Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

[Argus]

I don't understand why but the Vancouver Sun is the only mainstream newspaper in Canada which ever has  stories which run against the pro-immigration narrative in the rest of the media. This one basically says that diversity is bad, and the more homogeneous a society, the better off it is. I can see progressives going ballistic at the mere thought someone might hold such an opinion. But it fits in with other studies I've seen about how people trust and want to be around those pretty much like themselves.

Many western nations assumed that increasing ethnic and cultural diversity through immigration would be beneficial. The dogma of diversity, tolerance and inclusion assumed that all members of the society wanted to be included as equal citizens. Yet, instead of diversity being a blessing, many found that they’ve ended up with a lot of arrogant people living in their countries with no intention of letting go of their previous cultures, animosities, preferences, and pretensions.
...

In fact, social trust corresponds more closely than any other factor to predicting economic prosperity. Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and co-authors from a paper titled, Fractionalization, argued that greater diversity leads to stunted economic growth. In other words, diversity is a weakness as far as the economy is concerned.

In 1981 The World Values Survey began an investigation into cross-cultural beliefs, values and motivations, and has since shown that societies with high social trust are not only more economically productive but also happier. The most successful are homogeneous countries, not the diverse ones.

http://archive.is/ulGJ4

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't understand why but the Vancouver Sun is the only mainstream newspaper in Canada which ever has  stories which run against the pro-immigration narrative in the rest of the media. This one basically says that diversity is bad, and the more homogeneous a society, the better off it is. I can see progressives going ballistic at the mere thought someone might hold such an opinion.

Strangely enough, whenever its suggested that human beings should forgo living in 190 odd countries and simply move to Earth, you guys go back to fretting over our differences and tell us how homogeneity is for homos.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:07 PM, eyeball said:

Strangely enough, whenever its suggested that human beings should forgo living in 190 odd countries and simply move to Earth, you guys go back to fretting over our differences and tell us how homogeneity is for homos.

Large groups of culturally homogeneous people, by definition called "nations" (like Quebec, a "nation within a nation"), naturally yearn for self-determination.  They have their owns wants and desires, and to live how they want to live and enjoy and maintain their culture without government interference.  When 2 or more large groups of cultures live within the same country and one of those cultures feels they lack this self-determination and feel they are being controlled by another powerful group, this group becomes disenfranchised and this often causes political/social conflict within countries and has caused many civil wars or threats of wars or separation, here are only some examples: 

- Quebec vs rest of Canada, aboriginals vs rest of Canada, Scottish and Irish vs Britain, the Balkans, Israelis vs Palestinians, Hindu Indians vs Muslim Pakistanis vs Muslim Bangladeshi's vs Sikh Punjabi's, Tutsis vs Hutus in Rwanda, Shia vs Sunni Muslims across the ME, US north vs US south (in 1800's), the Nazi holocaust, Muslim minorities in China, war in Darfur in Sudan, Coptic Christians in Egypt, Christians vs Muslims in Lebanon etc.

People wanting to change our entire international system of sovereign nation-states, and have well-meaning but naive utopian dreams of a borderless world fail to understand these cultural power dynamics. Sovereignty and national self-determination is the entire legal basis of the international system of nation-states that was created with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it's the fundamental basis for our international system.  So much so that it's enshrined in the UN Charter.

All countries are nation-states.  Trudeau thinks Canada is first "post-national state", and is somehow be immune to internal cultural conflict (Quebec & aboriginals & Western alienation says otherwise).  He dreams of a world & a country where all diverse peoples can get along and live peacefully with one another.  It's an honourable dream, but given history and the different conflicts around the world & in Canada it is naive to think this way.  That's why the integration of different cultures and migrants within Canada must be done VERY carefully, which it's not.

A post-national state is a road straight towards the gathering of competing sub-national political groups (like Quebec), very dangerous for social cohesion.  We all need to feel like we are all "Canadian", we all need to feel like we're part of the same "in-group" even if we have some differences, and we all need self-determination.

[Benz]

19 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A post-national state is a road straight towards the gathering of competing sub-national political groups (like Quebec), very dangerous for social cohesion.  We all need to feel like we are all "Canadian", we all need to feel like we're part of the same "in-group" even if we have some differences, and we all need self-determination.

What about Switzerland? Multi-national states can sustain if and only if a mutual agreement can be reach with one another. A balance can be reach.

But I think it's a little bit off topic. Argus rather talk about diversity and massive immigration. While you are rather talking about countries having within its border, nations that have been conquered and where their original national identity still prevail.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Benz

[Scott Mayers]

I'm tired of the group-favoritism that derives most strongly from and by those who believe in (a) a presumed 'cultural identity' of an inherent genetic association, and (b) that these groups are the only minority that counts (versus the individual).

Because those belonging to a select group always supersede the individual, only those among groups (in general) get represented when it comes to politics with the greatest priority. While logical, the problem isn't about the class identity of people so much as to the KINDS of beliefs about those associating to groups based upon STRONGER or extreme beliefs most specificaly about inheritance. That is, the extreme believers IN segregated structures that are more religiously defined take precedence to media and poltics who define their ingroups as genetically related and with the presumption of some uniformity among the classes they define as members....even if all 'members' defined by them do not agree nor associate with the particular believers.

Example, the belief that one who is "First Nations" is anyone who has a genetic ancestry to some North American tribe prior to modern civilization from European peoples. How does one's genetic link to some ancestor relate to one's NATURE? I mean, it is understandable that if you have squirel DNA, that your tendency to collect nuts and bury them might be rationalized upon learning that you HAVE squirel DNA. But within a species, how does one having a genetic ancestor to say, a Cree Nation, mean that whatever WAS 'Cree' 500 years ago relate to who you are as a human being today, outside of others' imposed associations upon you? 

It reminds me of a commercial for those sites that link you to your genetic ancestors where one guy says that he had to trade in his Scottish skirt for  German lederhosen when he discovered that he was German and NOT Scottish. Why does it matter?  AND, considered some of us are adopted, what does that imply about us if our adopting parents have no genetic relation to us? Are we supposed to be treated as distinct outsiders for not having this association? Do you owe homage to the family who raised you OR to the family who abandoned you? This kind of question doesn't get raised because most people AREN'T adopted normally. But this should give you some idea of the absurdity of this 'normal' thinking by most, ...even if they may not presume they themselves are against differences of people.

What about mixed genetic associations? If you have a mixed genetic makeup, which one do you owe homage to IF you are expected to pick one? Note that the presumption of ANY cultural identity based upon genetics is biased against anyone who does have this split regardless of their potential denial because they still presume there is some logical relevance outside of some mere historical fact. We ARE all related to some degree. So why would, say, being Mexican, matter, when upon seeking to earlier roots you may discover that you are Spanish,.... and before that, French or Arabic, or ...? 

So, I am tired of all of you who think that being X of some 'heritage' matters at all. Yet, most of you take this arrogant stance and have the POWER for simply having this type of strong belief in 'culture'. AND, this is prevalent in ALL parties today. All go against the individual that has no binding association to 'culture' nor 'race' nor 'sex', etc. 

"Diversity" by its word means variable. But it doesn't self-define those supporting it as supporting different INDIVIDUALS but rather different GROUPS. And, like I already mentioned, they are based upon a 'religious' kind of belief that one's genetic roots MATTER! The differenct is the right to left parties today are about those different groups only. The 'right' wing believes in the group or groups that are presently empowered and who most strongly associate to IDENTITY but fear competition. They presume some 'we' they assign to all those that look like them on the outside. For instance, those of you who assume that 'we' are a 'Christian' and 'white' nation are believers in some superiority of some 'us' that you drag all those who are generally similar to the racial groups you also share, even if the potential majority of them are NOT associated to you. On the left, you have just all those groups with anti-association to the particular favored group BUT still think the same way. You just know that the means to empower your own arrogant and racist viewpoint is to side with the other groups of similar disempowerment UNTIL you at some point in the future COULD get the sole power. 

"Diversity" by our government is only officially meaning that you are either Catholic French or Anglican or, to prevent notice of present bias, the collective 'First Nations'. Other groups based upon religious-genetic associations (hideously titled as 'cultures') are accepted for embracing similar kinds of 'nationalism' (meaning here, the belief in one's genetic with cultural association regardless of where you actually live on Earth). 

While I believe that I represent the majority, such a majority are spoken for THROUGH the guise of those 'nationalistic' thinkers. As such, the power never belongs to individual 'diversity' but to cults. I notice that even on this site, people mostly belong to some such cult. When I think that one may be arguing for something relatively 'fair', for instance, I often discover that they still hold some bias to some cult in which they are not interested in the logic of the arguments universally but to whatever merely makes their opponent alone seem hypocritical. It makes it hard to nod to some argument you agree to in some part when they too would place you in some outsider's box should they be more empowered. 

As to the topic of something like immigration, where I notice many think it 'inappropriate' to resist them, I agree where it relates to the logical problem associated to it: When you take on your abusive neighbor's kids, often by taking them in without concern to their parents, you only relieve the abuser's economic problem momentarily to allow these 'parents' to have a free night to themselves ...long enough for them to proceate and have a new generation of kids to abuse further. Also, when you already 'favor' some of your own kids over others, when you bring in new ones from outside, it represents you having even more favoritism that competes against those kids who are already presently ignored. So it is no wonder why those hated kids of your own will more likely be the ones to complain about newcomers being welcomed compassionately without restrictions. 

By the way, I happen to get along better to most immigrants over those here already because I know the actual struggles involved. The apparent compassion for the 'children' are as irresponsible to me as those who ONLY adopt puppies or kittens but don't think twice about dropping the unwanted full grown dogs or cats in some neighborhood they think will embrace them. Isn't this the same logic of those abusive governments that enable their own to go else where? 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Scott Mayers
Spelling and possibly missing words.

[cougar]

On 9/7/2019 at 1:04 PM, Argus said:

This one basically says that diversity is bad, and the more homogeneous a society, the better off it is.

This is what I have been saying all along.  Unfortunately it is too late to make a turn.  Too many pink, orange, blue, grey, green turbans on the streets already.

Our government, Argus, did this for money; they like cheap labor and increased demand for goods, services and real estate.  

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

What about Switzerland? Multi-national states can sustain if and only if a mutual agreement can be reach with one another. A balance can be reach.

I don't know much about Switzerland.  Does it have a power sharing agreement, do the french, german, and italian sides all have their on self-determination.  Interesting case study!  But about the country's origins on wikipedia i read this tidbit that fits exactly into what i'm i was talking about:

Quote

The establishment of the Old Swiss Confederacy dates to the late medieval period, resulting from a series of military successes against Austria and Burgundy. Swiss independence from the Holy Roman Empire was formally recognized in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Sovereignty and national self-determination is the entire legal basis of the international system of nation-states that was created with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it's the fundamental basis for our international system.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Benz said:

What about Switzerland? Multi-national states can sustain if and only if a mutual agreement can be reach with one another. A balance can be reach.

Switzerland has divided itself into separate linguistic/ethnic sub-groups which all have their own governments. They're also small enough to have a real democracy - ie, everyone shows up to vote through a show of hands on any big question. This let's everyone feel they 're being heard.

Quote

But I think it's a little bit off topic. Argus rather talk about diversity and massive immigration.

It's the same things. It's competing tribes who have different languages, religions and cultural views and beliefs. You have to have a shared sense of identity for a country to survive the hard times.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Argus

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't know much about Switzerland.  Does it have a power sharing agreement, do the French, German, and Italian sides all have their own self-determination?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

 

Considering that Switzerland is relatively small with much the same terrain border to border, the wants and needs of each faction may be very similar . . . eg: good roads, snow removal, etc., etc. This would be more of a unifying factor than the wants and needs of Cape Breton and Saskatchewan. Cape Breton may not give a rat's ass about Saskatchewan potash, and Saskatchewan not caring about Cape Breton fishing.  Just a thought . . . . 

[Moonlight Graham]

Look at the demographic and immigration tends of the last 30-40 years.  Immigration is increasing continually, and Chinese and South Asians will continue to immigrate here in very large #'s simply because those countries have over a billion people for us to choose the most educated migrants from.

If there's not enough social cohesion in their integration, what happens when ie: there's so many Chinese in south-western BC sometime in the future that virtually all MP's in the region are Chinese, and most people there speak Chinese and live in this large Chinese ghetto...and then they start demanding things like language rights, and if the rest of Canada refused then they could demand sovereignty like Quebec.  And then we could have South-Western BC succeed and form its own nation-state of some kind of democratic Chinese country.  Many different groups in this country are segregating themselves within ghettos in our cities...because they want to be with their own kind and enjoy their own ethnic culture.

We have already seen Sikh Punjabi's flock en masse to join the NDP and fund Jagmeet Singh's leadership campaign to get him elected leader, and Jagmeet has a history of pandering to Sikh separatists and sympathizing with Sikh terrorists like the Air India bomber.  And we have already seen a lot of people show they won't vote for Jagmeet because of this and because he's a Sikh.  Is this good for social cohesion?  Is the Bloc Quebecois?  We're heading down a dangerous road, and so is Britain, France etc.

We all need to feel like we are all "Canadian", we all need to feel like we're part of the same "in-group" even if we have some differences, and we all need self-determination.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

we all need to feel like we're part of the same "in-group

Generally it's the "in-group" who decides who'll be part of the group.  Virtually ethnic immigrant wave who've come to Canada have had to face discrimination from Canadians already here.  Is it any wonder they've formed enclaves, where they won't be called chink, or wop, or kike, or towelhead; where they are less likely to face harassment and violence by random members of the "in-group"?  Acceptance has to work both ways. Spreading anti-immigrant sentiment is a time honored tradition in Canada, along with blaming immigrants for not integrating when they are told, in ways big and small, that they "don't fit in". 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We're heading down a dangerous road, and so is Britain, France etc.

The entire planet is heading down this road and its best that we all do so in a unified way.  Like climate change, it's too late to change course and all you can do is adapt.

[cougar]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

The entire planet is heading down this road and its best that we all do so in a unified way.  Like climate change, it's too late to change course and all you can do is adapt.

Not the entire planet.  And this was all caused by global politics with the US playing a big role in the background. 

Why would a nation keep an army to protect itself from foreign invaders when those same invaders can come in in the form of refugees and take over the country??

I support those European nations that built walls along their borders and denied the refugees access to their land; despite the EU's stupid wining.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Generally it's the "in-group" who decides who'll be part of the group.  Virtually ethnic immigrant wave who've come to Canada have had to face discrimination from Canadians already here.

But the Canada of today is not the Canada of a century ago. And the 'discrimination' today seems to largely be at people from religious groups who insist on wearing things appropriate to their homeland's culture and turning their noses up at Canadian values and beliefs.

Frankly, if you insist your six year old Canadian-born daughters wear hijabs everywhere they go you are proving you have no interest in integrating and that you will forever be a foreigner here.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Generally it's the "in-group" who decides who'll be part of the group.  Virtually ethnic immigrant wave who've come to Canada have had to face discrimination from Canadians already here.  Is it any wonder they've formed enclaves, where they won't be called chink, or wop, or kike, or towelhead; where they are less likely to face harassment and violence by random members of the "in-group"?  Acceptance has to work both ways. Spreading anti-immigrant sentiment is a time honored tradition in Canada, along with blaming immigrants for not integrating when they are told, in ways big and small, that they "don't fit in". 

Most Canadians of all colors and religions have always been closet racists, take a look some 60 years ago, where the Jews were being systemically wipe off the earth by the Nazi war machine, and knowing the consequences of that action , we still refused ships entry into Canada based on our religious disapprovals , take a look at Black Canadians and how long they have been persecuted, and in certain areas still are.... ....Canada is not a nation of diversity as we claim, our immigrants are for the most part huddled together in enclaves across Canada .. Its human nature to huddle together with people who share a common bond, ie color , religion, etc....but it is not very conducive for making a blended or diverse nation. 

Not everyone will fit in with other cultures based on this racism, or unacceptance as you call it. and until we get rid of the things that divide us , such as religion, being uneducated, or just unable to change , things will never change.

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Most Canadians of all colors and religions have always been closet racists,

I agree.  My question would be, why can't racists, closeted or not, learn from history?  

47 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not everyone will fit in with other cultures based on this racism, or unacceptance as you call it. and until we get rid of the things that divide us , such as religion, being uneducated, or just unable to change

I believe the surest way to learn to accept "others" is to get to know them.  That's worked for neo-Nazis getting to know Jews, for homophobic getting to know gay people and for Muslims getting to know non-Muslims and vice versa.   

Education is an excellent tool for creating aetheists (as well as reducing isms of all kinds).  The ex-Muslim and ex-JW subreddits have numerous stories of education creating questions that lead to people leaving these two religions.  

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Generally it's the "in-group" who decides who'll be part of the group.  Virtually ethnic immigrant wave who've come to Canada have had to face discrimination from Canadians already here.  Is it any wonder they've formed enclaves, where they won't be called chink, or wop, or kike, or towelhead; where they are less likely to face harassment and violence by random members of the "in-group"?  Acceptance has to work both ways. Spreading anti-immigrant sentiment is a time honored tradition in Canada, along with blaming immigrants for not integrating when they are told, in ways big and small, that they "don't fit in". 

I agree with most of this.  It's not "anti-immigrant" what i'm saying, i have no problems with most immigrants, i have many friends who are immigrants.  I have a problem with a country that does a poor job at maintaining a strong national identity, and has problems with unity because of it.  The fact you call it "anti-immigrant" is the kind of nonsense that makes it impossible for anyone to even talk about these issues without being accused of being a xenophobe racist.

We barely teach Canadian history in our schools.  ie: Virtually nobody in this country knows hardly anything about any Prime Ministers who were in power before they were born, besides Sir John A.  How many Canadians can name the Prime Minister who was in power during WWII, or WWI?  Do you personally know who Canada's 2nd PM was?  How about the 3rd, or 4th?  How many Canadians have even ever heard of the Statute of Westminster, basically our Declaration of Independence?  We have a problem with nationalism.  If you don't know anything about your country it's hard to be proud of it.

And yes it's up to both Canadians and immigrants have to work on integration of cultures.  I agree that ethnic enclaves are formed in part because of discrimination, but it also has to do with many of them not wanting to integrate and stick to their own kind and cultures, and governments that not only do nothing to help this problem but actively encourage it through official multiculturalism.

Interculturalism is a far better idea than multiculturalism.  Interculturalism means different people of different cultures living side-by-side, not segregating themselves.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

The entire planet is heading down this road and its best that we all do so in a unified way.  Like climate change, it's too late to change course and all you can do is adapt.

Developing countries aren't heading down this road, only the West and other developed countries.

What is your solution for doing this in a "unified way"?  Much easier said than done.  What are your specific ideas.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

But the Canada of today is not the Canada of a century ago. And the 'discrimination' today seems to largely be at people from religious groups who insist on wearing things appropriate to their homeland's culture and turning their noses up at Canadian values and beliefs.

Frankly, if you insist your six year old Canadian-born daughters wear hijabs everywhere they go you are proving you have no interest in integrating and that you will forever be a foreigner here.

This is a really stupid comment Argus.  You're afraid of a hijab?  It's a harmless headscarf.  Covering the entire face like a burka or niqab is a bit different and far more controlling and isolating, you're living like a slave to your husband, but nuns where a freaking hijab, like jews who wear yamaka's or Sikh's wearing turbans.  These clothing don't interfere with social bonds or cohesion.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is a really stupid comment Argus.  You're afraid of a hijab?  It's a harmless headscarf.  Covering the entire face like a burka or niqab is a bit different and far more controlling and isolating, you're living like a slave to your husband, but nuns where a freaking hijab, like jews who wear yamaka's or Sikh's wearing turbans.  These clothing don't interfere with social bonds or cohesion.

In order to believe as you state above you have to believe that a couple are devoted enough to the Koran to insist their little girls wear these things every day for the rest of their lives - but don't believe in any of the rest of what's in there about hatred and distrust for unbelievers. I take the attitude that if you're devoted enough to wear special clothing then you vouch for everything your religion says. And what Islam says about how to treat unbelievers is pretty damned bad.

Incidentally, these hijabs which are becoming more ubiquitous were not worn decades ago in many Muslim countries. Their use  grew and is growing in tandem with the growing sense of conservatism and fundamentalism of Muslims around the world.

As I've said before, my neighbor is a Muslim, born here. His wife wears a hijab and is a non-person, never introduced, never allowed to take part in conversations. She sees to the children and the house and that's that. I assume she has a name but he never uses it. According to a conservative reading of the Koran women are not allowed to socialize with males outside the family.

You can't have it both ways. If you respect their religious devotion in wearing these garments you have to accept that they will never integrate.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Most Canadians of all colors and religions have always been closet racists,

Most people in the world of all colours and religious have always been racists. Most still are.

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 Not everyone will fit in with other cultures based on this racism, or unacceptance as you call it.

That racism and 'unacceptance' works both ways.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We barely teach Canadian history in our schools.  ie: Virtually nobody in this country knows hardly anything about any Prime Ministers who were in power before they were born, besides Sir John A.  How many Canadians can name the Prime Minister who was in power during WWII, or WWI?  Do you personally know who Canada's 2nd PM was?  How about the 3rd, or 4th?  How many Canadians have even ever heard of the Statute of Westminster, basically our Declaration of Independence?  We have a problem with nationalism.  If you don't know anything about your country it's hard to be proud of it.

We're not SUPPOSED  to be proud of it. We're supposed to feel ashamed of it and apologize to everyone about how nasty and cruel and racist and homophobic we were. And don't forget, we're still settlers, we're not legitimate natives of this land.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In order to believe as you state above you have to believe that a couple are devoted enough to the Koran to insist their little girls wear these things every day for the rest of their lives - but don't believe in any of the rest of what's in there about hatred and distrust for unbelievers. I take the attitude that if you're devoted enough to wear special clothing then you vouch for everything your religion says. And what Islam says about how to treat unbelievers is pretty damned bad.

This isn't true at all, obviously you haven't had a lot of personal experience with many Muslims.  This is like saying if you wear a yamaka then you must think the world is only 4000 years old and you hate homosexuals.  Sure some do but a lot don't, it's a stereotype

I work with a guy who is Muslim, he won't ever eat pork, but he's literally one of the nicest and most trustworthy people i've ever met in my life and doesn't hate anybody.

You have to realize there is a broad spectrum of beliefs with Muslims just as their are for Christians, and younger people tend to be more modern than older people about their religious beliefs, similar to younger Christian people in the West.  That doesn't mean there still aren't wacko religious young nutters in the west who are Christian or Muslim.

Quote

As I've said before, my neighbor is a Muslim, born here. His wife wears a hijab and is a non-person, never introduced, never allowed to take part in conversations. She sees to the children and the house and that's that. I assume she has a name but he never uses it. According to a conservative reading of the Koran women are not allowed to socialize with males outside the family.

I see people wearing niqabs every now and then out shopping.  It makes me uncomfortable, I don't like them.  They are a lot different than a hijab in what they represent.  Not being allowed to show your face to any man in public is very extreme.

But most women who wear a hijab in Canada socialize with men, I've talked to a lot of them.  You're generalizing and making statements that aren't factually correct.

I once met a young Muslim woman who wore a hijab who hesitated to shake my hand when I extended it, I think she was Somalian. She was otherwise a very nice woman and we socialized, so in that case I don't like it.  But there's many other women with hijabs who will shake your hand and otherwise behave the same as you and I.

Quote

You can't have it both ways. If you respect their religious devotion in wearing these garments you have to accept that they will never integrate.

You need to get out more.

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We barely teach Canadian history in our schools.  ie: Virtually nobody in this country knows hardly anything about any Prime Ministers who were in power before they were born, besides Sir John A.  How many Canadians can name the Prime Minister who was in power during WWII, or WWI?  Do you personally know who Canada's 2nd PM was?  How about the 3rd, or 4th?  How many Canadians have even ever heard of the Statute of Westminster, basically our Declaration of Independence?  We have a problem with nationalism.  If you don't know anything about your country it's hard to be proud of it.

Not that I'm proud of Canada or even give a shit anymore, but in fairness to Canadians, erasing their history has been a deliberate program instituted by the government.

A people without a history are easier to control, the Nazis did the same thing in Germany.   It's called Historical Negationism.

[Dougie93]

Hence how you end up with this Orwellian Post National State which is not grounded in anything substantial.

They can make shit up as they go and Canadians have no reference point to judge it against.

They can remove things like equality before the law, or probable cause, Canadians actually embrace it as "progress".

The original purpose of course was to get English and French Canada to get along.

It didn't work in Quebec, but they noticed that it was working in English Canada.

So they just kept going, what else could they get Canadians to swallow without resistance?