What does it mean to be Canadian?

[lictor616]

My mistake, I misquoted your hyperbole...

Speaking of lying....see quote above.

ruined is correct though... terminally indebted, bankrupt... choose your word.

[lily]

ruined is correct though... terminally indebted, bankrupt... choose your word.

He did... "failed".

[Machjo]

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]

Sorry to break this to you, but the definition of 'Canadian' is a legal definition to me.

By the way, I had an interesting conversation today. I'd gone to the Assembly of First Nations headquarters today (there are advantages to living in Ottawa) to get some information on a particular topic. Anyway, while we were taling, she'd comented at how the current Conservative government is trying to pressure the First Nations to accept Canadian citizenship, but that the First Nations will never accept it.

Was I surprised by this statement? In part. I was surprised at how so directly she worded it, not holding back any words or trying to soften it up a little. I wasn't surprised at the comment per se seince, even though I don't have any close First Nations friends anymore, I used to, and had heard such comments before, just not so directly from a member of the SFN.

Honestly, I still don't know exactly what she meant, since I was there for another matter and so didn't push this particular matter (and she'd mentioned she was busy too).

Clearly, when the original people to whom this land belonged reject Canadian citizenship, it certainly raises questions about whether being Canadian really is nothing more than a legal definition foisted upon us.

I have to say though that I'd be very curious to see the stats on this. What percentage of Canada's First Nations continue today to deny reject Canadian citizenship. I'd love to see the stats on that.

[Machjo]

IMO a Canadian is someone who feels more at home in Canada than in their ancestral land.

Wow, now that's a real mind-twister when we consider that many First Nations reject Canadian citizenship.

[g_bambino]

Sorry to break this to you, but the definition of 'Canadian' is a legal definition to me.

Clearly, when the original people to whom this land belonged reject Canadian citizenship, it certainly raises questions about whether being Canadian really is nothing more than a legal definition foisted upon us.

No need to apologize; it's merely your opinion; one I still think is far too narrow in scope. Even the FNs rejection of Canadian citizenship doesn't alter my view; they merely don't want to be placed in a certain legal classification. That means little vis-a-vis their nationality.

[benny]

No need to apologize; it's merely your opinion; one I still think is far too narrow in scope. Even the FNs rejection of Canadian citizenship doesn't alter my view; they merely don't want to be placed in a certain legal classification. That means little vis-a-vis their nationality.

It is not a matter of opinion that Canadian is a twice stolen name though: the first time, from the natives (Kanata) and the second time from the Canadiens.

[Machjo]

And let's face it, as far as nations are concerned, Caanda is still a baby in diapers with lots of development to go through before it could truly have a fully coherent culture, perhaps even another few generations at least, if it survives that far.

[Smallc]

if it survives that far.

Oh yes, because there are currently so many great threats to this country.

[lictor616]

And let's face it, as far as nations are concerned, Caanda is still a baby in diapers with lots of development to go through before it could truly have a fully coherent culture, perhaps even another few generations at least, if it survives that far.

Well it had a far more "coherent" culture before it made multiculturalism its national religion. Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France. Canada was a continuation of Western Civilization, an outpost of Europe- and was European in customs, European in culture and European in human stock.

[lily]

Well it had a far more "coherent" culture before it made multiculturalism its national religion. Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France. Canada was a continuation of Western Civilization, an outpost of Europe- and was European in customs, European in culture and European in human stock.

And therein lies the problem, for people such as you. You want a "western" culture, not the Asians and other "coloured folk" who have been immigrating here since... well, since before multiculturalism was made |a national religion".

My ancestors didn't come from either England or France. *gasp*

[benny]

Oh yes, because there are currently so many great threats to this country.

Quebec suffices.

[Machjo]

Well it had a far more "coherent" culture before it made multiculturalism its national religion. Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France. Canada was a continuation of Western Civilization, an outpost of Europe- and was European in customs, European in culture and European in human stock.

And the First nations were just a quaint discovery, right?

[benny]

And the First nations were just a quaint discovery, right?

The First nations were Europeans' collaborators and enemies.

[lictor616]

And therein lies the problem, for people such as you. You want a "western" culture, not the Asians and other "coloured folk" who have been immigrating here since... well, since before multiculturalism was made |a national religion".

My ancestors didn't come from either England or France. *gasp*

yes yes... "colored folk" what a cheeky misrepresentation.

My ancestors come from historically disputed territory between France and Germany (Alsace), but I do trace back my ancestry to Germany... My point is that there use to be only two designations of Canadians, French Canadian, and Canadian- there was no room for hyphenated Canadians (save perhaps french canadians). It wasn't that we didn't want non French or English people on the land, it was just that we wanted people to be CANADIAN, as assimilated in that sense as possible.

We understood that Religion, culture, and language can be sources of conflict EVEN if they do not reflect biological differences. So we tried to unify a culture as much as possible in order to have group cohesion and a sense of kinship (real kinship: not the artificial one of today).

What we've done today is depart from that rational and tried method of statecraft (of aiming for group homogeneity and hence cohesiveness) and replaced it with the baseless assumption that we can multiply the sources of tensions in our society (i.e. by increasing "diversity") and be stronger for it. In other words we decided to dice our future on a whim that we can make a viable society by increasing the sources of log rolling weaknesses within it.

Just look at the innumerable weaknesses diversity is already causing.

[lily]

Yes, that's nice and all, but what you actually said was:

"Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France."

Your real problem seems to be that you would prefer Canada be this arm of Europe, with no Asians, Africans, etc. Why? Because they're different? They don't look like us or think like us?

That's ridiculous.

[benny]

We understood that Religion, culture, and language can be sources of conflict EVEN if they do not reflect biological differences.

Christianity is aggressively universal in scope.

[lictor616]

Yes, that's nice and all, but what you actually said was:

"Canadians knew who they were then... Either European derived offshoots of England or France."

Your real problem seems to be that you would prefer Canada be this arm of Europe, with no Asians, Africans, etc. Why? Because they're different? They don't look like us or think like us?

That's ridiculous.

No, my point is that Canada is a better, more viable and stable country if it is homogeneous and non-diverse. The more Canada departs from a European people, the less it will resemble Europe... and the less agreeable it will be to live in. Adding people from the third world... makes us more like... well: the third world.

And I don't see this a desirable outcome.

As far as this being "ridiculous": could you explain what you mean by that?

[lily]

Ridiculous, asinine, narrow-minded... grab a thesaurus and have at 'er.

You want Canada to be a little Europe, on its own continent. You want us all to look alike and think alike... but you're skating around actually stating what that means, exactly. Who are we supposed to look and think like... you? Me? Some random European of your choosing?

Our ancesters all left Europe for a reason, lictor. YOu might want to think onthat a moment, before you decide to recreate that Europe here.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, my point is that Canada is a better, more viable and stable country if it is homogeneous and non-diverse. The more Canada departs from a European people, the less it will resemble Europe... and the less agreeable it will be to live in. Adding people from the third world... makes us more like... well: the third world.

But it still won't "resemble" Europe...and never did.

[benny]

No, my point is that Canada is a better, more viable and stable country if it is homogeneous and non-diverse. The more Canada departs from a European people, the less it will resemble Europe... and the less agreeable it will be to live in. Adding people from the third world... makes us more like... well: the third world.

And I don't see this a desirable outcome.

As far as this being "ridiculous": could you explain what you mean by that?

It is ridiculous because wanting to be confortable is not a moral imperative at all.

[M.Dancer]

But it still won't "resemble" Europe...and never did.

And thank god....been to Europe....nice place to visit but I prefer modern plumbing.

[lictor616]

Ridiculous, asinine, narrow-minded... grab a thesaurus and have at 'er.

You want Canada to be a little Europe, on its own continent. You want us all to look alike and think alike... but you're skating around actually stating what that means, exactly. Who are we supposed to look and think like... you? Me? Some random European of your choosing?

Our ancesters all left Europe for a reason, lictor. YOu might want to think onthat a moment, before you decide to recreate that Europe here.

"Ridiculous, asinine"... whatever... please show me HOW it is so... don't simply assert it without qualifications or explanations.

As far as think and look alike... no. We wouldn't be as "diverse" in the LOG ROLLING sense (i.e. we wouldn't have large swaths of our population who want Sharia courts, legalized FGM, or kirpan daggers in schoolyards, the legalization of polygamy etc). Does that mean that without people from africa and the middle east we're all "automatons" who are all to the tenth decimal the same? no!

Japan is "undiverse", yet it doesn't mean that it is a "shut-in" and monotone place to be... in fact there are endless ways to be Japanese.

You're trying to make it sound like we'd be cyborgs or something- if it weren't for our racial diversity.

I,m not saying Europe is a flawless entity either, merely that in comparative standards, the Western World allows for the best scope for freedom and progress (upward ascent), the values of the west should be the values we strive for.

[lily]

"Ridiculous, asinine"... whatever... please show me HOW it is so... don't simply assert it without qualifications or explanations.

As far as think and look alike... no. We wouldn't be as "diverse" in the LOG ROLLING sense (i.e. we wouldn't have large swaths of our population who want Sharia courts, legalized FGM, or kirpan daggers in schoolyards, the legalization of polygamy etc). Does that mean that without people from africa and the middle east we're all "automatons" who are all to the tenth decimal the same? no!

Japan is "undiverse", yet it doesn't mean that it is a "shut-in" and monotone place to be... in fact there are endless ways to be Japanese.

You're trying to make it sound like we'd be cyborgs or something- if it weren't for our racial diversity.

I,m not saying Europe is a flawless entity either, merely that in comparative standards, the Western World allows for the best scope for freedom and progress (upward ascent), the values of the west should be the values we strive for.

I really don't get the "log rolling" analogy. What does birling have to do with this?

I wasn't aware that there were large swaths of the population who wanted polygamy, or even kirpans in schoolyards. I don't know what FGM is so I can't comment. Sharia too has only a few people advocating it. Relatively speaking.

I still want you to explain the "looking/thinking alike" thing. You seem to be bouncing all over that one.

[lictor616]

And thank god....been to Europe....nice place to visit but I prefer modern plumbing.

Yeah... between Neuschwanstein Castle, the excellently run cities of Europe, the sheer beauty and incomparable glamor of Bern, Brussels, Milan etc, the art, the museums...

and a good old north american home depot "cranada" porcelain toilet... you pick the crapper anyday right Dancer? riiight.

no wonder you like diversity so much...

[lily]

Yeah... between Neuschwanstein Castle, the excellently run cities of Europe, the sheer beauty and incomparable glamor of Bern, Brussels, Milan etc, the art, the museums...

and a good old north american home depot "cranada" porcelain toilet... you pick the crapper anyday right Dancer? riiight.

no wonder you like diversity so much...

Ah yes. Neuschwanstein castle. Built by a king who drowned "under mysterious circumstances".

Even unfinished it's gorgeous, but climbing all the way up that hill to see it, then climbing up all those stairs to the top floor, one can't help but think of allthe poor peasants who worked so hard to bring such beauty to a few wealthy folk.