? Which is it?

Canada's top 10 source countries in order: China, India, Philippines, Pakistan, US, Columbia, UK, South Korea, Iran, France

Most immigrants are professionals or skilled workers, most professionals and skilled workers in any of these countries were born/raised/lived in major cities. Most major city in most of these countries is diverse in terms of having a mix of ethnic groups and in some cases religious groups. Especially the countries whose immigrants you seem to be the most concerned about.

Why you get the idea they come to Canada - an open society which has had mass immigraton for some forty years now, and that THEY would be more likely to embrace people of other backgrounds is beyond me.

Because they have a lot more in common being immigrants than they are different. I used to work at a major hotel in downtown Toronto while in school, almost everyone who worked there was an immigrant. It was exceedingly rare for people to not have good friends who weren't of a different ethnic background. There were some tensions between certain people, but this was not the rule, seeing as how most people came here to get away from conflict among other things, they didn't want to perpetuate it.

Case in point - one of the first things I noticed was that all the North Indian/Pakistani guys from different departments hung out together once in a while to catch up, regardless of if they were Sikh or Hindu, Muslim. Because they all spoke Hindi/Urdu.

One of the great past times of everyone there was to learn as many swear words in as many different languages as possible, which required befriending people of other backgrounds.

Maybe I got the idea from what I was reading in school, and then saw it in reality everyday - that's what kinda confirmed it.

As I've said before, the most racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic comments I've ever heard in my life - by far - have all come from immigrants and were all directed - with the exception of the anti-semitism and sexism - at other ethnic minorities.

Since we're swapping anecdotes - the only times I've been had anti-semitic slurs used against me, it was always Anglo-Canadians.

Guess that means that all Anglo-Canadians are anti-semites.

I thought I already had. If you're an immigrant child and go to a public school were 90%+ of the students are not Canadian born just how is it you're going to learn to integrate with Canadians?

90% not white and 90% not Canadian born are two completely different things. You're not going to find many schools with the later ratio.

Are you unaware that a large amount of the young non-white people you see walking down the street are probably born here? And that even among those that aren't most were very young when they came?

What these kids will learn is how to form relationships with people of ANY ethnic background, including Anglo-Canadians. ie - if a Muslim kid and a Hindu kid can become friends, than there's nothing stopping them from befriending a white, Christian kid. Go find a street hockey game on any given street in Scarborough, or a soccer field in Rexdale, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The only people that these kids have problems befriending are people who don't have any ability to relate to people outside their own ethnic group - people who grew up in monocultural communities and don't posses those skills.

This is a particular issue which is almost impossible to confront in that manner.

I don't buy that one bit, not if anti-immigrant sentiment is as popular as you suggest.

How popular do you think women's suffrage was? Somehow women got the right to vote even without being able to vote. Anti-immigrant Canadians don't nearly have the same kind of cards stacked against them. And they've done absolutely nothing in 50 years to form any sort of political movement.

And you know this how, exactly? Just because opinion polls taken in Toronto are more welcoming to immigration doesn't mean that the native born population there is. Any poll would be distorted by the huge numbers of immigrants who, statistically speaking, would be bound to be included.

To be completely honest, I put equal weight on the opinions of all law-abiding Canadian citizens, regardless of where they were born or what God they worship/don't worship, what they eat for dinner, or what colour their skin is.

I think that's pretty much the main difference between you and I on this issue.

As you said before, you don't automatically assume someone is a Canadian because they're born here.

I suppose there's some sort of test they have to pass before you change your mind, what is it exactly?

[Bonam]

Find me one historian that agrees with this idea of yours, because according to the basic dictionary definition of either immigration or colonialism you're wrong.

I'll say it again - with immigration, the nation can turn off the taps whenever it wants to and cease all immigration. It can also set all of the terms of whether immigrations can integrate, or whether they must completely assimilate into the host nation's culture, which does not change a bit.

With colonialism, the indigenous peoples have extremely little/no say in any of the terms that the colonial power sets. In fact in many cases, most colonial powers didn't even recognize indigenous peoples as human beings, and thus they weren't even considered a part of the colonial enterprise, never mind having any say in it.

In one case the "immigrants" have all the power to make whatever decisions they want, in the other case the immigrants only have the ability to make decisions as dictated by the country they are immigrating to.

I don't think it could be any more clear than that.

You are correct, this is the distinction. But now consider what happens if the government of the country, who holds the power to control immigration, lacks the will or inclination to do so, even if it begins to become disruptive to the existing cultures in the same way that colonialism was. There are many times when a government can be slow to react, or when politicians can be more concerned about catering to special interests, etc. Meanwhile, excessive immigration can have the same effect. Just because a government technically has the power to stop immigration does not mean that the fact that they continue to allow immigration proves that it is beneficial for the country.

However all of the reports indicating immigration is damaging come from conservative think tanks, and several of the pro-immigration reports have come from the research units at financial institutions with no political agendas.

Financial institutions have no political agenda? What do you think would happen to a bank if it published a report with strong anti-immigration conclusions? All the newspapers in the country would carry headlines like "Bigoted executives at RBC slam immigration" or "Human rights groups denounce recent statements by Bank of Montreal" or whatnot. This would be disastrous for the bank that published such a report. Banks, perhaps more so than almost any other private enterprise, have to adhere to being as politically correct as possible.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a long-running and high-stakes conflict with religious and ethnic undertones generates polarization and then bigotry on both sides. But thankfully, Jewish groups realize that this is not grounds for reducing immigration, but rather for dialogue and constructive debate.

Debate is all well and good when two sides are about equally influential and powerful. But what happens when there are 10 times as many Arabs as Jews? A 100 times more, or a thousand? Which side will have the bigger political influence, the bigger voice? The Jewish population in Canada is what, 300 thousand or so? When, after decades of immigration, there will be millions and millions of Muslims why would they bother having "dialog" with Jewish groups when they can simply assert their influence directly through our democracy and elect anti-Israeli politicians? And who is to say they would stop with anti-Israeli politicians. It is no secret that anti-Semitism is rife in the Arab world.

That's just simply not true. It's a statistical improbability that there is any several block radius in Canada that does not have any Canadian-born residents. It IS however possible that you can find small pockets in urban areas where there are almost no visible minorities (ie - I mentioned Rosedale in Toronto before)

The only way you could say these areas that have majority visible-minorities don't have anyone Canadian is to say that non-whites aren't Canadian - you're not saying that, are you?

Obviously you'll find the children of immigrants in any immigrant community. But if they grow up in a community composed almost entirely of immigrants from a certain country and their children, they will experience little of the "diversity" that Canada has to offer. They will not mix much with white Canadians, nor even with other types of "non-white" Canadians besides their own group. So, while the 2nd generation people living in these areas are "Canadian", they will have had relatively little exposure to any of the cultures Canada has to offer besides their one culture, which is the same as the culture back in their homeland. These types of enclaves are prevalent in major immigration centers, including Toronto and Vancouver.

I've never heard that stat before. But of course, Somali Canadians are mostly refugees, not immigrants. More accurately, they're refugees from conflict zones. As such, they weren't selected based on educational/skill criteria like immigrants (or even like refugees from post-conflict zones are, ie - WWII "displaced persons"). Add to that fact they were fleeing a brutal war, and many people are victims of trauma and abuse. Throw into the mix racism based on their race and religion, and you have a potent cocktail. Refugees typically have a much harder time than immigrants because they usually arrive with no possessions or savings, therefor usually there are higher rates of poverty and crime.

That has more to do with any specific situation than some inherent tendency to violence and criminality.

Indeed, so why do we let in so many refugees? The foremost goal of a nation should be to take care of its own citizens, not to endlessly offer succor to victims of foreign violence. Letting in some number of refugees is fine, on humanitarian grounds, if the number is low enough to have no substantial negative impact on the accepting country. But if Argus's stat about half the prisons being filled with Somalis (who you say are mostly refugees), then clearly it is having a substantial negative impact on our society.

In general when you belong to a group that makes a up a majority of a country, and that dominates it's political, economic and cultural centres, you don't have to interact with people of another group who make up a minority of that country's population in order to lead a prosperous economic life. If you were a minority, you'd be condemning yourself to a life of isolation and poverty if you did the same. Therefor, you have to integrate and learn to relate to people who are different from you are.

What you say about the majority is true. A member of the majority need not necessarily interact much with minorities and can still succeed. Let's look at why this is true. They can get work at businesses run by members of their group, they can live in a neighbourhood primarily inhabited by their group, they can sends their kids to school where most of the other children are members of their group, etc.

Now, let's look a step further and see if one really needs to be in the majority on the national level for this to be possible. If your group makes up only 1% of the country's population then clearly this is impossible, right? No, not right. Because if that 1% lives together in one area of one city, then in that neighbourhood the schools will be full of their children, the people living there will be of their group, and the local businesses will be owned by their group. Hence, members of that community can succeed just as well as the majority without integrating, so long as they are content to remain within their ethnic enclave, which many are.

Would an immigrant living in an area with, say, 100,000 of his countrymen, feel "isolated" because he has not integrated with the rest of the population? No, not at all, 100,000 people to interact with is more than enough to alleviate any feelings of isolation.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nazism ideology is clearly linked to Darwinism through Ernst Haeckel, racial superiority, weeding out weak and inferior genetics and races

"National Socialism is based on scientific foundations"

"National Socialism on the other hand must always, if it is to fulfill its job in the future, be organized according to the latest knowledge of scientific research"

"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable"

-Martin Borman

Except Hitler clearly didn't think evolution was possible. As for the Christianity and National Socialism are irreconcilable should I link you a picture of the Nazi belt buckle with "God with us" written on it?

As for Haeckel he put forward a evolutionary model that Darwin rejected. Darwins model is the out of Africa theory, Haeckel put forward a theory of evolutionary polygenism. Haeckels embryo's were great but his understanding of evolution was sub par.

What little science Nazi ideology used was twisted. Racial superiority, Darwin did not think it exsisted. Weeding out the weak and inferior. Darwins Idea of what was best was completely different from the Nazi's bullshit.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Charles Darwin.

I never accused Darwin of anything, but being opposed to slavery is not the same as saying you believe blacks are equal to whites...

-Abraham Lincoln

When you're the guy who has made the claim that all Humans descend from the same ancestors, it is.

http://darwinaia.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/was-darwin-racist/

[msdogfood]

With the conservatives opening Canada's legs its not a suprise that Canada will be flooded by a foreign population in the next generation.

how can you make that clam??

[wyly]

Says the fellow that thinks Mendel was some sort of a racist.

...show me simpleton where I made any mention of Mendel's beliefs, that was your idiotic assumtion...

just because Mendal is the only genetics you can recall from your school days 60 years ago doesn't impress anyone it isn't relevant...you're not educationally qualified to join this debate, now run along and try impress the grannies in the old folks home with your Gregor Mendel knowledge...

[wyly]

Except Hitler clearly didn't think evolution was possible. As for the Christianity and National Socialism are irreconcilable should I link you a picture of the Nazi belt buckle with "God with us" written on it?

Hitler played for a common idiot/christian audience and told them what they want to hear, it's called propaganda...you fell for it as well..

When you're the guy who has made the claim that all Humans descend from the same ancestors, it is.

you make the same simpleton assumptions as DoP....

we are all family and have a common ancestor...deal with it...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hitler played for a common idiot/christian audience and told them what they want to hear, it's called propaganda...you fell for it as well..

Mein Kampf was propaganda? Wow your delusional.

you make the same simpleton assumptions as DoP....

we are all family and have a common ancestor...deal with it...

And apparently you can't read either, that's exactly what I just said.

Edited March 17, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

You are correct, this is the distinction. But now consider what happens if the government of the country, who holds the power to control immigration, lacks the will or inclination to do so, even if it begins to become disruptive to the existing cultures in the same way that colonialism was.

First of all, let's get our read on history oriented towards Canada. It doesn't take much to see that colonialism in Canada was a short lived phenomenon that was dealt with through various instruments of goverment like federalist legislation & Indian treaties. The affect of colonialism in Canada was nothing like it was in the States. There were detrimental affects to the indigenous population in Canada for sure - as there was on the French & Metis populations, but by and large those affects were mitigated over time through legislation and other agreements, including the formation of provinces.

There are many times when a government can be slow to react, or when politicians can be more concerned about catering to special interests, etc.

Do you have some clear and concise examples of this?

Meanwhile, excessive immigration can have the same effect. Just because a government technically has the power to stop immigration does not mean that the fact that they continue to allow immigration proves that it is beneficial for the country.

Sure immigration could have this effect. But there has never been any conclusive evidence that immigration in Canada has never been beneficial for the country other than a few blowhards whining about it from time to time. And every period in Canadian history records the opinions of said blowhards. And yet we still kept our doors open and the country grew.

Financial institutions have no political agenda? What do you think would happen to a bank if it published a report with strong anti-immigration conclusions? All the newspapers in the country would carry headlines like "Bigoted executives at RBC slam immigration" or "Human rights groups denounce recent statements by Bank of Montreal" or whatnot. This would be disastrous for the bank that published such a report. Banks, perhaps more so than almost any other private enterprise, have to adhere to being as politically correct as possible.

Another conclusion based upon a 'what if' argument. Sheesh. What you see as politically correct could - and likely often does - turn out to be sound business acumen. For instance, here are all these new people who are earning all this money and want to buy a house. Let's give them a mortgage. That sort of thing. But the first question one must ask of your 'what if' is why on earth would a bank come out and say anything about immigration?

Debate is all well and good when two sides are about equally influential and powerful. But what happens when there are 10 times as many Arabs as Jews? A 100 times more, or a thousand? Which side will have the bigger political influence, the bigger voice? The Jewish population in Canada is what, 300 thousand or so? When, after decades of immigration, there will be millions and millions of Muslims why would they bother having "dialog" with Jewish groups when they can simply assert their influence directly through our democracy and elect anti-Israeli politicians? And who is to say they would stop with anti-Israeli politicians. It is no secret that anti-Semitism is rife in the Arab world.

Now you are stretching the bounds of plausibility with some fairly odious assumptions of A) how our democracy works & that Canadian Muslims will necessarily be anti-Israeli or anti-semetic or whatnot. Come on now. There are some 308 seats in Parliament in a party system that practically demands adherence to party policy and views. Do you think a couple of radical Muslims from the GTA are going to somehow be heard to any influencial degree from the backbenches? Secondly, whose to say that anything "rife" in the Arab world will have any weight in the Canadian world?

Obviously you'll find the children of immigrants in any immigrant community. But if they grow up in a community composed almost entirely of immigrants from a certain country and their children, they will experience little of the "diversity" that Canada has to offer. They will not mix much with white Canadians, nor even with other types of "non-white" Canadians besides their own group. So, while the 2nd generation people living in these areas are "Canadian", they will have had relatively little exposure to any of the cultures Canada has to offer besides their one culture, which is the same as the culture back in their homeland. These types of enclaves are prevalent in major immigration centers, including Toronto and Vancouver.

This is true. But so what? Is there some sort of rule that states offspring of immigrants must be fully assimilated cultural Canadians after one generation? Or are you simply trying to create boogeyman out of a few limited instances in specific areas of the country?

Indeed, so why do we let in so many refugees? The foremost goal of a nation should be to take care of its own citizens, not to endlessly offer succor to victims of foreign violence. Letting in some number of refugees is fine, on humanitarian grounds, if the number is low enough to have no substantial negative impact on the accepting country. But if Argus's stat about half the prisons being filled with Somalis (who you say are mostly refugees), then clearly it is having a substantial negative impact on our society.

Argus' statistic on the population of the Holiday Innes in Ottawa is unsubstantiated. And if it were true, it is the exception not the rule and it's impact is minimal and non-disruptive.

Because if that 1% lives together in one area of one city, then in that neighbourhood the schools will be full of their children, the people living there will be of their group, and the local businesses will be owned by their group. Hence, members of that community can succeed just as well as the majority without integrating, so long as they are content to remain within their ethnic enclave, which many are.

But most aren't because ethnic conclaves have limits to the success that can be achieved which is why most immigrants - throughout Canadian history - have chosen integration into mainstream Canada. But regardless, they will still be exposed through the curriculuum of our education system, our media systems and other cultural instruments. And by and large they will at least have a choice.

Would an immigrant living in an area with, say, 100,000 of his countrymen, feel "isolated" because he has not integrated with the rest of the population? No, not at all, 100,000 people to interact with is more than enough to alleviate any feelings of isolation.

You are merely referring to neighbourhoods, not a country. Tell me, how has Rosedale in Toronto had an effect on you?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Shwa

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We need to rethink things folks. Race doesn't matter, its ideas and integrity that count, not colour.

[DogOnPorch]

...show me simpleton where I made any mention of Mendel's beliefs, that was your idiotic assumtion...

Sure thing, moron.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16014&view=findpost&p=520550

you have racist beliefs that you claim are supported by science and they are not...bonehead

Since the above charming exchange occured over the mention of Gregor Mendel, I have to assume this is your sore spot. So my claim that you view Mendel as racist stands. Then, you also attempted to connect both Darwin and Mendel directly with eugenics and the Third Reich...which is indeed a classic fallacy.

mendal knew very little...he and Darwin were the starting point for attempting to explain racist beliefs on science, Hitler continued on that theme with eugenics was he right too?...try get your science knowledge into the 21st century...

...

poorly worded post on my part...I never meant to imply Darwin was a racist(he might have been I don't know)...what I meant was from his work others attempted to justify racial differences through science...eugenics was a direct result of Darwins work, Hitler fully supported evolution and used it to justify racial injustices...

It's not like either Mendel or Darwin went...

Hmmmm...now how can I turn this into something politically useful to future dictators.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

wyle says: we are all family and have a common ancestor...deal with it...

So what disingenuous strawman do we have going here, now? Oh...I see. Somehow I no longer believe in evolution and apparently claimed human-kind doesn't have a common ancestor.

TM: Wow your delusional.

I know...wyle is one for the record books around here.

[justme]

You do a good job of defending your posts, so why jump in and try to assist another poster with their arguments ?

What is a "black country" "white country" or whatever ? He talks about Japan - what is that ? It's all just prejudiced observations, to my mind.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, 91.2% of Jamaica and 95% of Haiti is black. If not black countries, what would you call them? If you want to argue that Africa is any different, show us some evidence.

It'll be interesting to see you do that when the evidence contradicts your argument:

More than one million white South Africans have left the country since the end of apartheid, and whites now represent less than 10 per cent of the population.

"Crime has become the number one reason why people leave... often because something dramatic happened to them, like somebody close to them was murdered or they were hijacked or they were in a house robbery or something violent and very upsetting happened to them."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/13/2684260.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzB8t5B__A0

A defiant President Robert Mugabe used his 85th birthday celebrations yesterday to insist that land seizures would continue, and called for the country's last white farmers to leave. "Land distribution will continue. It will not stop," Mr Mugabe told a rally in his home area of Chinhoyi, north-west of the capital, Harare. "The few remaining white farmers should quickly vacate their farms as they have no place there."

Last year a group of white farmers whose land had been targeted for seizure by the government went to a regional tribunal of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which ruled in their favour, but the Zimbabwean leader called the decision "absolute nonsense". He added: "We have courts here ... that can determine the rights of people. Our land issues are not subject to the SADC tribunal."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mugabe-last-white-farmer-should-leave-1634743.html

Again, according to the CIA World Fact Book, Japan is 98.5% Japanese. If not Japanese, what would you call it?

I could care a less about your mind; I care about facts.

You talk of "skilled posters", yet you argue against easily verifiable facts and common knowledge. Rule #1 in a debate: never deny the obvious.

Edited March 19, 2010 by justme

[justme]

Polemicists like Mark Steyn have not been too helpful here, I don't think.

Mark Steyn is spot on about multiculturalism:

[bloodyminded]

Mark Steyn is spot on about multiculturalism:

I already responded to this exact bit of smugness and nastiness on another thread, so I"ll just copy my earlier response:

I appreciate your posting the Steyn video, because once again, he exposes himself as a servile little nationalist who adores notions of Western powers ruling through force and brutality.

He's quite explicit about this, if one listens to him seriously, rather than nodding along and masturbating to his unfortunate rhetoric. (I'm not naming names here...just saying that...someone posted this video, in evident appreciation of its glorification of self-adulation and bigotry. )

His views on the British Empire--which was forged through arrogant brutality, force, coercion, racism, and untrammelled greed--can be heard right before the 2-minute mark in this video, and then again around the 4-minute mark.

A wonderful thing, this history of slaughter and slavery and nationalist excesses. It's all positive, in Steyn's considered view.

And how does he know this? Why, because as a ruddy-faced British youth, his teacher would point proudly to all the red areas on the map, which signified British exploitation and violence around the globe.

What a sordid little dink, yes? Yes.

Later in the video, her excoriates anti-war protesters as ridiculous--totally related to "multiculturalism," for some reason; presumably, anyone not under the deep, dark spell of multiculturalism will automatically think all Western-led wars are inherently glorious.

(For some unstated reason, tea-party protesters are absolved of all the innate sins of the protester.)

Steyn is here preaching obedience to the State as a primary virtue. No doubt his teacher beat that opinion into him with a strap across his ass, in that old British martial tradition of punishing young boys' buttocks.

[DogOnPorch]

Keep in mind, justme, yo-yo here says Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a racist Islamophobe.

[bloodyminded]

Keep in mind, justme, yo-yo here says Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a racist Islamophobe.

I'd be interested to see a link where I claimed any such thing. After all, I don't think it...so it stands to reason I didn't say it.