The Cancer Called Multi-Culturalism

[lost&outofcontrol]

So did Tommy Douglas. Whenever someone wants a reasonable discussion of multicult., the race baiting liberals strike again !

Where did you see the name Tommy Douglas in this thread? When did I ever use Tommy Douglas as an example? I'll answer for you, I never did, so I guess you're the one doing the baiting then. If you're gonna use a racist to back up an argument, you better be ready for the consequences.

[Black Dog]

No, Tommy Douglas was an anti semite, he also wrote his thesis on Eugenics for his McMaster's degree in sociology. He published in 1933 and it read like something from Mein Kampf. He also said homosexuals should be incarcerated in asylums.

I'd like to see some proof of the antisemite accusation. As for the homosexuality thing, Douglas' statement that homosexuality was a mental illness was in the context of the criminalization of homosexuality, which he was arguing against. And he never said a thing about locking homosexuals in asylums.

[Michael Hardner]

Do we not have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights that does just that? I'm not sure what else you can do: as long as individual's cultural beliefs and practices do not violate the laws of the land, there's precious little anyone can do about them. Basically: how do you enforce culture?

Maybe a Charter of Responsibilities ? Expectations ?

I don't know what the impact would be to the legal system but even a nicely worded statement could capture the public imagination as to what we're supposed to be doing here...

[Black Dog]

I don't know what the impact would be to the legal system but even a nicely worded statement could capture the public imagination as to what we're supposed to be doing here...

So you're suggesting replacing one empty platitude (multicultralism) with another?

[Michael Hardner]

So you're suggesting replacing one empty platitude (multicultralism) with another? wink.gif

I don't know if you can say it's an empty platitude, exactly. I do feel that way sometimes but if, in 20 years, Canada isn't experiencing strife such as France is then maybe we can say it was a success.

Certainly immigrants I've spoken to seem to firmly believe that it's a Canadian value.

Melting pot, though, will happen. Immigrants will not keep their culture over generations. But multicult might mitigate the pain of integration.

[betsy]

Why do you think that someone thinking multi-culturalism is not going to work means that they think somebody like me do not belong here?

Because opposition to multiculturalism is usually based on the idea that we should all blend together and become one people. I think skin colour has a profound influence on both personal identity and others' perceptions and, so long as people look different from one another, they can't truly blend. Their differences are apparent and unchangeable and no amount of social programming will ever change that. Therefore, you either have a society that accepts and celebrates these differences (i.e., multiculturalism) or a society that discourages them (like the previous policy of predominantly white immigration).

What is wrong about blending together as one people, adhereing to common ground that binds us together?

We're talking about integration and assimilation. With our ways. With values.

And we're past beyond that skin color thing.

Besides, aren't non-whites already been "lumped" together as one people that belong to the "visible minority?"

Although coined with good intentions, it is divisive nevertheless. We can all be just Canadians.

[Black Dog]

Melting pot, though, will happen. Immigrants will not keep their culture over generations. But multicult might mitigate the pain of integration.

Personally, I think the success of th e"melting pot" model has been grossly overestimated. After all, it's not like the U.S. is free of social divisions on racial/ethnic lines. They're just quicker to slap the flag over top as a band-aid.

What is wrong about blending together as one people, adhereing to common ground that binds us together?

Nothing. Except how do you propose to accomplish this?

[Michael Hardner]

Personally, I think the success of th e"melting pot" model has been grossly overestimated. After all, it's not like the U.S. is free of social divisions on racial/ethnic lines. They're just quicker to slap the flag over top as a band-aid.

If you take slavery out of the equation, it has been successful. The slavery issue is a special problem with the states that has never really been dealt with head on.

And, as I said, melting pot does happen whether or not it's a policy. As far as I can tell, melting-pot is actually the absence of policies to accomodate cultural differences. What do you think ?

Except how do you propose to accomplish this?

A statement of what it means to be part of this collective called Canada might help.

We have a declaration of individual rights, but what about our values ? I visited Western Canada for the first time this summer, and it was clear to me that hard work is one of the values they hold dear. Or we could just decide that a nation is an artificial and outdated construct.

[BubberMiley]

And we're past beyond that skin color thing.

All I can say is I wish. You didn't grow up where I grew up.

If that were true, I would say the multiculturalism policy has been enormously successful. I guess it hasn't done too bad, considering you would even suggest it.

[Black Dog]

If you take slavery out of the equation, it has been successful. The slavery issue is a special problem with the states that has never really been dealt with head on.

But even if you take slavery out of the equation (impossible under the circumstances) the fundamental fact remains that you cannot prevent immigrants from retaining their own culture if they so desire.

And, as I said, melting pot does happen whether or not it's a policy. As far as I can tell, melting-pot is actually the absence of policies to accomodate cultural differences. What do you think ?

I concur. Except I don't think of multicultralism as a real policy either.

A statement of what it means to be part of this collective called Canada might help.

We have a declaration of individual rights, but what about our values ? I visited Western Canada for the first time this summer, and it was clear to me that hard work is one of the values they hold dear. Or we could just decide that a nation is an artificial and outdated construct.

Values becme ingrained into a culture when enough people recognize and pratice them. Western Canadians aren't hard working because they are western Canadians; they are western Canadians because they are hard working and the social and economic climate there encourages and rewards hard work.i guess what I'm saying is I think issues of national identity are completely outside the reach of any policy, declaration or vision statement.

BTW as a lazy man, I don't particularily value hard work, so I'm not sure I'd welcome it's inclusion as a formal part of the Canadian identity.

[Michael Hardner]

But even if you take slavery out of the equation (impossible under the circumstances) the fundamental fact remains that you cannot prevent immigrants from retaining their own culture if they so desire.

You are correct. But there hasn't been a policy to prevent people from retaining their own culture. Melting pot was a cultural norm but did it translate into any policy preventing culture from persisting ? I don't think it did.

Immigrants just don't retain their own culture, when it mixes with other cultures.

Values becme ingrained into a culture when enough people recognize and pratice them. Western Canadians aren't hard working because they are western Canadians; they are western Canadians because they are hard working and the social and economic climate there encourages and rewards hard work.i guess what I'm saying is I think issues of national identity are completely outside the reach of any policy, declaration or vision statement.

You're probably right. The Constitution strikes me, though, as being just part of the equation. It seems to draw lines to protect the individual but doesn't say something positive and unifying to us as a nation.

BTW as a lazy man, I don't particularily value hard work, so I'm not sure I'd welcome it's inclusion as a formal part of the Canadian identity. wink.gif

Plus, you hate freedom right ?

[Black Dog]

You are correct. But there hasn't been a policy to prevent people from retaining their own culture. Melting pot was a cultural norm but did it translate into any policy preventing culture from persisting ? I don't think it did.

Immigrants just don't retain their own culture, when it mixes with other cultures.

I think what we're forgetting is that the United States has at least a hundred years of cultural intermingling on us. Between the slaves, the conquered Mexicans, the early waves of immigrants (which had the opportunity to mingle in large, urban centres) they've been dealing with these tensions a lot longer than us. hell, large scale European immigration wasn't a fact of life in Canda until the 19th Century, really. And non-European immigration didn't start in earnest until after the second world war. I think time is on our side.

[Michael Hardner]

I think what we're forgetting is that the United States has at least a hundred years of cultural intermingling on us. Between the slaves, the conquered Mexicans, the early waves of immigrants (which had the opportunity to mingle in large, urban centres) they've been dealing with these tensions a lot longer than us. hell, large scale European immigration wasn't a fact of life in Canda until the 19th Century, really. And non-European immigration didn't start in earnest until after the second world war. I think time is on our side.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've lived among immigrants, and been an immigrant. What I'm saying about assimilation can be generally applied to cultures, and countries in different time periods. Look at the difference between the French / Quebecois, or differences between the states. Culture changes are like weather patterns moving over the country over decades and decades.

Multiculturalism may prove to be a policy that eases assimilation and pot-melting, but I don't think it can stop it.

[scribblet]

No, Tommy Douglas was an anti semite, he also wrote his thesis on Eugenics for his McMaster's degree in sociology. He published in 1933 and it read like something from Mein Kampf. He also said homosexuals should be incarcerated in asylums.

I'd like to see some proof of the antisemite accusation. As for the homosexuality thing, Douglas' statement that homosexuality was a mental illness was in the context of the criminalization of homosexuality, which he was arguing against. And he never said a thing about locking homosexuals in asylums.

I was referring to this "I wouldn't put too much stock in a man who believed in Eugenics and race suicide theory"

Tommy addressed the issue of homosexuality in a1968 debate where he said that being gay was a mental illness, and that like other mental illnesses its wrong to hurt people with them for having them, and that it should be cured in a caring manner. There is a link here to a video, about the 6 minute mark.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-538-2674/p...y/omnibus/clip3

Don't forget T. Douglas was a Babtist minister in a time when most people where not exactly pro homosexuality.

http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1807

Applying good eugenics doctrine to his chosen land, the Scottish-born Douglas described at length and in painful detail his solution for Canada's economic problems. Canadians must be bred scientifically, he said. People of lesser intelligence or deficient morality – natives, criminals, adulterers are specifically designated – should be sterilized. Homosexuals who persist in their perverse conduct should be incarcerated in insane asylums.

There are lots of other references if you do a search, but so far no link to the actual paper.

Thats a tad off topic, I still believe that multicult. creates divisions and creates suspicions, it also breeds alienation causing groups to live apart and separate from the mainstream and mainstream opportunities. People from other cultures should accomodate to Canadian society and leave any hostilities and discriminations behind them.

[BubberMiley]

I still believe that multicult. creates divisions and creates suspicions, it also breeds alienation causing groups to live apart and separate from the mainstream and mainstream opportunities. People from other cultures should accomodate to Canadian society and leave any hostilities and discriminations behind them.

I'm actually not certain what you mean by multiculturalism in this context. Do you mean federal programs that fund multicultural organizations, ethnic groups keeping to themselves and not partaking in broader Canadian society, or the whole idea of pan-cultural immigration?

[mcqueen625]

Whoever thought it would work must've been inspired by the likes of John Lenon....whose song IMAGINE had become the theme for Liberal-thinkers (and believe it or not, had been voted as the song of the century by CBC), peacekeepers and do-gooders....and irritating busy bodies.

Great to have peace forever more, but it's a reality you'll get only when you're 6 feet under the ground.

But even that is questionable, depending on varying factors by varying individuals who have varying beliefs (religious or philosophical) from varying culture from varying locations all over the world.

So Multi-culturalism. Taking all these varying groups and putting them all together in one locale....free, and actually encouraged to go on practicing their own culture. So everybody do their own thang...perhaps looked kinda promising when these groups comprise only of miniscule minorities. New and marvelling to the novelty this country offers.

Then time passed. Some groups are not so miniscule anymore. And they are no longer just content to practice their own culrure in peace. They start to make demands....changes in the whole system.

Some clashing cultures have brought their own little wars in this country....the bickerings had started....the little violence not yet so alarming in proportion.

What happens now, 50 years from now?

A Canada divided into sections? Muslim turf, Jewish Turf, Sikh Turf, Vietnamese Turf, Tamil turf etc...?

Who rules and own Canada by then?

Who rules and owns Canada then? Canadians.

They may be a mix of Arab-Canadians, Indo-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, French-Canadians, Euro-Canadians; etc.; but they will be Canadian.

Unless we are aboriginal, we all descend from immigrants.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think that Canadian's will be ruling Canada, and your remarks show that already. As long as we allow or encourage Canadians to hyphenate or otherwise qualify their Canadianism based on their eithnic culture Canada will never be harmonious. We should be just calling ourselves Canadian and never mind the hyphenated terms like French Canadian, Indo-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, etc. Ever notice how most Canadians born in Canada or in the U.K. refer to ourselves as simply Canadian, while those from other ethnic backgrounds tend to hypenate themselves, and in many cases expect some kind of special treatment because of their minority status.

If we are going to live in harmony we will all need to drop thew qualifications and just be Canadian.

[mcqueen625]

If someone passes the citizenship test, they're more Canadian than most people born here. The things they need to know to pass that test are historical facts and knowledge that I bet you 90% of the people born here don't know. I have the utmost respect for someone who studies our history and culture to the degree that is needed to come out of the citizenship testing with a pass.

I'm really not interested in boring Canadian history! I hated it when I was in school and wondered when we were taking it what the reason was. It was total crap and boring!

On the other hand I see no reason why even some people born here feel the need to hypenate or qualify their Canadianism. Lately the French seem to feel that they have to stress the fact that they are French. What is it are they insecure?

[mcqueen625]

Theodore Roosevelt

I wouldn't put too much stock in a man who believed in Eugenics and race suicide theory. link

So did Tommy Douglas. Whenever someone wants a reasonable discussion of multicult., the race baiting liberals strike again !

Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, but Official multicult. does just that; it divides people into different tribes, each with their own hearth. While we should recognize individual rights we need not recognize group rights.

While we all should be tolerant and respectful of other beliefs, any Country needs universally shared values and norms to bind it together, without that, there isn't a Country. Today, multicult. in Canada (and in Europe) is challenging 'liberal norms', dividing countries and descending into violence. Promoting official multicult. only promotes division and racial divides, and encourages some groups to believe that they can impose their will on the host country.

Here! Here! That was happening in France and England with some Muslim clerics demanding the adoption of both Muslim traditions and laws, especially as it deals with family law. I read an article on the Canadian Free Press addressing this very subject and they suggested that this type of thing cannot happen in the United States because they have a melting-pot type system of immigration in that people who immigrate to the U.S. are expected to conform with mainstream U.S. society, because their society is NOT going to conform to their's.

[BubberMiley]

As long as we allow or encourage Canadians to hyphenate or otherwise qualify their Canadianism based on their eithnic culture Canada will never be harmonious.

How could you stop them? People define themselves however they want to define themselves. You can't do anything other than complain to them about their use of hyphens--which you're doing, so great. It's not like government can legislate hyphenation.

[August1991]

August:

There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. -Theodore Roosevelt

This wasn't true in Roosevelt's time and it's not true now. If it were, you woldn't have ethnic enclaves, no Chinatowns or Little Italys.

Also worth thinking about is this: if we define Canadian culture (as I mentioned before) as predominately white, Anglo Protestant (with perhaps a sprinkle of Francophone thrown in), you naturaly exclude anyone who doesn't fit the profile. SO how do you expect people to integrate into a culture that, by definition, excludes them?

I agree BD. Jimmy Carter, in Chicago, referred to the natural desire of a Polish neighbourhood to keep its "ethnic purity".

In "Canada", we have Newfoundlanders and Quebecois. And Albertans (or Westerners or whatever) who don't identify with the CBC Toronto "Canada". We have hyphenated Canadians but they are hyphenated by province, not immigration status.

I posted Roosevelt's quote but that doesn't mean I agree with it entirely. Roosevelt said this at a time when the US (and Canada) was receiving the greatest influx of immigrants ever known. Speaking about idealism and "Imagine" and radical, consider this:

But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

To me, that's truly multicultural, or America. That is truly to Imagine. (And imagine Lennon's tribulations to become an American citizen!)

In practical terms, many ordinary newcomers simply want to fit in. They are embarrassed by their accent. Canada's nature makes it easier to be embarrassing. We are a polite people.

I have come to believe that Canada works best when Canadians are not forced to choose between their allegiance to region, and an Ottawa bureaucracy.

In the context of this thread, the following link seems appropriate:

Cultural and moral relativists sap our sense of moral outrage by claiming that human rights are a Western invention. Men who abuse women rarely fail to use the vocabulary the relativists have provided them. They claim the right to adhere to an alternative set of values - an "Asian," "African" or "Islamic" approach to human rights.

This mind-set needs to be broken. A culture that carves the genitals of young girls, hobbles their minds and justifies their physical oppression is not equal to a culture that believes women have the same rights as men.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

If multiculturalism is another way of saying "Live and let live", then I have no problem with multiculturalism. But if multiculturalism means a young woman cannot choose freely her partner, then I disagree.

[gerryhatrick]

WOW! See Bubber and Gerry jump into attack and insult mode pronto! Guns blazing. Right on cue.

You probably automatically interpret my topic as meaning...."NO MORE IMMIGRANTS".

Get a grip, guys.

Yeah, wow huh?

Actually I interpreted it as "DITCH ALL YOUR CULTURAL TRADITIONS OR GO HOME!!"

It's a vile, intollerant web you weave.

[BubberMiley]

But if multiculturalism means a young woman cannot choose freely her partner, then I disagree.

I don't think there's any risk in Canada of a woman being legally obliged to marry someone she doesn't want to.

[August1991]

But if multiculturalism means a young woman cannot choose freely her partner, then I disagree.

I don't think there's any risk in Canada of a woman being legally obliged to marry someone she doesn't want to.

Bubbler, why do you add the adverb "legally" to your post?

Re-read (re-post) your phrase without the adverb.

[BubberMiley]

But if multiculturalism means a young woman cannot choose freely her partner, then I disagree.

I don't think there's any risk in Canada of a woman being legally obliged to marry someone she doesn't want to.

Bubbler, why do you add the adverb "legally" to your post?

Re-read (re-post) your phrase without the adverb.

What did you mean by "cannot" if not legally cannot? Morally cannot? Cannot without being scolded by their parents? I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't see any other context than a legal one when dealing with societal issues.

BTW, I kind of prefer the name Bubbler. I wonder if I can change it.

[gerryhatrick]

But if multiculturalism means a young woman cannot choose freely her partner, then I disagree.

I don't think there's any risk in Canada of a woman being legally obliged to marry someone she doesn't want to.

Bubbler, why do you add the adverb "legally" to your post?

Re-read (re-post) your phrase without the adverb.

What did you mean by "cannot" if not legally cannot? Morally cannot? Cannot without being scolded by their parents? I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't see any other context than a legal one when dealing with societal issues.

BTW, I kind of prefer the name Bubbler. I wonder if I can change it.

Yes, what's "cannot"? What betsy and the other culture bashers are talking about here is their disgust with arranged marriage. It still goes on, and there's pressure from parents to follow through SOMETIMES but in the end we're a nation of laws and people are free to choose.

And I think that October1984 guy is a bad speller.