What unites Canadians?

[Guest]

Coming late to this thread, so it might have already been mentioned, but I think that what unites us is our special relationship to the USA.

That's why we placed our country celebrating holiday so close to theirs.

[On Guard for Thee]

Travelling around this country from coast to coast to coast, has made me love the place. And with my job I got to see some pretty far flung places, which I am thankful for. I was born here so I guess I'm braggin' a bit, but it has always impressed me how nice Canadians are no matter where you go. One other thing I came to learn of that I think did a lot to unite Canadians was not only the CBC but our dear departed friend Petrer Gzowski. I've listened to him from Port Aux Basques to Inuvik. Happy Canada Day and here's a little snip I dare you not to laugh at.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/arts-entertainment/media/peter-gzowski-voice-of-canada/a-sleeping-cricket.html

[Hydraboss]

Sorry, but I made it through the "feel good" ads and then really tried to listen to that garbage. Made it to 3:00 and then all I wanted was to stab myself with a styptic pencil.

That has to be some of the worst radio I've ever heard. Our tax dollars paid for that?

[Argus]

Thank you for your reply. I now better understand your sense of tolerance for opposing opinions

I have a low tolerance for opinions based on ignorance, especially when that ignorance is a willing ignorance based on the proponent of those opinions not bothering to learn anything about the subject under discussion.

[Argus]

I'm confused. Since when did Quebec cease to be part of Canada?

I lived in Quebec for some years, and followed Quebec news for many years after.

Quebec is not really a part of Canada emotionally. The media barely pay attention to anything outside Quebec unless it affects Quebec. Quebecers tend to think of themselves as Quebecers first, and then very distantly, and often reluctantly, and usually only when money and federal elections are under discussion, as Canadians. Quebec is here for the money, nothing more.

Yet there are many stable multi-lingual countries such as Switzerland...

No, there actually aren't. Switzerland is a unique case, I'll grant you, but linguistic tensions are definitely present there. In most cases where a sizeable minority has a different language you have separatist movements and more tension, as in Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that immigrants shouldn't learn languages, just that learning English or French isn't the only priority.

If you want them to integrate it is. If you want them to form separate national communities with few ties to Canada then sure, let them continue speaking their own language.

Also, I would not be opposed if Chinese became Canada's 3rd national language.

Because the decision to preserve French has worked out so well in terms of national unity that you want to do it again?

Idk, I know a number of people that would support people that want to blow up the Northern Gateway Pipeline if it starts construction.

But would they support machinegunning the buses full of workers or shooting politicians?

[Michael Hardner]

I have a low tolerance for opinions based on ignorance,

So... you can just cut/paste the ESL cost to taxpayers that you talked about on another thread, right ? Your distaste for these programs is based on a thorough analysis right ?

[Michael Hardner]

The world is becoming a global village and Canada has taken a head start. There will always be sectarians, isolationists and bigots who will try to rationalize their fear of other cultures by believing that they are somehow smarter or better informed than others. It gives them an excuse for their own failures and disappointments. I envy them. They must find solace in believing that they are smarter and better than others.

The rationalizing is very easy. You start out with an area of misdeed dominated by another culture, then build your argument from there. To be effective, the arguments ends with moralistic finger pointing rather than evidence that barring that group from Canada will improve things any.

[Argus]

The rationalizing is very easy. You start out with an area of misdeed dominated by another culture, then build your argument from there. To be effective, the arguments ends with moralistic finger pointing rather than evidence that barring that group from Canada will improve things any.

Of course, it's NEVER necessary to actually do anything to show that bringing in hundreds of thovusands of people a year is of any real value to Canada, let alone people from certain backgrounds. God knows the Canadian government has never done any sort of cost benefits rational for it, nor ever developed a plan of action with stated goals which could be measured in any way. We're supposed to take all that on faith alone, but if we disagree with any aspect of immigration, ah, then we need to show absolute, rock solid proof. And even then the defenders will sneer and question our motives.

That's pretty much your schitick, isn't it, Mikey?

[PIK]

IMO is that we are not American and the grey cup, which for one day a yr the whole country is united.

[Big Guy]

The rationalizing is very easy. You start out with an area of misdeed dominated by another culture, then build your argument from there. To be effective, the arguments ends with moralistic finger pointing rather than evidence that barring that group from Canada will improve things any.

I agree. The problem of nativism in countries with a large immigration segment simmers in pockets of Canada and is notably present on this board. In itself, it may have little effect on the natural course of nation building but when/if it hides prejudicial ethnicity in the guise of rational economic (even if questionable) arguments then it only promotes the idea that xenophobic attitudes are somehow acceptable.

Fortunately, most educated Canadians are able to see through the various guises of prejudicial and distasteful negative rhetoric and shine the spotlight on these misguided fear mongers revealing their true agenda. Canada is a strong diverse nation made up of people from all over the world who reject the empty arguments of isolationists and xenophobes.

Except for the aboriginals we are all immigrants to this country. We will never allow those other immigrants who arrived earlier to try to shut the entry gates to this great land.

Happy Canada Day!

[PIK]

I agree. The problem of nativism in countries with a large immigration segment simmers in pockets of Canada and is notably present on this board. In itself, it may have little effect on the natural course of nation building but when/if it hides prejudicial ethnicity in the guise of rational economic (even if questionable) arguments then it only promotes the idea that xenophobic attitudes are somehow acceptable.

Fortunately, most educated Canadians are able to see through the various guises of prejudicial and distasteful negative rhetoric and shine the spotlight on these misguided fear mongers revealing their true agenda. Canada is a strong diverse nation made up of people from all over the world who reject the empty arguments of isolationists and xenophobes.

Except for the aboriginals we are all immigrants to this country. We will never allow those other immigrants who arrived earlier to try to shut the entry gates to this great land.

Happy Canada Day!

So are the aboriginals.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course, it's NEVER necessary to actually do anything to show that bringing in hundreds of thovusands of people a year is of any real value to Canada, let alone people from certain backgrounds.

On the contrary, I believe it is necessary. I believe that the justification for those policies is well-documented in the realm of economics. Banning one particular group, though, isn't.

God knows the Canadian government has never done any sort of cost benefits rational for it, nor ever developed a plan of action with stated goals which could be measured in any way.

That's a fair shot, IMO. Actually, I would be in favour of them doing this if only to address legitimate concerns such as yours in an above-board way.

That's pretty much your schitick, isn't it, Mikey?

You can call me Michael, thanks. Also, you should be aware that I take your points seriously, even if I depreciate the motives behind your making them. This is why I call them legitimate concerns - people should be asking the questions you're asking.

That being said, you're not above evasion and false accusations in your arguments, from what I can remember. I would appreciate you affording me a bit of respect. If you think I'm using a "schitick" [sIC] then just point it out directly as I have done here, rather than being passive aggressive about it.

[Michael Hardner]

So are the aboriginals.

I think they're the original occupants - there isn't much doubt there is there ?

[PIK]

I think they're the original occupants - there isn't much doubt there is there ?

Latest study I seen was that they to came across from Europe. And were they one nation or many slaughtering themselves, before the Europeans showed up.

[Michael Hardner]

Latest study I seen was that they to came across from Europe. And were they one nation or many slaughtering themselves, before the Europeans showed up.

Many nations. And.... didn't you just say the FN ARE Europeans ?

[The_Squid]

Europe? Slaughtering themselves?

First, the most likely scenario is that humans crossed from Asia.

Second, are you saying that Europeans were more civilized and never "slaughtered" each other? That this is an aboriginal trait?

[-1=e^ipi]

Canada is a strong diverse nation made up of people from all over the world who reject the empty arguments of isolationists and xenophobes.

Cause it's not like the 'secularism' charter in Quebec had any popularity or anything. Xenophobia isn't popular in Quebec at all... *sarcasm*

Except for the aboriginals we are all immigrants to this country.

No, I was born here. I'm not an immigrant (not that it should matter).

Or are you saying that everyone except 'aboriginals' are either immigrants or descend from immigrants? Because if so, that would also be false. There was the Clovis immigration over the Bering land bridge 12,000 years ago.

[Argus]

Except for the aboriginals we are all immigrants to this country.

Oh, groaaaan. that has to be the most brainless cliche'd piece of twaddle anyone has ever uttered!

[-1=e^ipi]

On the contrary, I believe it is necessary. I believe that the justification for those policies is well-documented in the realm of economics. Banning one particular group, though, isn't.

I think it depends on the group.

I think they're the original occupants - there isn't much doubt there is there ?

Actually, there is quite a bit of doubt. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this doubt given the other threads were people told you about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race#The_first_Americans.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis (personally I think the Soultrean hypothesis is nonsense, but the Haploid group X2A and various skulls found in the americas suggest that there were pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas)

[Argus]

So are the aboriginals.

They never pause to think on that, presuming they're even aware of it.

In fact, if you go back far enough everyone is an immigrant everywhere, if you want to interpret it that way.

Intelligent people consider themselves to not be immigrants, however, when they were born and raised here.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Argus

[WWWTT]

Anybody think there are things missing?

Ya, remaining part of the Ukraine.

WWWTT

[Argus]

On the contrary, I believe it is necessary. I believe that the justification for those policies is well-documented in the realm of economics. Banning one particular group, though, isn't.

You think I haven't looked? You will find bland, cheerful statements about how wonderful immigration is and how it does this or does that. But nothing in the way of actual economic analyses other than the one from the Fraser Institute.

I have worked in government for years. EVERY program has to have clear-set goals, costing, and measurable results. Except this one. Because everyone knows the goal of this program has nothing to do with helping Canada and everything to do with helping ignoble politicians suck up to ethnic groups.

That's a fair shot, IMO. Actually, I would be in favour of them doing this if only to address legitimate concerns such as yours in an above-board way.

It will NEVER happen.

You can call me Michael, thanks. Also, you should be aware that I take your points seriously, even if I depreciate the motives behind your making them.

And is that supposed to be what you're doing as our Facilitator? Isn't the One True Law which comes down from on high to be to play the ball and not the man, to deal with the question and not to insinuate motivations to the person who poses the question?

That being said, you're not above evasion and false accusations in your arguments, from what I can remember. I would appreciate you affording me a bit of respect.

You and I have dealt with the immigration question in times past. Even when presented with solid government economic analyses which shows immigrants from a given region are economic failures compared to immigrants from other regions (same color skin, btw) you have never accepted that Canada should alter its immigration to suit ITS best interests, as opposed to the best interests of would-be immigrants. It's hard to believe you approach discussions on this with anything like openness.

And if you want me to deal respectfully with you try playing the ball, right?

[Argus]

Or are you saying that everyone except 'aboriginals' are either immigrants or descend from immigrants? Because if so, that would also be false. There was the Clovis immigration over the Bering land bridge 12,000 years ago.

No, no, no! The aborigines sprang from the ground, unique and perfect, living in a pristine environment where they danced amongst the daisies, and never harmed each other or any living thing! It was like the Garden of Eden! Except even the snakes were happy!

[August1991]

Quebec is not really a part of Canada emotionally.

And neither is Newfoundland.

And for that matter, neither is Alberta.

What you are really saying Argus is that Ontario is not Canada. [sarcasm]Wow.[/sarcasm]

=======

The fact is that Canada is the 21st century, new World version of the 19th century Austrian-Hungarian empire - without the burden of history. We are a bilingual state without a state cultural.

In the past few weeks, I have read much nonsense about the origins of WWI. (Some historians have written even greater nonsense about the Treaty of Versailles.) Canada is proof that a bilingual, multicutural state can exist and thrive.

Edited July 2, 2014 by August1991

[Hydraboss]

Except we're not bilingual.

A couple of pieces of Canada are bilingual, the Canada as a "state" is not.