Old Stock Canadians

[cybercoma]

My first guess was that he understood 'old stock Canadians' similarly to how the B&B Commission defined 'the two founding races' (i.e. 'Canadians of British and French origin'). I'm happy he clarified his meaning though so as to correct any misunderstanding.

So First Nations, Inuit, and Métis aren't "old stock" Canadians, despite having family ties to this land further back than any British or French ancestor?

[August1991]

Cybercoma: you get the point.

[sorry, I am having trouble to copy/post another post and reply. I flipped through this thread and IMV, only Cybercoma understands my point. Read Cybercoma's post above here.]

The English CBC often/endlessly reminds me of the situation of "First Nations". Are they "Old Stock"?

Why do English Leftists quickly note that a reference to "Old Stock" is a dog whistle but the terrm "Aboriginal" is simply a description (that Leftists then can debate... )?

And what of "...de souche.. ", the term Le Devoir chose to translate Harper's reference?

=====

IMV, Harper was playing the Leftist game - to his benefit. Dog whistle? More likely a cat whistle, to watch the Leftist Dogs (as Mao said) run in circles, chasing their tails.

Edited September 19, 2015 by August1991

[Machjo]

So First Nations, Inuit, and Métis aren't "old stock" Canadians, despite having family ties to this land further back than any British or French ancestor?

What I think is beside the point. The vast majority of Canadians accept the B&B Commission's belief in 'two founding races' which it defines in Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21 of its report as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' In fact the Commissioner of Official Languages commemorated the 50th anniversary of that report at the University of Ottawa just a few years ago as had the CBC.

The belief in 'two founding races' is a widely held belief in Canada even if the vocabulary to describe it has changed over the years. I figured 'old-stock Canadians' might just have been the latest name for it.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I don't think he meant to cause this ruckus. The debate was heated and chaotic and it must be easy to misspeak under such circumstances. The problem is it feeds into an existing narrative about him. If he and his surrogates had just apologized for any offence caused, they might have put the controversy to bed more quickly. Sometimes, saying sorry is the wisest course. Instead, Rempel tried to bluff her way past the question today on PandP with two tactics she uses all the time - answer a question not asked and point to the sins of others.

[August1991]

I'm neutral on the issue of dual citizenship but I don't think it is unreasonable for countries to put some conditions on it....

I too used to be open-minded on this. But given further thought, I think an individual should:

a ) find a State and pay taxes to it, respect its laws.

b ) live elsewhere.

====

I dislike these terms "citizen" and "nation". But I'll use them to express my thought:

Citizenship is like marriage; you can have several but it is costly/difficult to change.

Nationality, OTOH, is an entirely different question. For example, some people belong to the Nation of Left-Handed people.

Edited September 19, 2015 by August1991

[August1991]

Calgary — Au lendemain du deuxième débat de la campagne, Stephen Harper a dû se justifier d’avoir parlé de « Canadiens de souche », les opposant aux autres Canadiens. Et ses deux rivaux qui avaient laissé passer l’expression sans commentaires jeudi soir l’ont vertement critiquée vendredi.

Le Devoir

There you go, the money quote in two languages.

Uh, quelle ironie.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Charles Anthony
fixed quote

[August1991]

I don't think he meant to cause this ruckus.

I disagree. IMHO, Harper is smarter than that, in French and English.

[BC_chick]

Dual citizens aren't equal, they enjoy the citizenship of another country as well as this one.

That's not true, you can lose your citizenship even if merely 'qualify' for citizenship elsewhere. By default, that's everyone who was born abroad since Canada doesn't require citizens to renounce their previous citizenship.

Old-stock vs. new stock.

I know the thread drifted there with c-24, but that bill exemplifies Harper's two-tier view of Canadians and his use of the term is a perfect example of that view.

[ReeferMadness]

That's not true, you can lose your citizenship even if merely 'qualify' for citizenship elsewhere. By default, that's everyone who was born abroad since Canada doesn't require citizens to renounce their previous citizenship.

Old-stock vs. new stock.

I know the thread drifted there with c-24, but that bill exemplifies Harper's two-tier view of Canadians and his use of the term is a perfect example of that view.

I understand that If you are born to a parent with British citizenship, you are automatically a British citizen. Even if you were born elsewhere and have never even been there.

Edited September 19, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[BC_chick]

I understand that If you are born to a parent with British citizenship, you are automatically a British citizen. Even if you were born elsewhere and have never even been there.

They better be careful protesting a pipeline or boycotting Israeli products.

[Machjo]

So First Nations, Inuit, and Métis aren't "old stock" Canadians, despite having family ties to this land further back than any British or French ancestor?

What I think is beside the point. The vast majority of Canadians accept the B&B Commission's belief in 'two founding races' which it defines in Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21 of its report as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' In fact the Commissioner of Official Languages commemorated the 50th anniversary of that report at the University of Ottawa just a few years ago as had the CBC.

The belief in 'two founding races' is a widely held belief in Canada even if the vocabulary to describe it has changed over the years. I figured 'old-stock Canadians' might just have been the latest name for it.

[Machjo]

Similar to the B&B Commission's idea of 'les deux peuples fondateurs.'

[cybercoma]

If that's the case then the vast majority of Canadians are ignorant of this land's history and its people.

[Icebound]

What I think is beside the point. The vast majority of Canadians accept the B&B Commission's belief in 'two founding races' which it defines in Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21 of its report as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' In fact the Commissioner of Official Languages commemorated the 50th anniversary of that report at the University of Ottawa just a few years ago as had the CBC.

The belief in 'two founding races' is a widely held belief in Canada even if the vocabulary to describe it has changed over the years. I figured 'old-stock Canadians' might just have been the latest name for it.

With apologies to Canada's aboriginal population...

"Two founding races" may have built the POLITICAL foundation for a "Canada" country, perhaps, but the real work of building the guts came from all parts of the world.

Chinese immigrants were here before 1800. How "old stock" can you get?

They built your railroads to BC, without which there would not have been a country. Yet they would never be considered "old stock" by the white male establishment of all political stripes. They weren't even allowed to vote until 1947; they did not get equal immigration treatment until 1967.

This is the kind of thinking to which we have been regressing over the past 10 years, only with a different ethnic group.

Immigrants over the years have assimilated quite well into Canadian society...it may take a few generations for each wave... But you can speed up the process by allowing and encouraging their memberships in your clubs, invite them for dinner at your home, teach your children to treat them like equals in your schools...etc., etc. etc.

We seem to think of this country as having been "built", and people are just coming in to reap the rewards. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technical and social challenges are just now ramping up, and we better start finding and teaching the brightest minds we can find, in order to build this country forward.

Grow or die. "Stay the course" is not an option.

[kimmy]

So here is what Harper actually said, in response to medical care for refugees:

"we do not offer them a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that's something that new and old stock Canadians can agree with."

...and in context I don't see how it's anything sinister. He clearly wasn't trying to drive a wedge between "old stock" Canadians and more recent arrivals. He was suggesting that both "old stock" and "new" Canadians would agree that refugees shouldn't get better care than what Canadian citizens receive.

I think trying to suggest his statement is based on some kind of covert racial agenda is just a bunch of spin.

Similar in nature but quite different in context is the "pure laine" concept in Quebec, where the separatists have griped after their referendum defeats that the "pure laine" have had their aspirations crushed by the Jews and the immigrants.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

"Two founding races" may have built the POLITICAL foundation for a "Canada" country, perhaps, but the real work of building the guts came from all parts of the world.

Three founding peoples sounds more accurate to me, not 'races'. Acknowledging that people from all over the world came here to 'build' Canada, I still think we can acknowledge the political beginnings. This makes sense to me particularly because the compromise and accommodation was there in the beginning and continues in our traditions today.

But you can speed up the process by allowing and encouraging their memberships in your clubs, invite them for dinner at your home, teach your children to treat them like equals in your schools...etc., etc. etc.

Indeed - 'socialize yourself into your community more' is great advice IMO.

We seem to think of this country as having been "built", and people are just coming in to reap the rewards. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technical and social challenges are just now ramping up, and we better start finding and teaching the brightest minds we can find, in order to build this country forward.

Grow or die. "Stay the course" is not an option.

Maybe, but life is easier today and we should neither forget history, nor obsess over it.

[Icebound]

So here is what Harper actually said, in response to medical care for refugees:

"we do not offer them a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that's something that new and old stock Canadians can agree with."

...and in context I don't see how it's anything sinister. He clearly wasn't trying to drive a wedge between "old stock" Canadians and more recent arrivals. He was suggesting that both "old stock" and "new" Canadians would agree that refugees shouldn't get better care than what Canadian citizens receive.

I think trying to suggest his statement is based on some kind of covert racial agenda is just a bunch of spin.

The "sinister" part is that we would even THINK to divide people as if they were a commodity.... "put the old stock over there... and the fresh stuff over here.... put the dark ones in the back, and the lighter ones up front'

Even as a Freudian slip, this is reprehensible thinking and we have to educate ourselves to stop it.

...

[Michael Hardner]

The "sinister" part is that we would even THINK to divide people as if they were a commodity....

Even as a Freudian slip, this is reprehensible thinking and we have to educate ourselves to stop it.

I don't think it's reasonable to put restrictions on thoughts. And of course people will think that way. As Kimmy says, this is spin and people needing to write something.

[Icebound]

I don't think it's reasonable to put restrictions on thoughts. And of course people will think that way. As Kimmy says, this is spin and people needing to write something

You can think whatever you want..... but certain kinds of thinking put you on the wrong side of the history of human societal evolution, and make you kind of inappropriate to lead a modern country.

[cybercoma]

I don't think it's reasonable to put restrictions on thoughts. And of course people will think that way. As Kimmy says, this is spin and people needing to write something.

Nobody's restricting thoughts here. What an intellectually disingenuous thing to say. Harper can say whatever he wants and people have the right, actually the duty, to analyze and criticize what he says.

"Stock" is a word that carries baggage with it. It calls back to the recent past when Canada had eugenics programs in many provinces. The Michener Institute in Alberta was sterilizing "mental defectives" as recently as 1970. He certainly didn't mean it that way, but the connotation comes along with the word. He could have said literally anything else to make the same point and it wouldn't have had that baggage.

And as far as his point goes, new stock and old stock Canadians clearly delineates two classes of citizenship: citizens by birthright and naturalized citizens. It highlights the thinking in this government that not all citizens are equal. That my citizenship is better than someone who comes here later and becomes a citizen. That's why their citizenship can be revoked, but mine can't. There's a different set of rules for "new" citizens and "old." If it's not racist, it's certainly divisive and tells naturalized citizens that they'll never be as valuable as people who are born here. And since he goes so far as to say "stock," the implied meaning is that neither will their children who are born here because their from their parents' "stock."

[Michael Hardner]

You can think whatever you want..... but certain kinds of thinking put you on the wrong side of the history of human societal evolution, and make you kind of inappropriate to lead a modern country.

Well, Harper has to think politically and so dividing the country into demographics is a longstanding strategy to winning elections. It's silly to deny that anybody at his level, or indeed any citizen doesn't think about such things.

[scribblet]

I guess it couldn't possibly be racist when Trudeau or Dion use the term, no matter what the context or how nuanced you want to make it.

[Michael Hardner]

Scribblet - did they really use it?

[SpankyMcFarland]

I guess it couldn't possibly be racist when Trudeau or Dion use the term, no matter what the context or how nuanced you want to make it.

Justin?

[overthere]

So here is what Harper actually said, in response to medical care for refugees:

"we do not offer them a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that's something that new and old stock Canadians can agree with."

...and in context I don't see how it's anything sinister. He clearly wasn't trying to drive a wedge between "old stock" Canadians and more recent arrivals. He was suggesting that both "old stock" and "new" Canadians would agree that refugees shouldn't get better care than what Canadian citizens receive.

I think trying to suggest his statement is based on some kind of covert racial agenda is just a bunch of spin.

Similar in nature but quite different in context is the "pure laine" concept in Quebec, where the separatists have griped after their referendum defeats that the "pure laine" have had their aspirations crushed by the Jews and the immigrants.

-k

In point of fact, Canadian citizens have no right at all to any form of health care, simply through being citizens.

It is necessary to be a resident, which is unconnected to citizenship.