What Obama Actually Said:

[kimmy]

Race, and racism, are certainly issues in Canada.

As for Obama's comments, I'm not sure I see any reason to be offended... I just don't actually understand the point he's making. Is he pointing out that black Americans aren't a single culture or ethnicity, and neither are white Americans? Am I a mongrel in the sense that my dad's people are Swedes and mom's people are Ukrainians and I'm part of both? Is he saying that he's a Kenyan-Irish mongrel, and that a Kenyan-Irish mongrel isn't actually much different from a Kenyan-Caribbean mongrel or an Irish-German mongrel?

I'm not actually sure what he was saying. I wish the idea had been presented better.

-k

[Shwa]

Not so much a "non-issue" as a 'not to be mentioned in the media' issue. It's the elephant in the room, and I see acknowledging the elephant as more productive and better all around. I do think Canada will eventually have to acknowledge the elephant, too.

Not even close. Maybe a pink elephant in the room from drinking too much beer during the hockey game, but race - or ethnicity - will never carry the same connotation in Canada that race has in the US. The issues aren't hidden, or denied space in the media, they simply do not carry the same interest here.

Multiculturalism isn't a "recently" idea in Canada, it is merely recognized as a founding factor in the building of the nation. Canada has always been multicultural. First Nations issues were largely policy issues that were quite removed from the Canadian mainstream and based on policies of wardship and assimilation. Much different issues that the race issue in the US.

The US has done remarkably well, I fully agree, but many people would qualify that with a remarkably-well-since...

[Smallc]

Race, and racism, are certainly issues in Canada.

At a comparable level to the US? Definitely not. Regionalism and language politics also exist in the US...not not to the same level as Canada.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Not so much a "non-issue" as a 'not to be mentioned in the media' issue. It's the elephant in the room, and I see acknowledging the elephant as more productive and better all around. I do think Canada will eventually have to acknowledge the elephant, too.

I think you have this about right....Canada had been insulated for many years. A Toronto friend of mine remarks constantly about the rising friction in his urban (codeword) setting. Kimmy and I joked some time ago that Canada has never really had a civil rights movement, despite the need for one when it came to "visible minorities". My experience in Canada is that it can handle a trickle of Africans, but not those uppity American "blacks"!

[bush_cheney2004]

....The US has done remarkably well, I fully agree, but many people would qualify that with a remarkably-well-since...

The US didn't have to invent the term "multicultural" to score Trudeau points ....it just did it.

[dre]

Note that I said I'm basing it on your future, too, which I'm basing on your past and present. I find that race has been just as prominent regarding the percentage of minority population you've had as it has been with us. In other words, your history and present regarding First Nations people speaks for itself, and as your population consists of a larger percentage of minorities, your friction is rising accordingly.

It's just recently, really, that Canada has become multi-cultural, and friction has increased accordingly, along with problems including violence; and I see that friction rising, becoming more of a problem. In fact, I think it's going to be a force to be reckoned with before too long.

It's easy for race not to be a "prominent part of the political lexicon and a constant source of political angst" when the nation doesn't have much of a minority population. Quite frankly, for a country as large as the U.S. and as diverse as the U.S., I think we've ultimately done quite well over all.

And we don't "hide" our statistics regarding race; pretend they don't exist. That certainly makes it all appear to be more "prominent" too. Bottom line, I think we're just more upfront about it, not afraid to discuss it and bring it out in the open, which, as I said, makes it more prominent. Doesn't mean the reality of the situation isn't the same in a country that's more quiet about it, though. In fact, I think bringing it out in the open, making it part of the political lexicon, is a good thing; it's how people are made aware of problems/issues, which is the first step to dealing with, and solving, problems.

It's easy for race not to be a "prominent part of the political lexicon and a constant source of political angst" when the nation doesn't have much of a minority population.

Yup, thats a big part of it, I agree. Slavery and the different role it played in each country contributes a lot as well... the ancestors of slaves make up nearly 20% of the US population, which is obviously a challenging dynamic for race relations.

Quite frankly, for a country as large as the U.S. and as diverse as the U.S., I think we've ultimately done quite well over all

I agree... never said otherwise. I just said that race is a bigger issue there than here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup, thats a big part of it, I agree. Slavery and the different role it played in each country contributes a lot as well... the ancestors of slaves make up nearly 20% of the US population, which is obviously a challenging dynamic for race relations.

Not so....the US population in general, and black population in particular is more diverse than that...and more diverse than Canada's. For starters, President Obama's ancestors have no direct experience as slaves, maybe just slave ownership!

[Shwa]

The US didn't have to invent the term "multicultural" to score Trudeau points ....it just did it.

The concept of cultural plurality and the term 'multicultural' was around quite a few decades before anyone heard of PE Trudeau. But the biggest difference is that the focus on 'race' is de-emphasized, that is, the term adopted was not 'multi-racial' or 'bi-racial.' This more or less reflects the typical Canadian view. The Canadian reaction to the sort of thing President Obama said, had it been said by Prime Minister Harper, would not have been about content as much as form.

[Guest American Woman]

The concept of cultural plurality and the term 'multicultural' was around quite a few decades before anyone heard of PE Trudeau. But the biggest difference is that the focus on 'race' is de-emphasized, that is, the term adopted was not 'multi-racial' or 'bi-racial.' This more or less reflects the typical Canadian view.

Yet the term wasn't adequate in your government's dealing with a multiple racial society, thus the term "visible minority." If race weren't an issue in your country, in your government, there would be no need for such a term. A term deemed racial by the UN:

UN calls Canada racist for 'visible minorities' tag

Personally, I see "visible minority" as a failed PC attempt to avoid mentioning race, but who are you kidding? Furthermore, "visible" vs "invisible" is rather ludicrous. Offspring of mixed races can vary greatly in appearance, so if one sibling is "visibly" not white (because that's what Canada's definition is based on, as if "white" is the measuring stick/standard regarding race/minorities) and the other has a white appearance, one is singled out while the other is not.

So I find it a joke when someone says that Americans have to realize that there are no clear race definitions; especially since Canada seems to think there is a clear definition: either you look white or you don't. Doesn't matter what you actually are, it's all about one's appearance. And you don't think there are any racial undertones to that outlook?

The Canadian reaction to the sort of thing President Obama said, had it been said by Prime Minister Harper, would not have been about content as much as form.

Harper would have never said the sort of thing Obama said because Harper has never been asked about his race. He's not a "visible minority." If he weren't "visibly" white, then it would be a different story, and it would be about content, also. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

It's like I said, race is the elephant in the room in Canada. From the outside looking it, it appears as if you try so hard to give the illusion that race is not an issue in Canada, and it is.

Edited July 31, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

Offspring of mixed races can vary greatly in appearance, so if one sibling is "visibly" not white (because that's what Canada's definition is based on, as if "white" is the measuring stick/standard regarding race/minorities) and the other has a white appearance, one is singled out while the other is not.

Precisely. Now you're figuring out how bias, prejudice and racism work. Way to go! You're getting there!

[Guest American Woman]

Precisely. Now you're figuring out how bias, prejudice and racism work. Way to go! You're getting there!

Is there something wrong with you? That's a serious question. Because you're responding to how CANADA deals with defining race/minorities. So throw your words back at your own country, and you'll be the one who's "getting there."

[kimmy]

Personally, I see "visible minority" as a failed PC attempt to avoid mentioning race, but who are you kidding?

Bingo.

Furthermore, "visible" vs "invisible" is rather ludicrous. Offspring of mixed races can vary greatly in appearance, so if one sibling is "visibly" not white (because that's what Canada's definition is based on, as if "white" is the measuring stick/standard regarding race/minorities) and the other has a white appearance, one is singled out while the other is not.

While the phrase "visible minority" suggests that looking white is the criterion, in practice I think it is more accurately (as you surmised) an attempt to describe race and national origin. The legal definition of "visible minority" comes from Canada's Employment Equity Act, which I have not yet tracked down... but whether you "look white" or not appears to be determined by your ethnic origin, not your actual appearance.

There are Arabs and Latin Americans who look a lot like southern Europeans, and there are southern Europeans who look like Arabs or Latin Americans, but in practice I think the origin and not the appearance is what matters. My Chilean friend Carlos would probably be a visible minority, my Portuguese-descended friend Paolo wouldn't, even though Carlos is the "whiter" looking guy.

That's what it's like when you're trying to not talk about the elephant in the room.

-k

[Shady]

Anyways, getting back to Obama on The View. Did anybody else hear that Obama claimed to not know who Snooki was? Well, apparently he made a joke about her at the White House Correspondence dinner a few months ago. Looks like somebody was caught in yet another lie.

[Smallc]

Did anybody else hear that Obama claimed to not know who Snooki was? Well, apparently he made a joke about her at the White House Correspondence dinner a few months ago. Looks like somebody was caught in yet another lie.

Oh noes.....

[Shady]

Oh noes.....

I know! You'd wonder why he has to lie about the smallest things. Go figure.

[Guest American Woman]

I know! You'd wonder why he has to lie about the smallest things. Go figure.

Or perhaps, having important things on his mind/to deal with, in the ensuing months following Snooki's being in the news, hence his joke at the time, he forgot all about her. Ya think?

Or do you think, as POTUS, he actually remembers every single person he's ever met/made the smallest reference to? I suppose if you met him and introduced yourself and months later someone asked him, 'Do you think shady should run for PM of Canada?' and he said, 'I have to admit, I don't know who shady is,' that he'd be "lying?"

I know I forgot all about Snooki, so damn you for reminding me.....

[sharkman]

Or perhaps, having important things on his mind/to deal with, in the ensuing months following Snooki's being in the news, hence his joke at the time, he forgot all about her. Ya think?

Yeah, he's probably heavily into the planning stages of his next mini-vacation. Unless his handlers are finally getting the message through to him that his approval numbers are tanking and he needs to do a bunch more TV appearances. I'll also wager that his golf handicap is improving, well at least one of his numbers is improving!

[Shwa]

Yet the term wasn't adequate in your government's dealing with a multiple racial society, thus the term "visible minority." If race weren't an issue in your country, in your government, there would be no need for such a term. A term deemed racial by the UN:

UN calls Canada racist for 'visible minorities' tag

Personally, I see "visible minority" as a failed PC attempt to avoid mentioning race, but who are you kidding? Furthermore, "visible" vs "invisible" is rather ludicrous. Offspring of mixed races can vary greatly in appearance, so if one sibling is "visibly" not white (because that's what Canada's definition is based on, as if "white" is the measuring stick/standard regarding race/minorities) and the other has a white appearance, one is singled out while the other is not.

So I find it a joke when someone says that Americans have to realize that there are no clear race definitions; especially since Canada seems to think there is a clear definition: either you look white or you don't. Doesn't matter what you actually are, it's all about one's appearance. And you don't think there are any racial undertones to that outlook?

It's like I said, race is the elephant in the room in Canada. From the outside looking it, it appears as if you try so hard to give the illusion that race is not an issue in Canada, and it is.

You are reading the term 'visible minority' wrong. It does not connotate race. Neither does 'non-visible minority.' Secondly, the term is used for specific purposes - for employment equity designations and statistics. It's utility outside of those specific areas is pretty low-key. So the whole elephant-in-the-room using "visible minority" as your foci is completely out the window. Not even close.

As for the 2007 "news" story:

The world body's anti-racism watchdog says in a report on Ottawa's efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada that the words might contravene an international treaty aimed at combating racism...

"The committee is concerned that the use of the term ... may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the convention," says the report...

"The use of the term seemed to somehow indicate that 'whiteness' was the standard, all others differing from that being visible," says the British international law professor, according to UN note-takers....

"I don't think the committee members could have realized that Canada's use of the term 'visible minorities' is aimed at ensuring positive discrimination," says Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries, and currently senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank.

"It is a form of discrimination, of course, but of reverse discrimination. While I would also argue against it, I think it's clear the UN assumes that it aims to discriminate against people."

It is pretty clear the the UN committee didn't understand the term nor took any steps to clarify the meaning of the term considering their "concern." Even the "internationl law professor" couldn't be bothered to do some basic research, so I guess that would excuse you from not knowing what it meant and how it is used.

Harper would have never said the sort of thing Obama said because Harper has never been asked about his race. He's not a "visible minority." If he weren't "visibly" white, then it would be a different story, and it would be about content, also. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Again, you are using the term 'visible minority' completely out of context. So there is no kidding going on here, the focus of the story would be more about form than content because race in Canada simply does not carry the same connotation here as it does in the US. It never has and there is no reason to think it ever will.

[Shwa]

Bingo.

While the phrase "visible minority" suggests that looking white is the criterion, in practice I think it is more accurately (as you surmised) an attempt to describe race and national origin. The legal definition of "visible minority" comes from Canada's Employment Equity Act, which I have not yet tracked down... but whether you "look white" or not appears to be determined by your ethnic origin, not your actual appearance.

There are Arabs and Latin Americans who look a lot like southern Europeans, and there are southern Europeans who look like Arabs or Latin Americans, but in practice I think the origin and not the appearance is what matters. My Chilean friend Carlos would probably be a visible minority, my Portuguese-descended friend Paolo wouldn't, even though Carlos is the "whiter" looking guy.

That's what it's like when you're trying to not talk about the elephant in the room.

-k

Ignoring the fact that your impression of what "visible minority" means is wrong, let me ask: who determines if one is a visible minority or not?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Again, you are using the term 'visible minority' completely out of context. So there is no kidding going on here, the focus of the story would be more about form than content because race in Canada simply does not carry the same connotation here as it does in the US. It never has and there is no reason to think it ever will.

No, I think AW has nailed this one quite well. The term "visible minority" is a very Canadian way of pretending not to consider race important while assuring that it remains most important in the context of the dominant "race". Otherwise the term "minority" alone would have sufficed, just as it did in American government, and later augmented by gender, sexual orientation, and disability.

Canada had/has serious problems with race, but like health care, Canadians are satisfied to think that is OK as long it is not as "bad" as the United States.

[kimmy]

Ignoring the fact that your impression of what "visible minority" means is wrong, let me ask: who determines if one is a visible minority or not?

I assume you were trying to steer me to this:

“members of visible minorities” means persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour;

...which is hardly a refutation of what I said.

As for who decides who qualifies as a "visible minority", I suspect that such a determination would be made by a bureaucrat working from a list of guidelines like the one I linked to earlier. Which would probably tell him that the Chilean guy is a visible minority and the Portuguese guy isn't, even though the Chilean guy looks at least as "white" as the Portuguese guy.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Ignoring the fact that your impression of what "visible minority" means is wrong, let me ask: who determines if one is a visible minority or not?

Really, really, really....white people. They have a special committee with color wheels...like going to the paint store. Then they have sub-committees for hair, eyes, lips, and noses. Use to have one for booty size, but Kim Kardashian ruined that.

[kimmy]

Really, really, really....white people. They have a special committee with color wheels...like going to the paint store. Then they have sub-committees for hair, eyes, lips, and noses. Use to have one for booty size, but Kim Kardashian ruined that.

I believe Kim Kardashian is of Armenian stock, which (checking the list here) ...makes her West Asian, so yes, she's officially a "visual minority". The booty test still works, Colonel.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

You are reading the term 'visible minority' wrong. It does not connotate race. Neither does 'non-visible minority.' Secondly, the term is used for specific purposes - for employment equity designations and statistics. It's utility outside of those specific areas is pretty low-key. So the whole elephant-in-the-room using "visible minority" as your foci is completely out the window. Not even close.

So close that it's about to hit you in the nose.

Of course it connotates race. You think a natural blonde, or a green-eyed redhead, or someone over 5'6" tall, or someone over 500 pounds is part of your "visible minority?" Let's look at an excerpt from this -- Canada's visible minorities top five million -- article:

"If you look at Quebec, you see a greater proportion that are Blacks and Arabs coming from primarily French-speaking countries," she said. "If you look at Ontario, you'll see a much higher proportion of Chinese and East Indian, and the same of course for Vancouver."

Sounds like it's based on "race" to me.

And this:

The number of visible minorities in Canada has cracked the five-million mark for the first time in history, representing 16.2 per cent of the country's total population, new census data released Wednesday show.

So your census keeps count of race visible minorities same as our keeps count of race. Yet it's different in Canada.

... I guess that would excuse you from not knowing what it meant and how it is used.

I know exactly what it means and how it is used, as do Kimmy and BC. It's just as Kimmy said, and it's refreshing to see a Canadian in this thread who isn't talking around it. I truly am amazed at how calling it something different makes it something different in some people's eyes. 'A Rose by any other name ....'

Again, you are using the term 'visible minority' completely out of context. So there is no kidding going on here, the focus of the story would be more about form than content because race in Canada simply does not carry the same connotation here as it does in the US. It never has and there is no reason to think it ever will.

No, I'm not using it out of context and race carries exactly the same connotation as it does in the States, and as I said, as your minority population is growing, you will be facing some of the same issues that the U.S. has faced. Head on. We didn't pretend it was something else.

[Shwa]

I assume you were trying to steer me to this:

...which is hardly a refutation of what I said.

Then what race is a visible minority?

As for who decides who qualifies as a "visible minority", I suspect that such a determination would be made by a bureaucrat working from a list of guidelines like the one I linked to earlier. Which would probably tell him that the Chilean guy is a visible minority and the Portuguese guy isn't, even though the Chilean guy looks at least as "white" as the Portuguese guy.

Too bad you missed the part about self-identifying. The is a pretty big concept in the context of "visible minority."