Machjo Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 'Old stock Canadians' a storm in a tea cup? As far as I can tell, Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment pales in comparison with historical manifestations of identity politics in Canada. The first major manifestation of identity politics in Canada is the BNA Act and the establishment of English and French in Parliament and of the Protestant and Catholic separate school systems, soon followed by the Indian Act and the Indian Residential School system. The second major manifestation of identity politics in Canada was the publication of Book I of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism with its development and promotion of the idea of 'two founding races' (i.e. a 'Grand Collusion') which led to the Official Languages Act and was soon followed by the infamous Indian Act of 1969 that aimed to assimilate the indigenous peoples into the provincial school systems. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms further re-enforced the separate school system and official bilingualism. The beginning of the gradual unwinding of identity politics came with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the early 90's followed by the end of the residential school system and later the Prime Minister's statement of apology to the survivors of the Indian Residential School system in 2008 and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In relative terms, if anything, Canada is just beginning to adjust to the new realities of reconciliation and of the de-ethnicization of Canadian policy. From the time of the publication of the B&B Commission Report to the time of the Prime Minister's statement of apology, all of the major parties adhered to the principkes of the 'Grand Collusion.' Some parties still adhere to it but are now trying to find a way to balance it against the principles of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. (e.g. all but a fringe minority of New Democrats and Greens, probably all Liberals, and a small majority of Conservatives). Others want to end 'the Great Collusion' for their own ends (e.g. the Francisist BQ that dreams of an ethnically French Quebec and a large minority of Britishist Conservatives that dream of a return to a mythical British Canada. I suspect Harper belongs to the Britishist camp. Though I'm unaware of a truly de-ethnicist party in Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada and a few fringe elements of the NDP and of the Green Party might come closest to that ideal at present. Given how identity politics permeates most of Canadian politics at present, I don't see how anyone can say that Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment is really that different from the policies of all of the major parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Don't we already have a thread on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In the retail world, "old stock" isn't much of a compliment, particularly when it comes to produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 'Old stock Canadians' a storm in a tea cup? As far as I can tell, Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment pales in comparison with historical manifestations of identity politics in Canada. The first major manifestation of identity politics in Canada is the BNA Act and the establishment of English and French in Parliament and of the Protestant and Catholic separate school systems, soon followed by the Indian Act and the Indian Residential School system. The second major manifestation of identity politics in Canada was the publication of Book I of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism with its development and promotion of the idea of 'two founding races' (i.e. a 'Grand Collusion') which led to the Official Languages Act and was soon followed by the infamous Indian Act of 1969 that aimed to assimilate the indigenous peoples into the provincial school systems. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms further re-enforced the separate school system and official bilingualism. The beginning of the gradual unwinding of identity politics came with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the early 90's followed by the end of the residential school system and later the Prime Minister's statement of apology to the survivors of the Indian Residential School system in 2008 and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In relative terms, if anything, Canada is just beginning to adjust to the new realities of reconciliation and of the de-ethnicization of Canadian policy. From the time of the publication of the B&B Commission Report to the time of the Prime Minister's statement of apology, all of the major parties adhered to the principkes of the 'Grand Collusion.' Some parties still adhere to it but are now trying to find a way to balance it against the principles of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. (e.g. all but a fringe minority of New Democrats and Greens, probably all Liberals, and a small majority of Conservatives). Others want to end 'the Great Collusion' for their own ends (e.g. the Francisist BQ that dreams of an ethnically French Quebec and a large minority of Britishist Conservatives that dream of a return to a mythical British Canada. I suspect Harper belongs to the Britishist camp. Though I'm unaware of a truly de-ethnicist party in Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada and a few fringe elements of the NDP and of the Green Party might come closest to that ideal at present. Given how identity politics permeates most of Canadian politics at present, I don't see how anyone can say that Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment is really that different from the policies of all of the major parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 People are making something out of nothing. Geez man the left will jump up and down over anything it seems. I think people need to calm down. Nothing bad was meant by it. Relax already. Its not some sort of crime to state that we have new and old Canadians. Harper's getting a taste of his own negative medicine here. Every night on PandP, his minions Rempel and Calandra try and scare the heck out of Canadians by quoting some remark from the other parties., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) I don't have much sympathy for a leader who tries to win through divisive identity politics Name one in history who hasn't. You certainly won't find one in Canadian history, nor anyone running right now. They all play the game. And never moreso than now since there are so many identities out there. I just read a small piece in the Star about a new riding in Edmonton. Three Punjabi Sikhs are running there. Why? Well, because a third of the riding is from that area. But it's only a third. What about the other two thirds? You won't get any of the three parties to answer that question. But they all know it very well. Old Stock Canadians, as Harper described them, rarely vote based on race. Newcomers do. The three parties know that if they run a White guy none of that one third of the riding will vote for their candidate, not with a sikh available to vote for. The party doesn't matter. It's the race that matters, and the religion. So if one third of the riding gives you nothing what chance do you have of winning? We see this played out all across the country in areas where there are a lot of 'new Canadians'. If as much as a quarter of the riding is from a particular race or nation or religion, then all three candidates will be of that race/religion, because otherwise they have little chance of winning. Outright concede a quarter of the votes to the other guy, and you've got to get a big majority with the remaining 'old stock' people to win. The "old stock" will vote for a Sikh or a Muslim or a Chinese guy, but "new Canadians" will generally not vote for anyone but their own kind if given a choice. Edited September 20, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 What's wrong with being white? You get a sunburn easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 ... OKAY FULL DISCLOSURE... SERIOUS THREAD DRIFT BELOW.... (maybe even another point on the Moderator's warnings list...I just can't resist) You get a sunburn easier. Well, yes, with conventional thinking... all studies seem to support that. Yet..... as the rural population dwindles (outdoor farm work, etc), and the urban population grows (desk jobs), the incidence of skin cancer has INCREASED....??? Maybe there IS advantage to being OLD STOCK.... My mother would throw me and my siblings out into the sun for an hour or two every day as babies, as toddlers, as children.... might that have been the riight idea and given us some protection???? Whereas today's chemically soaked SPF50 child... at age 25 spends 5 days at his artificially-lit desk... hits the beach on the weekend and the result is predictable ? ? ? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 ... Well, yes, with conventional thinking... all studies seem to support that. Yet..... as the rural population dwindles (outdoor farm work, etc), and the urban population grows (desk jobs), the incidence of skin cancer has INCREASED....??? Maybe there IS advantage to being OLD STOCK.... My mother would throw me and my siblings out into the sun for an hour or two every day as babies, as toddlers, as children.... might that have been the riight idea and given us some protection???? Whereas today's chemically soaked SPF50 child... at age 25 spends 5 days at his artificially-lit desk... hits the beach on the weekend and the result is predictable ? ? ? ? Well, there's also the fact of ozone depletion up through the 90s to consider (though the trend is now reversing itself). I'm guessing the higher UV flux that was able to get through the atmosphere during that period would have led to more cancers, which can then show up later in people's lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 On the other hand, if you are into old cars and their parts, "new old stock" is hitting the jackpot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Spin? Uh, no. It's, uh, politics. ==== Kimmy, are you autistic? Edited September 21, 2015 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Funny how I see so many non-White, non male Tory MPs and candidates... True. And I believe the name for that phenomenon is 'anecdotal evidence'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 It absolutely is not arbitrary in any way, shape or form. Really? Then define it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Well, gee, I guess I should be terrified, then, since I was born abroad while dad was posted overseas. Watch me shake. You're old-stock. No need to worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) You're old-stock. No need to worry. Old stock? Are you one of those "First Nations" people? Edited September 21, 2015 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 True. And I believe the name for that phenomenon is 'anecdotal evidence'. The Conservatives’ performance -- 12 visible minority MPs elected -- also contributed significantly to the overall total. In their case, however, the result continued a trend involving the party (and its various antecedent formations) increasing, almost monotonically, its percentage of all visible minority MPs; across the 1993-2008 period, their portion went from 7.7% to 38.1%. In 2011, the party reached a high point with a share of 42.9%. The tories also had the highest percentage of visible minority candidates. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=216&art=1546 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I just read Harpers comments in their entirety and they are completely innocous and innocent. He said "new or old stock canadians" which is the same as saying "new stock or old stock". This kind of weak attempts at turning everything into a "gotcha!" really reduce the quality of political discourse... Theres no reason for them. Theres plenty of REAL critism that can be levelled at the current government around policy, behavior, etc. If Harpers opponents try to latch onto this kind of nonsense it might excite their hardcore base, but its going to turn off any other voters that have half a brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) I just read Harpers comments in their entirety and they are completely innocous and innocent. He said "new or old stock canadians" which is the same as saying "new stock or old stock". This kind of weak attempts at turning everything into a "gotcha!" really reduce the quality of political discourse... Theres no reason for them. I agree the criticism is overdone but it seems weird to make the distinction and use that terminology to begin with. Why say "new or old stock Canadians" rather than simply "all Canadians" or "Canadians"? Theres plenty of REAL critism that can be levelled at the current government around policy, behavior, etc. If Harpers opponents try to latch onto this kind of nonsense it might excite their hardcore base, but its going to turn off any other voters that have half a brain. Meh, it's politics. Real issues always get ignored in favor of soundbites and gotchas. The voters get the politicians, and the politics, that they deserve. Edited September 21, 2015 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The Conservatives’ performance -- 12 visible minority MPs elected -- also contributed significantly to the overall total. In their case, however, the result continued a trend involving the party (and its various antecedent formations) increasing, almost monotonically, its percentage of all visible minority MPs; across the 1993-2008 period, their portion went from 7.7% to 38.1%. In 2011, the party reached a high point with a share of 42.9%. The tories also had the highest percentage of visible minority candidates. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=216&art=1546 I wasn't talking about MP's, I was talking myself as a potential voter. Middle-class, "new-stock" (arrrgh), female is not exactly the CPC's voting bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The Conservatives’ performance -- 12 visible minority MPs elected -- also contributed significantly to the overall total. In their case, however, the result continued a trend involving the party (and its various antecedent formations) increasing, almost monotonically, its percentage of all visible minority MPs; across the 1993-2008 period, their portion went from 7.7% to 38.1%. In 2011, the party reached a high point with a share of 42.9%. The tories also had the highest percentage of visible minority candidates. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=216&art=1546 Is this sort of a "I have gay/black/Newfie friends so I can make gay/black/Newfie jokes" defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Is this sort of a "I have gay/black/Newfie friends so I can make gay/black/Newfie jokes" defense?It's facts. Don't let the facts get in the way of the leftist rhetoric though. The left says the CPC is racist yet they have the most non white MPS. Strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I agree the criticism is overdone but it seems weird to make the distinction and use that terminology to begin with. Why say "new or old stock Canadians" rather than simply "all Canadians" or "Canadians"? Meh, it's politics. Real issues always get ignored in favor of soundbites and gotchas. The voters get the politicians, and the politics, that they deserve. Exactly.... why use that terminology at all, unless you are trying to be divisive? I think it was in poor taste and shows a lack of character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) I just read Harpers comments in their entirety and they are completely innocous and innocent. He said "new or old stock canadians" which is the same as saying "new stock or old stock". This kind of weak attempts at turning everything into a "gotcha!" really reduce the quality of political discourse... Theres no reason for them. Theres plenty of REAL critism that can be levelled at the current government around policy, behavior, etc. If Harpers opponents try to latch onto this kind of nonsense it might excite their hardcore base, but its going to turn off any other voters that have half a brain. He clarified later than he meant "Canadians who have been the descendants of immigrants for one or more generations." True, it's not the worst thing he's said but it was a glimpse into his view of Canadians and how much emphasis he puts on birthright. As a citizen of Canada for 30+ years who was born abroad I find that very offensive. I said it earlier too but this overemphasis on birthright is exactly the reason why we end up with a two-tier citizenship with things like C-24. Edited September 21, 2015 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Bill c24 can strip dual citizens of their Canadian citizenship only if they're convicted of treason espionage or terrorism related charges. This us good. Not bad. We don't need those types of people as Canadians. Citizenship is not a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I wasn't talking about MP's, I was talking myself as a potential voter. Middle-class, "new-stock" (arrrgh), female is not exactly the CPC's voting bloc. Do you even bother to think these things through? You're portraying the Conservatives as this venal, self serving, vote greedy group who care about no one and nothing but getting elected. Okay. Soooo, why are they bothering to appeal to visible minorities? Why are they putting all this effort into glad handing minorities and ethnic politics? Isn't it well known that if they don't think a group will vote for them they ignore that group? I'm willing to bet tons of visible minorities vote for the Conservatives. Nothing else makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.