British Leader Admits Multiculturalism Has Failed Badly

[Rue]

Well I am another "ethnic" but I am not a Canadian Jew. I am not even a Jewish Canadian. Don't hyphen me. I am simply Canadian. If someone asks I tell them I am a Jewish person but that to me is an ethnic cultural thing that comes second to being Canadian and is subordinate to being Canadian. don't hyphen or qualify me.

I believe as a Canadian I should be able to speak both English and French. My French is o.k. but I can't write it very well and my children are fluently bilingual.

I also believe as a Canadian the first Canadians were the aboriginal peoples not the British or French and as such the true founding culture from which all others flow is the aboriginal one which I choose to respect and defer to.

I believe the concept we are a nation of nations (unlike the U.S. melting pot out of many comes 1 concept) comes from our choosing to incorporate this aborginal holistic concept to accommodate both the British and French influences that came after.

Our British legal origins in all of Canada but Quebec and our Quebec civil law system were envisioned to co-exist as nations within a nation precisely because we learned from the native peoples that it was possible to be a nation of nations and operate on many levels of co-existence and we did not have to be only one or the other. We chose to be many. We embraced as many aboriginal legal concepts as we did British and French ones and that makes us different from the U.S. which rejected its aboriginal origins. Many of our laws are still based on aboriginal principles.

This aboriginal origins difference I believe makes us far different then the US in how we view Canadians and the fact is other then our aboriginal peoples, we are all waves of immigrants who came here.

To me we are a mosaic in progress with obvious aboriginal, British and French historic and legal traditions and the key to our collective survival will come from whether we choose to continue to embrace our aboriginal roots and holistic approach to being a nation of nations or reject it and adapt a totalitarian singular entity model.

I believe it is possible to put Canada first and still retain other levels of identity. The two do not have to be incompatible if we are willing to put our vision of Canada at a different level and one that precedes and supercedes our ethnic or religious one.

I personally believe if my Jewish collective identity clashes with my Canadian one, I can not be a Canadian citizen and put my Jewish identity first. If I feel that way I have to move to Israel. I don't. So I put Canada first because Canada gives me the right to practice and feel like a Jew and not fear being Jewish so you better believe I put Canada first.

Canadian soldiers and other Canadians died so I could live in the country I do now. I honour that. Canada gives me my freedom, my standard of living my life where I do not fear any slaughters and where I can walk down the street and not fear the police or army. I honour and cherish that.

Canada is a place where I can openly criticize my government and when I am sick I get medical care I do not have to pay for. You bet I put Canada first.

I can be a jew and honour by ancestors who perished and died. One way to honour them is to know they could only dream I their children's children could live in a country of freedom like Canada. It is because I am Canada I can be a Jew and not die simply because I am a Jew. So you bet I put Canada first.

I will also say this. Canada has certain fundamental principles that must come first. If you want to marry four wives because your religion says you can-tough no you can not.

Further, if you believe in your culture or religion women must be subordinate to men this is not putting Canada first and its not acceptable. Its incompatible with being Canadian.

You want to cover up and refuse to show your face no you don't vote, no you don't get your driving license and no you do not testify in court. You will not opt out of Canada. You will not put Canada second.

No this is not a country that should have to condone and assimilate anything anyone wants or believes they are entitled to. No. Canada has limits.

Yes I believe Canada has to draw a line and be intolerant of intolerance. Yes I believe tolerance has its limitations. No I do not think people should opt out of our laws or pick and chose only those obligations of citizenship that suit them.

Canada is not some buffet you nibble on.

Sure I believe as much as possible in individual freedoms-go practice your religion but don't tell me you are entitled to beat your wife or won't take your face cover off to vote or won't wear a motor cycle helmet because it won't fit on your turbin.

Common sense says there are limitations and if you are not willing to assimilate and conform and expect everything your way, I say leave.

One last thing. No Gilles Duceppe or any other Canadian new or old, don't collect federal money and a federal pension and claim to be a seperatist or another citizen at the same time.

That makes you a two faced Canadian like so many who come to this country and demands rights and entitlement that puts this country second to you.

You don't want to put Canada first get the f...ck out.

Also if you want to teach your kids your culture and language you do it on your own time after school. The official languages in Canada are English and French.

Also don't pull the I am a real Canadian card on me. No one is but aboriginal people and I never had one native Canadian call me an immigrant. Not one.

On the other hand I have heard many non native Canadians say that to aboriginals or say they demand entitlement for themselves before Canada. That is b.s. They were the founding people-they do not have the same experience and relationship with Canada as the rest of us who came after.

When we started this country our laws as a basic for creating Canada recognized their pre-existence as the starting point from which all other Canadian things would follow. we enshrined this in treaties that defined the aboriginal peoples as our founding people whose rights preceded Canada's and would continue within Canada as one nation in a nation of other nations. That is the concept we used to define Canada. That is what our treaties set out and which we then violated.

We have yet to complete resolving the broken treaties acknowledging the pre-existence of aboriginals and their becoming a nation within our nation. Until we resolve through resitution those broken promises we live a lie. We live as a nation that ignores its true identity of a nation of nations. We will remain fractured and confused.

If anything the aboriginal peoples are the only truly second class Canadians and will remain that way until we resolve the treaties we broke with them and fairly determine how we will define our interaction as nations within another nation.

So don't bitch to me about their being unfair because they want the treaties we broke with them remedied. Unlike the two faced Canadians that came after them they didn't come to Canada and upgrade their lifestyle to something far better then they could have been without Canada.

Unlike the rest of us they don't benefit from what you and I take for granted. They live without water and proper homes and facilities. They live without work.

They live in third world conditions many Canadians flee from and transcend.

To me multi-culturalism is a moot point. The entire world is made up of many cultures.

We are all a mix of something. No one is pure. But don't ask me to call myself a Canadian first if it means I remain unresolved with my Canadian origins, i.e., the nation of aboriginal peoples. Until they are full Canadians I am not really a Canadian. I am proud of this nation and what it has given me and I am grateful but no I can't appreciate my benefits knowing the people who made this possible for me can't.

I share this nation. I do not own it. I share it. I am fortunate enough to share it. It belongs to know one. The earth is not owned by us. It is shared by us.The portion of earth known as Canada is just a part of the earth we choose to share.

I wish to share it in a way that honours all its different forms of life and not just a select few.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

Rue - some of what you posted is interesting, but you ended up with just a rant. I don't think Duceppe will be declining his federal pension based on your scolding, for example.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We chose to be many. We embraced as many aboriginal legal concepts as we did British and French ones and that makes us different from the U.S. which rejected its aboriginal origins. Many of our laws are still based on aboriginal principles.

This aboriginal origins difference I believe makes us far different then the US in how we view Canadians and the fact is other then our aboriginal peoples, we are all waves of immigrants who came here...

Ummmm...no...you are ignoring the impact of the Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Tuscaroras, and Senecas) on American federalism. American law also finds it roots in British Common Law. The American "dollar" came from the Spanish "reale" - 8 bits. The US conquered and incorporated many aspects of native tribes and bands, including the names of entire states, cities, and natural features. Many Acadians rejected from New France would find refuge in what would become the Louisiana Territory....they are still there.

Canada can be whatever it wishes, but don't change American history to help contrast and define it.

Edited February 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Rue - some of what you posted is interesting, but you ended up with just a rant. I don't think Duceppe will be declining his federal pension based on your scolding, for example.

No, he'd decline his pension based upon the fact that it comes from an entity he hates, the Federal Government. He's principled that way </sarcasm>.

[Scotty]

It is not immigration that does not work! It is multiculturism that does not work. It is not racist to say the obvious. What other group than Islamic extremists,born in Great Britian are a threat to their own country.

Immigration precedes Multiculturalism. If we're having a problem it's because of the people we are bringing in. Therefore, ultimately, Immigration IS the problem.

I note that, so far as I know, every single Muslim religious leader is an immigrant. If they are preaching nasty messages in the mosques, as there appears to be some evidence to suggest, that too is the fault of immigration.

[Scotty]

Historically, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Irish... lots of folks.

I don't remember ever reading of a group of Chinese, Japanese or Irish practicing to attack parliament and behead the prime minister..

[Scotty]

Really? Haven't drug gangs with Caribbean backgrounds killed more people in Canada than the zero people killed by Islamist terrorists? Or Italian mafia for that matter? Or white biker gangs?

And why should I be freaked out about a danger that is less common than dying by lightning strike?

There is something to be said for keeping a wary eye on the future. After all, if even a portion of the fears come true, it will be too late at that point to do much about it.

Enoch Powell spoke candidly of his fears for the future of Britain with mass immigration from third world countries more than forty years ago. Most people at that time laughed it off as madness. Yet if those people in 1968 were to be suddenly confronted with the Britain of today they would probably not be laughing. No, there hasn't yet been 'rivers of blood' but the way Britain has imported populations with cultural values which are hostile to their own, and then encouraged their growth has led to repeated friction and violence, race riots, and of course, bombings and the threat of more bombings. It is not hard to imagine now, with the continued growth of the Muslim population there, if there isn't more of a 'melting pop' instituted over there, that the violence can only grow worse.

So the time to deal with the possibility of such things is now, rather than in twenty or thirty years.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't remember ever reading of a group of Chinese, Japanese or Irish practicing to attack parliament and behead the prime minister..

That's a specific kind of threat, though. All of those groups were regarded as threats at various times, and dealt with by the righteous majority in various ways, including imprisonment.

You can't justify persecuting a group based on a minority of radicals, it's not right.

[Bonam]

You can't justify persecuting a group based on a minority of radicals, it's not right.

Reducing immigration or changing immigration policy is not persecution, and neither is reviewing the policy of multiculturalism. Shaping immigration policy to best serve the interests of a nation and its existent population is "right", even if it offends certain people.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Reducing immigration or changing immigration policy is not persecution, and neither is reviewing the policy of multiculturalism. Shaping immigration policy to best serve the interests of a nation and its existent population is "right", even if it offends certain people.

You're jumping on a back-and-forth whereby the Scotty was scapegoating a religion so your post is out of context.

As for multiculturalism, we have it, so does the UK but the US doesn't. We seem to have less controversy over immigration and multiculturalism than either of them so what does multiculturalism have to do with i.

I'm in favour of doing what is in our best interests, which appears to be having an official multiculturalism policy. The arguments against seem to be mostly scare mongering, which is a form of being offended if you ask me.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't remember ever reading of a group of Chinese, Japanese or Irish practicing to attack parliament and behead the prime minister..

Radical Irish did invade Canada by the way. Should we keep them out, do you think ?

[Oleg Bach]

Nations are large extended tribal families. Everyone is entiled to their own house and walls to guarentee personal atonomy..When an immigrant enters our national home..he or she is a guest until fully assimulated..If they think that Canada is just a free for all run by suckers who don't understand the idea of wealth and healthy national protectionism...Then they can get out...we are NOT some place that is to be used on a planetary level - we are a nation!

[Michael Hardner]

Nations are large extended tribal families. Everyone is entiled to their own house and walls to guarentee personal atonomy..When an immigrant enters our national home..he or she is a guest until fully assimulated..

Your idea, not policy.

If they think that Canada is just a free for all run by suckers who don't understand the idea of wealth and healthy national protectionism...

Wait. Didn't you say as much ? You're on social assistance too.

Then they can get out...

You first. You should recycle the welcome mat that has been laid out for you, Oleg.

[Black Dog]

There is something to be said for keeping a wary eye on the future. After all, if even a portion of the fears come true, it will be too late at that point to do much about it.

Enoch Powell spoke candidly of his fears for the future of Britain with mass immigration from third world countries more than forty years ago. Most people at that time laughed it off as madness. Yet if those people in 1968 were to be suddenly confronted with the Britain of today they would probably not be laughing. No, there hasn't yet been 'rivers of blood' but the way Britain has imported populations with cultural values which are hostile to their own, and then encouraged their growth has led to repeated friction and violence, race riots, and of course, bombings and the threat of more bombings. It is not hard to imagine now, with the continued growth of the Muslim population there, if there isn't more of a 'melting pop' instituted over there, that the violence can only grow worse.

So the time to deal with the possibility of such things is now, rather than in twenty or thirty years.

I'll ask, knowing in advance the answer I'll get, but what specific multicultural policies in the U.K have encouraged the growth of these so-called hostile cultural values?

I'm going to go out on a big honking limb here and say the formation of ethno-cultural enclaves and dissatisfaction with the immigrant's lot has a hell of a lot more to do with economic and social factors than any state bureaucracy.

As Michael rightly point out earlier, the debate that is playing out now is a variation of the same racial panics that swept western states facing mass immigration in the past, from the yellow Peril and on down through the ages.

[Shwa]

Anyone promoting government supported/subsidized multi-culturalism is by definition is a free-loader. And also by definition, an enemy, or at least an opponent of our country.

Pfffft. What do you know about "our country? You're just an immigrant. Quit trying to turn our beautiful nation into the hell-hole you came from.

What, a titch too harsh for you?

[Rue]

Rue - some of what you posted is interesting, but you ended up with just a rant. I don't think Duceppe will be declining his federal pension based on your scolding, for example.

Of course its a rant. as for Gilles Duceppe he has a fat head.

[Rue]

Ummmm...no...you are ignoring the impact of the Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Tuscaroras, and Senecas) on American federalism. American law also finds it roots in British Common Law. The American "dollar" came from the Spanish "reale" - 8 bits. The US conquered and incorporated many aspects of native tribes and bands, including the names of entire states, cities, and natural features. Many Acadians rejected from New France would find refuge in what would become the Louisiana Territory....they are still there.

Canada can be whatever it wishes, but don't change American history to help contrast and define it.

I didn't say the above was not true or that the US does not share British common law roots or even incorporated some aboriginal concepts. However I do think it is a valid contrast to state something you unintentionally pointed out to back my case. Before I do that don't get me wrong, I defer to all the comments you made as excellent points and dont' argue the-excellent points but the one major difference I did not express well was this-you used the word "conquer" when describing the US experience with aboriginals, i.e., its conquering and incororating of tribes and bands. That is the precise difference. In Canada we did not "conquer" or even "incorporate" as was the case in the states.

In Canada we had no settlers with guns establishing their land title by brute force over aboriginals. We had no rule of law evolving from gun fire. That is a huge difference. In the U.S. the gun is the foremost precursor and agent of creating the melting pot US identity.

However in Canada we did not have guns. We were not allowed to have hand guns. We sent the North West Mounted Police who did not have guns most times unless it was a special circumstance and politicians to meet with the aboriginals and enter into treaties. Yes we had some violent uprisings like the Riel rebellion and we did have wars between the British and French with natives siding with each respective army prior to our creation in 1867, but we did not have the war the US did wit its native peoples or between itself in the civil war and therein lies the huge difference in concept of identity.

In fact our legal system was designed to prevent a civil war like in the U.S. or a war with aboriginals for land as in the U.S. We did not want that. We in fact rejected that. We in fact turned our noses up at it choosing to remain with the King precisely because we found the Yanks to uncouth and violent.

We did not confront and wipe out native peoples with gun warfare and violence. We much preferred instead to shake their hands and talk them into reservations after signing treaties with them we would then blatantly violate. No guns for us. We moved them into reservations quite civilly after some tea and biscuits.

In Canada, we have never seen ourselves like the Americans, i.e., as having to be loud and violent and needing to conquer people. You see when we send our army into Afghanistan we go to "help" the native peoples not fight them.

This is why our late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won a Noble Prize. He was a typical Canadian. He sent our army oversees as peacekeepers not invaders or warriors. That is the key difference in our identity. Americans see themselves as warriors-Canadians as nice gentle peaceful people. Its a huge collective psychological difference.

Because we like to see ourselves as so civil, we think of our selves as all things to all people. We think we are inclusive people who welcome everyone and smile. So we have a refugee system that believes we can save everyone on the planet and we are shocked if people mistake us as Americans or don't like us.

The US on the other hand has a brash, in your face,rebellious, frontier, outlaw devil may care warrior attitude at its roots. Where we were conservative and internal, Americans were and still very much are external and militant in outlook.

US law may be rooted in common law but its first and foremost characteristic is that it is "activist"-it constantly challenges, whereas in Canada our legal system does not challenge or activate new ideas, it prefers to reform or refine old ones and is reluctant to scrap things and start from scratch.

This reflects in our laws and even the conduct in our courts. We are not as demonstrative or adversarial or as litigatious as the American system.

Some argue our lesser confrontational in your face style is also the result of the vast size of our country and thee need to work with one another to cross it or survive its winters. Its why we created a nation that loathed hand guns and welcomed a common medical system-the weather and our culture caused us to turn inword and conserve and share. In the U.S. it was much more individualistic every rugged man for himself.

I am making sweping generalizations of course but the major difference that causes the US to be an American firt and anything else melting pot concept, and the Canadian one of being a hyphen Canadian comes from I would argue and only for discussions sake, this non confrontational nation of nations concept. Our country was founded trying to accommodate 3 nations, a native one, British one and French one in the beginning. We did not envision conquering aboriginals, or the French who lost the war to the British for Canada. We created a legal system to avoid confrontations, civil wars and conflict and try accommodate all three groups.

It was post 1867 when the federal Canadian government then decided to slowly over a span of 70 years or so violate almost all its treaties with the native peoples.

There is a difference. To this day Canadian history will not refer to itself as a conqueror of natives. The closet we have to a Geronimo is Louis Riel and whereas the US had many Geronimos and Sitting Bulls we did not.

In reality our government didn't have to shoot anyone. We perfected the art of lying and the native people did not for the most part engage in terrorism as a response. They still haven't not even after we forcefully took their children away to try assimilate them and sexually abused them. Even then they did not choose violence against us.

With the exception of the Riel rebellion and isolated skirmishes there was no killing of natives by non natives and vice versa.

For the most part no one had or needed guns like in the U.S. Our identity did not come from the barrel of a gun and might and force, it came from

imitating the British and French colonial powers, i.e.,drinking tea while we screwed aboriginal communities. In the case of the French they literally screwed the native people creating the Metis people-half breed French-natives. The one thing about the French is they will sleep with anyone. The British and Spanish might rape bu consensual sex, uh no.

It was all terribly civilized you know-even when we raped the native children we did it in the name of Christ-it was for their own good.

I make no bones about my take on multi-culturalism. I find it to be a farse in Canada when the only true Canadians are ignored and treated as invisible by us.

The only people who could morally have the right to lecture about Canadian identity are our native people and unlike us non natives, they have never shoved themselves in our face. They have only fought back when we have spit at them or urinated on their sacred grounds.

I am a Canadian. Its not as fierce an identity as being American and it won't ever be. When we reconcile our mixed identity with our true origins it will resemble the word Kanata, it will be a village of villages. That is how it works in Canada.

To tell you the truth we don't get as choked up when people sing Oh Canada as when they sing Owe Say Kin EWE Cee... You won't find us too demonstrative. Even our military ceremonies are low key. Half of us can't understand the French words to our anthem half way through it or even the second verse since we are still learning to pronounce Canada, and the majority of us want to change our anthem to the hockey song by Stompin Tom Connors who is I do not hesitate to say as close to a Canadian as you will find there is such a thing.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Rue

[Scotty]

That's a specific kind of threat, though. All of those groups were regarded as threats at various times, and dealt with by the righteous majority in various ways, including imprisonment.

You can't justify persecuting a group based on a minority of radicals, it's not right.

I don't think anyone is saying we ought to 'persecute' Muslims. I'm not even sure if the problem is Islam, so to speak, as opposed to the new orthodox Islam, or the Wahabi Islam, or whatever. But I see the problem as more than just the few nutbars who are out there trying to behead prime ministers. I don't like the arch-conservative culture Muslims, as a people, evidence. Granted, part of this is because almost all of them are immigrants from extremely rigid, conservative patriarchal cultures. Islam in those countries has become rigid, intolerant and even violent, and it is a part of who they are now. They must be weaned off that level of intolerance in much the way much of the American deep south was (though to be honest the American deep south is still too conservative and religious for my taste or comfort). I do not like what these cultures think of outsiders or what they are teaching their children.

I grant you that in previous, less tolerant times, people also were suspicious of other immigrant groups. And I'll even admit there's some of that "suspicion of outsiders' being shown here, too. But we are not our grandparents, and we are a far more open and tolerant society. We do not see the same level of suspicion and distrust towards other large immigrant groups right now, though there are a myriad of them.

[Scotty]

I'll ask, knowing in advance the answer I'll get, but what specific multicultural policies in the U.K have encouraged the growth of these so-called hostile cultural values?

I think the hostile cultural values were already present in the cultural groups which made up a lot of the immigrants coming to the U.K. What the British did was to practice "respect" and "tolerance" to a fault, in that no effort was made to integrate these newcomers into the greater English society. To attempt to do that would, it was assumed, imply a sense of superiority of the British culture over that of the newcomers. British policy for much of the last forty years was to encourage the newcomers to feel at home as they were. And that's jut what happened. Many of the newcomers failed to integrate, and this bred resentment as they felt like outsiders in their own 'home', apart from the main culture, and felt little kinship for ordinary Britains.

I'm going to go out on a big honking limb here and say the formation of ethno-cultural enclaves and dissatisfaction with the immigrant's lot has a hell of a lot more to do with economic and social factors than any state bureaucracy.

One would think that if this were the case it would be a general case for all the immigrants who came to the U.K., as opposed, specifically, to Muslim immigrants. A good many residents of Hong Kong immigrated to the U.K., for example and did quite well, far better than Muslim immigrants have.

As Michael rightly point out earlier, the debate that is playing out now is a variation of the same racial panics that swept western states facing mass immigration in the past, from the yellow Peril and on down through the ages.

And as I pointed out to him, our society is far more open to outsiders than it was then, and far less likely to have any such unreasonable, xenophobic reactions. Further, we have immigrants from many parts of the world. Why don't they get the same reaction?

[Scotty]

but the one major difference I did not express well was this-you used the word "conquer" when describing the US experience with aboriginals, i.e., its conquering and incororating of tribes and bands. That is the precise difference. In Canada we did not "conquer" or even "incorporate" as was the case in the states.

Of course we did. We simply conquered with pens and contracts instead of guns. And we did a better job of it. The natives in Canada got to keep far, far less land than the natives in the U.S. did. As Wiki points out The collective geographical area of all reservations in the United States is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²). Twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km

However in Canada we did not have guns. We were not allowed to have hand guns. We sent the North West Mounted Police who did not have guns most times unless it was a special circumstance and politicians to meet with the aboriginals and enter into treaties.

As far as I know there were no laws against hand guns or any other kind of guns until round about the beginning of the 20th century. Canada has always had a lot of guns. They were an intrinsic part of the tool kit for all early rural Canadians. What was different about the way the US and Canada were developed was that Canada created a police force and sent it out into the developing lands of the northwest in many cases ahead of the settlers. Thus the law was there at the same time as or even before the settlers arrived. In the US there was little or no law, at first, and so the hand gun was seen as protection against the numerous outlaws who sprang up.

[bush_cheney2004]

We did not confront and wipe out native peoples with gun warfare and violence. We much preferred instead to shake their hands and talk them into reservations after signing treaties with them we would then blatantly violate. No guns for us. We moved them into reservations quite civilly after some tea and biscuits.

It was far more honorable for some tribes and bands to fight and lose than kneel before the white man's Crown.

Still is for some.

In Canada, we have never seen ourselves like the Americans, i.e., as having to be loud and violent and needing to conquer people. You see when we send our army into Afghanistan we go to "help" the native peoples not fight them.

Better check the native body count.

This is why our late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won a Noble Prize. He was a typical Canadian. He sent our army oversees as peacekeepers not invaders or warriors. That is the key difference in our identity. Americans see themselves as warriors-Canadians as nice gentle peaceful people. Its a huge collective psychological difference.

Sorry, there would have been no Canadian peacemkeepers in Suez without American muscle to make it possible.

Because we like to see ourselves as so civil, we think of our selves as all things to all people. We think we are inclusive people who welcome everyone and smile. So we have a refugee system that believes we can save everyone on the planet and we are shocked if people mistake us as Americans or don't like us.

Maybe it was also those bombs in Iraq, Kosovo, and Balkans!

The US on the other hand has a brash, in your face,rebellious, frontier, outlaw devil may care warrior attitude at its roots. Where we were conservative and internal, Americans were and still very much are external and militant in outlook.

We also have better TV shows.

US law may be rooted in common law but its first and foremost characteristic is that it is "activist"-it constantly challenges, whereas in Canada our legal system does not challenge or activate new ideas, it prefers to reform or refine old ones and is reluctant to scrap things and start from scratch.

Depends on the issue...see Same Sex marriage, abortion, or capital punishment.

Some argue our lesser confrontational in your face style is also the result of the vast size of our country and thee need to work with one another to cross it or survive its winters. Its why we created a nation that loathed hand guns and welcomed a common medical system-the weather and our culture caused us to turn inword and conserve and share. In the U.S. it was much more individualistic every rugged man for himself.

Lots of guns in Canada. Wanna buy one?

I am making sweping generalizations of course but the major difference that causes the US to be an American firt and anything else melting pot concept, and the Canadian one of being a hyphen Canadian comes from I would argue and only for discussions sake, this non confrontational nation of nations concept. Our country was founded trying to accommodate 3 nations, a native one, British one and French one in the beginning. We did not envision conquering aboriginals, or the French who lost the war to the British for Canada. We created a legal system to avoid confrontations, civil wars and conflict and try accommodate all three groups.

The US has all of the above and something Canada has never had....Spain/Mexico...and a lot more Africans!

It was post 1867 when the federal Canadian government then decided to slowly over a span of 70 years or so violate almost all its treaties with the native peoples.

But you said...oh...never mind.

There is a difference. To this day Canadian history will not refer to itself as a conqueror of natives. The closet we have to a Geronimo is Louis Riel and whereas the US had many Geronimos and Sitting Bulls we did not.

...but it keeps the land anyway. God Save the Queen!

In reality our government didn't have to shoot anyone. We perfected the art of lying and the native people did not for the most part engage in terrorism as a response. They still haven't not even after we forcefully took their children away to try assimilate them and sexually abused them. Even then they did not choose violence against us.

OK...but there are still more native tribes/bands, languages, and on/off reservation land in the USA...and Canada is a larger country, right?

With the exception of the Riel rebellion and isolated skirmishes there was no killing of natives by non natives and vice versa.

Of course...one big happy family. I'll bet the natives even played hockey!

For the most part no one had or needed guns like in the U.S. Our identity did not come from the barrel of a gun and might and force, it came from imitating the British and French colonial powers, i.e.,drinking tea while we screwed aboriginal communities. In the case of the French they literally screwed the native people creating the Metis people-half breed French-natives. The one thing about the French is they will sleep with anyone. The British and Spanish might rape bu consensual sex, uh no.

Sounds real...ummmm....civilized.

I am a Canadian. Its not as fierce an identity as being American and it won't ever be. When we reconcile our mixed identity with our true origins it will resemble the word Kanata, it will be a village of villages. That is how it works in Canada.

That's good, because many Native Americans are hard core patriots. I know that is counter intuitive, but it's true. Makes a lot of sense if you think about it. They were the first Americans.

So we won't need any more silly talk about how the US does not include native culture.

[Shwa]

That's good, because many Native Americans are hard core patriots. I know that is counter intuitive, but it's true. Makes a lot of sense if you think about it. They were the first Americans.

Gimme a break. The Native Americans were not "the first Americans" in any sense or shape of the phrase. Seriously B-C, what were you thinking? In fact, despite the fact that "many Native Americans are hard core patriots" many more of them had to endure outrageous hardship and suffering to arrive at their patriotism.

Remember Wounded Knee. Both of them...

[Michael Hardner]

I grant you that in previous, less tolerant times, people also were suspicious of other immigrant groups. And I'll even admit there's some of that "suspicion of outsiders' being shown here, too. But we are not our grandparents, and we are a far more open and tolerant society. We do not see the same level of suspicion and distrust towards other large immigrant groups right now, though there are a myriad of them.

We say we are more open and tolerant, but this is proven out by our actions as a nation. Truly, no one can deny that we're bringing in immigrants from countries with vastly different cultures - but the fact is that they want to come here, and they will be changed by that experience, more than Canada itself will be.

[Black Dog]

I think the hostile cultural values were already present in the cultural groups which made up a lot of the immigrants coming to the U.K. What the British did was to practice "respect" and "tolerance" to a fault, in that no effort was made to integrate these newcomers into the greater English society. To attempt to do that would, it was assumed, imply a sense of superiority of the British culture over that of the newcomers. British policy for much of the last forty years was to encourage the newcomers to feel at home as they were. And that's jut what happened. Many of the newcomers failed to integrate, and this bred resentment as they felt like outsiders in their own 'home', apart from the main culture, and felt little kinship for ordinary Britains.

So it's not so much multiculturalism as a set of policies per se that's to blame, but rather an overall liberal approach to difference. Essentially, you're saying the problem here is that newcomers were given too much freedom.

Tell me, then: what would some of these policies that would force integration and assimilation look like?

One would think that if this were the case it would be a general case for all the immigrants who came to the U.K., as opposed, specifically, to Muslim immigrants. A good many residents of Hong Kong immigrated to the U.K., for example and did quite well, far better than Muslim immigrants have.

Why?

And as I pointed out to him, our society is far more open to outsiders than it was then, and far less likely to have any such unreasonable, xenophobic reactions. Further, we have immigrants from many parts of the world.

Which society are you talking about? Multicultural Canada does far better job integrating and assimilating immigrants than ostensibly multicultural European states, who also lag behind the U.S. and its melting pot on that score. So: if multiculturalism is a failure, as so many are saying, why hasn't it failed equally everywhere? What measures are we using to determine success or failure anyway?

[Scotty]

So it's not so much multiculturalism as a set of policies per se that's to blame, but rather an overall liberal approach to difference. Essentially, you're saying the problem here is that newcomers were given too much freedom.

Tell me, then: what would some of these policies that would force integration and assimilation look like?

I don't think you can 'force' integration. I think integration with a surrounding culture is the norm, as long as you let it happen and do nothing to stand in its way. I think, however, you need to make less accommodation than was made in the UK. I think you need to step on anti-social behavior and beliefs hard, right at the outset, not practice 'respect' for the different culture which practices them. And instead of working so hard to protect the feelings of newcomers from offense you need to ensure your native population doesn't start feeling resentment and offense for that begins a process of rising racism followed by the counter resentment of the newcomers to the native population. The difficult with Muslims is the intermingling of cultural and religious values. We often feel constrained from acting against a value when it's being touted as religious in nature. As an example, the garb Muslim women are often wearing, which is really cultural but which is touted as religious.

There was a bit on the news the other day showing graduating classes at an Egyptian university. Forty years ago almost all were wearing regular style clothing, modest but western. Twenty years ago some of them were wearing head scarves. Last year almost all are wearing head scarves and many are wearing the hijabs. So were Egyptians not religious forty years ago? Of course they were, but cultural norms have shifted.

Which society are you talking about? Multicultural Canada does far better job integrating and assimilating immigrants than ostensibly multicultural European states, who also lag behind the U.S. and its melting pot on that score. So: if multiculturalism is a failure, as so many are saying, why hasn't it failed equally everywhere? What measures are we using to determine success or failure anyway?

I would agree we do a better job than Europe in large measure because we are LESS multicultural than they are, because of a cultural assumption among Canadians, almost all of whom are derived from immigrants, that immigrants need to integrate just as their/our forefathers/grandparents did. This goes against the grain of the multicultural industry, if you will, of cherishing every difference and equating all cultures and their values in an even-handed fashion. In the US, of course, there is even more of an assumption on the need to integrate, as that integration has become a part of the American fabric of mythology surrounding their history - the immigrant who becomes an American, and whose children are virtually indistinguishable from the American mainstream.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Scotty