What does it mean to be Canadian?

[Machjo]

What does it mean to be a Canadian?

It means having Canadian citizenship. What more should it mean? Should we impose a particular ethnic, cultural, ideological, religious, or other definition to it? You could be a serial killer and might deserve capital punishment, but if you have Canadian citizenship, you're still a Canadian by definition.

[Machjo]

What does it mean to be a Canadian? I am curious to hear your responses on this debate.

What is the fine line between maintaining a pluralist, multicultural society all while preserving, and promoting a national Canadian identity?

And who exactly is to define and impose this Canadian national identity and then dictate that those who refuse to adhere by this official identity is to be dismissed as 'non-Canadian' for refusing to conform?

We form a civil, liberal and democratic society, one which respects the individual, their beliefs, their customs, and we must strive to preserve this at all costs.

Civil? How exactly would we preserve or promote civility? Through the education system? I could agree with that.

Liberal? Depends on hat you mean by 'liberal'. We could take 'liberal' to the extreme to mean that we can treat whoever we want however we want, which then conflicts with 'civil'. So you'd need to more clearly define liberal' before I could agree with that. And going back to civil, you might need to define that too. To the extreme, it could mean having to be on ceremony all the time.

And what about democratic? At face value, it's the will of the majority. In the past, the majority attempted the cultural genocide of the First Nations and Inuit, and interned Japanese Canadians in WWII. Do we accept such abuses of democracy, or do we worship democracy as infallible? Is there any time when the majority might be so wrong that the minority would be in the right to rise up and even take up arms against it, even if it is undemocratic in the sense that it conflicts with the democratic will of the majority to oppress the minority? Or should we support a state with some restrictions to democracy to protect the minority from the potential tyrany of the majority?

But en bref, I believe that promoting a national Canadian Identity should take precedence in societal life, whereas the multicultural aspect should be more a private matter, as long as it respects the rule of law, and almost always does.

Again, who will define this Canadian identity? Anglophones, Francophones, Catholics, First Nations, Inuit, who? You?

While diversity is a trait to be cherished, if we go too far in accommodating special interest groups, be it Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, and an amalgam of other "colourful" religious/political sects, we risk segregating them, dividing them into politicized factions who will only view the other as an enemy, and in turn, leading to the dissolution of a peaceful, civil society. Afterall, we all constitute one single race, so why encourage artificial “cultural” boundaries between us, as they only seek to promote distrust and disunity.

But then again, wouldn't trying to impose a monolithic community likely lead to a culture war between English-Canadians, French-Canadians, and Aboriginal Canadians as each side tries to have its say in how the monoculture is to be defined? Don't get me wrong. I recognize the value in establishing a common culture existing hand-in-hand with biculturalism. The question is, which political-linguistic-religious-ethnic community will be given the privilege to impose its definition of this culutre, or do we create a new interculture? But if we create a new intercullture acceptable to French-Canadians, Aboriginals, etc., would the majority Canadians of Anglo-saxon cultural influence accept it?

As Canadians, we find multiculturalism easy to accept, since we were founded upon the merger of two rather distinct, and often antagonized societies, but that (sorry, I’m a staunch federalist who loves Quebec) only makes us better.

Multi-culturalism and two founding nations? If it's multicultural, then certainly we have more than two founding nations? Where are Canada's Aboriginals in this picture? And if it's two founding nations, then would that not be bi-cultural and not multi-cultural? We need to clarify these pointes first. Right now, the official policy is multi-culturalism expressed through bilingualism, the bilingualism being founded on the two most powerful ethnic identities of the country, and the multi-culturalism being an attempt to pacify the rest.

For proof, we universally seem to be the most successful national in terms of immigration; capable of transforming what many other nations accept hesitantly, into a strategic advantage on both the political, societal, intellectual and economic fronts. And as an immigrant myself, I am incredibly thankful.

The best? I don't know about that. Maybe, maybe not, but it is a very subjective comment open to interpretation. But we have done a reasonably good job of it overall compared to many other nations. I do agree that a common culture would help. The problem is agreeing on one. It would have been much easier to preserve the already-established national culture, but since one has never existed, it's not a matter of preserving one, but of creating one, and that opens awhole new can of worms, including what this new culture would look like. Let's face it, a person in La Malbaie has a very different view of the world than one in Kitchener, as I'm sure is the case with an Inuit in Nunavut. So whose version of the Canadian identity should prevail?

[Machjo]

Another such thread. I might as well take the plunge while this is still fresh and unencumbered.

Someone can correct me but I think "multiculturalism" grew out of Trudeau's desire to make the federal public service bilingual. Trudeau's bilingualism was wrongly interpreted (and is still wrongly interpreted) to imply that Canada is a "bilingual country".

So anyway, one criticsm of this bilingualism, particularly from Western Canada, was to point out that Canada was not merely "two nations" of English and French but rather a broad mix of people - many of whom were neither of French nor English origin.

[Keep in mind that this was in the early 1970s. Central/Eastern Canada was largely British/French-Canadian. Western Canada had a large number of Eastern Europeans. I grossly generalize.]

To make his bilingual policies palatable, Trudeau invented "multiculturalism" as a way of saying that we have two official languages but many "official" cultures. I recall Marc Lalonde saying that one third of Canadians were from Britain, one third from France and one third from "somewhere else".

What does all this mean?

There is no single Canadian identity because many Canadians are unilingual but don't speak the same language.

I'm not certain multiculturalism means anything more than interesting costumes and food during summer festivals. It was originally intended as a means to get English Canadians to accept the French Canadians who live in their midst.

The broader issue of what English-Canada is still seems elusive. I wouldn't look to the CBC or the Liberal Party of Canada for a good answer.

Good post overall.

[Machjo]

What it means to be Canadian: (to me)

saving money

working hard

waving to your neighbours

knowing hockey

going to the lake on the weekend

drinking clameyes

asking questions and listening

...

I'm useless at hockey, don't often go to the lake on the weekend, and don't even know what cleyames is. So when am I to be deported, and whereto?

[Machjo]

Nor Conservatives, as it was Brian M. and the P.C.'s who made multiculturalism a law. I don't think any party has a handle on the question.

True enough.

[Machjo]

Actually, I'll try by citing a recent example at my school.

There was a person who was amongst the top 25 finalists for the 2007 version of "Canada's Next Great Prime minister". Anyhow, during a student council meeting, she objected to singing the national anthem on the grounds that terms like "God keep our land" were offensive to her, seeing as she is an atheist.

While I TOO am an atheo-agnostic but I have never once found such a term offensive, nor have I even dreamed of refusing to sing it. I realize that in both English and French Canada, Christian principles were influential in the founding of this nation, and while only briefly, provide us with a reminder of this nations history.

How would the people on this site gauge this as a compromise? And while it would be wrong to force anyone to sing the anthem, I also do find it rather disrespectful to omit our history!

She was offended because the English version was too religious? How about the French reference to Canada carrying the Cross?

[g_bambino]

She was offended because the English version was too religious? How about the French reference to Canada carrying the Cross?

Oh, come now, that's perfectly okay! Quaint minority culture, and all that. You know, the same reason why the proud tradition of seal hunting by smiling, plump-cheeked Inuit in fur hoods turns into the butchering of innocent, cow-eyed babies as soon as it's a white man doing it.

[g_bambino]

What does it mean to be a Canadian?

It means having Canadian citizenship... if you have Canadian citizenship, you're still a Canadian by definition.

Surely it's not true that our national identity is nothing more than a legal classification. Even the laws themselves leave room for such variations as nationals, permanent residents, and subjects of the Queen. I've often heard in discussions about the monarchy this ridiculous claim that the Queen is a foreigner. Why? Because she doesn't have Canadian citizenship. Please; she isn't legally a British citizen or national either.

Since debating those matters, and doing the associated research, I've come to realise that the concept of citizenship has been overblown over the past 50 years. Nationality equals only citizenship is a concept I find to be narrow, exclusive, and impersonal, a kind of automated membership that denies many the ability to call themselves a part of the club even if they want to. And, rather than improving the cohesiveness of the membership by limiting it in this way, the value of admittance has been cheapened by its becoming nothing more than a dehumanised process of forms, files, and stamps.

Perhaps it's that nationality used to be something granted by your peers; you became a Canadian when you were accepted into the fold, rather than when you got a piece of paper after merely completing a process concocted by lawyers. Bleh.

_[copyedited]

Edited July 9, 2009 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Being Canadian means trying to figure out what it means to be Canadian.

[bush_cheney2004]

Being Canadian means trying to figure out what it means to be Canadian.

[Remiel]

Perhaps it's that nationality used to be something granted by your peers; you became a Canadian when you were accepted into the fold, rather than when you got a piece of paper after merely completing a process concocted by lawyers. Bleh.

_[copyedited]

I am not sure that "being accepted into the fold" in literal terms is always necessary or even sufficient, however. There have been times when people who wanted to make a life here were not really accepted into the fold (either by rejection or lack of a large enough community to accept them), yet we would not do them the injustice of denying thems a Canadian identity (i.e. Japanese Canadians during World War II, or other immigrants that created their own communities (i.e. fishing villages in Newfoundland or farmers during the settlement of the prairies)).

I am not really sure you can say there are any hard, fast rules if you want to take the legal papers portion out of it. Some people are Canadian because they were born Canadian, some people are Canadian because they identify as Canadian or want to identify as Canadian, and some people are Canadian because we have sort of brought them into the fold, whether they eventually become citizens or not (like Ronnie Hawkins, perhaps, whom I think most people would treat as they would any other fellow Canadian).

[lily]

Being Canadian means I apologize when someone bumps into me.

Seriously... why is this even an issue? We're a huge country with a very small population. There is no one definition of "Canadian" that fits us all. The long list a page or so back talked about "cottage country". We don't have that inthe west - I think that's an Ontario thing.

We're a young country made up of immigrants who all brought various traditions with them. We celebrate those customs publicly and privately. It's this diversity that I love about Canada. I don't fret about what the world thinks when they think about Canada.

[lictor616]

Being Canadian means I apologize when someone bumps into me.

Seriously... why is this even an issue? We're a huge country with a very small population. There is no one definition of "Canadian" that fits us all. The long list a page or so back talked about "cottage country". We don't have that inthe west - I think that's an Ontario thing.

We're a young country made up of immigrants who all brought various traditions with them. We celebrate those customs publicly and privately. It's this diversity that I love about Canada. I don't fret about what the world thinks when they think about Canada.

why is this an issue?

Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. Leftists may not be able to understands that, and the MSM with its propaganda, will try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. We Canadians should once again strive for a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality.

People who live in a homogeneous society, a society constituted of similar people who interact with each other regularly, that is to say: look similar, have similar values and ways of viewing the world around them, have similar reactions and attitudes (i.e.: of similar ethnicity, culture, religion in other words the very OPPOSITE of diversity)- people in a homogeneous state tend to bond with the people around them. They tend to feel a sense of commonality, a sense of rootedness a SENSE of community. They tend to feel a sense of comfort and more importantly: security from having people like them around them. They will seek the approval of the people with whom they have bonded. They feel a sense of responsibility and protectiveness toward these people.

Take away the homogeneity, the "identity" of a people and you greatly reduce the possibility of social cohesion. Instead of a nation or community, you merely have a mass of ROOTLESS individuals, and each of those individuals is thinking, at least at a subconscious level, "It's every man for himself." Without homogeneity you loose all sense of a common set of shared values and the result is almost always a rise in antisocial behavior... for instance schoolyard shootings will increase while social bondage will decrease. Neurotic and psychotic behavior goes way up too.

Our country should possessed a strong sense of identity and a sense of responsibility to the future, without this indispensible faculty, they have no prospects for a viable future.

No country is morally healthy without being imbued with a strong sense of its own identity.

Edited July 13, 2009 by lictor616

[Smallc]

We don't have that inthe west

Hey, hey speak for yourself.

[M.Dancer]

why is this an issue?

Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. Leftists may not be able to understands that, and the MSM with its propaganda, will try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. We Canadians should once again strive for a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality.

People who live in a homogeneous society, a society constituted of similar people who interact with each other regularly, that is to say: look similar, have similar values and ways of viewing the world around them, have similar reactions and attitudes (i.e.: of similar ethnicity, culture, religion in other words the very OPPOSITE of diversity)- people in a homogeneous state tend to bond with the people around them. They tend to feel a sense of commonality, a sense of rootedness a SENSE of community. They tend to feel a sense of comfort and more importantly: security from having people like them around them. They will seek the approval of the people with whom they have bonded. They feel a sense of responsibility and protectiveness toward these people.

Take away the homogeneity, the "identity" of a people and you greatly reduce the possibility of social cohesion. Instead of a nation or community, you merely have a mass of ROOTLESS individuals, and each of those individuals is thinking, at least at a subconscious level, "It's every man for himself." Without homogeneity you loose all sense of a common set of shared values and the result is almost always a rise in antisocial behavior... for instance schoolyard shootings will increase while social bondage will decrease. Neurotic and psychotic behavior goes way up too.

Our country should possessed a strong sense of identity and a sense of responsibility to the future, without this indispensible faculty, they have no prospects for a viable future.

No country is morally healthy without being imbued with a strong sense of its own identity.

Non sense. All the negatives that you ascribe to diversity are equally present in homogenous societies. Only a severe lack of history can force you to assume otherwise.

Edited July 13, 2009 by M.Dancer

[lily]

why is this an issue?

Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. Leftists may not be able to understands that, and the MSM with its propaganda, will try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. We Canadians should once again strive for a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality.

People who live in a homogeneous society, a society constituted of similar people who interact with each other regularly, that is to say: look similar, have similar values and ways of viewing the world around them, have similar reactions and attitudes (i.e.: of similar ethnicity, culture, religion in other words the very OPPOSITE of diversity)- people in a homogeneous state tend to bond with the people around them. They tend to feel a sense of commonality, a sense of rootedness a SENSE of community. They tend to feel a sense of comfort and more importantly: security from having people like them around them. They will seek the approval of the people with whom they have bonded. They feel a sense of responsibility and protectiveness toward these people.

Take away the homogeneity, the "identity" of a people and you greatly reduce the possibility of social cohesion. Instead of a nation or community, you merely have a mass of ROOTLESS individuals, and each of those individuals is thinking, at least at a subconscious level, "It's every man for himself." Without homogeneity you loose all sense of a common set of shared values and the result is almost always a rise in antisocial behavior... for instance schoolyard shootings will increase while social bondage will decrease. Neurotic and psychotic behavior goes way up too.

Our country should possessed a strong sense of identity and a sense of responsibility to the future, without this indispensible faculty, they have no prospects for a viable future.

No country is morally healthy without being imbued with a strong sense of its own identity.

Wow. Just... wow. Do you really believe all that? And do you speak for all the "rightists"? Because if so, I'm proud to be a leftist who embraces diversity.

Order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike... gawd how boring. And then you equate it to morals?

Again.... wow.

[lictor616]

Non sense. All the negatives that you ascribe to diversity are equally present in homogenous societies. Only a severe lack of history can force you to assume otherwise.

Would you care showing how this is so? How do you gauge that diverse societies are as cohesive as homogeneous ones?

Edited July 13, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Wow. Just... wow. Do you really believe all that? And do you speak for all the "rightists"? Because if so, I'm proud to be a leftist who embraces diversity.

Order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike... gawd how boring. And then you equate it to morals?

Again.... wow.

Why do you "embrace diversity"? I know TV tells you to do this unthinkingly, but I trust you don't do everything TV tells you like a lemming, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, so please: show me your reasoning: could you list specifically the CONCRETE and REAL strengths brought to us by our diversity? And please do not say only ethnic restaurants....

Tell me about the real strengths our country would not have if it were not for diversity.

and please come up with a better reason then the terminally flawed and cynically shallow "white people are boring" nonsense. Do you really need Tamils and Somali refugees to keep things interesting in your life?

Edited July 13, 2009 by lictor616

[g_bambino]

and please come up with a better reason then the terminally flawed and cynically shallow "white people are boring" nonsense.

Nice straw-man. Nobody but you said "white people are boring".

[lily]

Why do you "embrace diversity"? I know TV tells you to do this unthinkingly, but I trust you don't do everything TV tells you like a lemming, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, so please: show me your reasoning: could you list specifically the CONCRETE and REAL strengths brought to us by our diversity? And please do not say only ethnic restaurants....

Tell me about the real strengths our country would not have if it were not for diversity.

and please come up with a better reason then the terminally flawed and cynically shallow "white people are boring" nonsense. Do you really need Tamils and Somali refugees to keep things interesting in your life?

Again... wow.

Did I say "white people are boring"? I don't think so. I believe what I said was more along the lines of "order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike" is boring.

What strengths are brought by looking alike and thinking alike? Is that a strength or just you liking your comfort zone?

We're a country of immigrants, so who are we all supposed to look and think like, anyway? Your people? Mine? Someone else's?

[g_bambino]

I am not sure that "being accepted into the fold" in literal terms is always necessary or even sufficient... I am not really sure you can say there are any hard, fast rules if you want to take the legal papers portion out of it.

Indeed; whether or not I got it across in my words, that was the point I was trying to make: nationality is not, or should not, be defined by solely one factor (the law, as Machjo said, for instance).

[lictor616]

Nice straw-man. Nobody but you said "white people are boring".

the quote was "Order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike... gawd how boring."

Of course the topic is diversity (racial and otherwise), by "looking alike" is interpretable as (being of the same race/ethnicity), everyone knows what is meant by that sentence, you can pretend to read something other in it... but

[M.Dancer]

Would you care showing how this is so? How do you gauge that diverse societies are as cohesive as homogeneous ones?

Grab a history book and start with the peloponnesian war and don't stop till you have half a brain.

Sheesh....our biggest failing as a society is our high schools failing to teach and instead producing slack jawed skin headed neo-clowns

[lily]

the quote was "Order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike... gawd how boring."

Of course the topic is diversity (racial and otherwise), by "looking alike" is interpretable as (being of the same race/ethnicity), everyone knows what is meant by that sentence, you can pretend to read something other in it... but

Everyone knows what is meant....

You're assuming that I'm white, right? And you're also assuming that my colour makes a difference... right?

[lictor616]

Again... wow.

Did I say "white people are boring"? I don't think so. I believe what I said was more along the lines of "order and homogeneity, a society where we all look alike and think alike" is boring.

What strengths are brought by looking alike and thinking alike? Is that a strength or just you liking your comfort zone?

We're a country of immigrants, so who are we all supposed to look and think like, anyway? Your people? Mine? Someone else's?

What do you mean by "look alike"? specifically

i asked you a rather straightforward question: to list the SPECIFIC CONCRETE STRENGTHS WE WOULD NOT HAVE IF IT WERE NOT FOR DIVERSITY (diversity of the kind we are asked to celebrate: i.e. RACIAL/ETHNIC diversity)