Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

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.

Basically turn the world into something resembling the EU with the UN - easy peasy AFAIC and there's little to no good excuse why we shouldn't be so far down this road already that we'd be thinking about a United Planets, headquartered in the asteroid belt perhaps.

Whatever the excuses they're probably as petty and venal as the pissant countries governments and peoples all whining away about their utmost importance in the scheme of things.  Itsy bitsy teeny weeny thinking on a grand scale.

Speaking of asteroids we could stand one upside the head just to smarten us up a little.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unified way is the American Hegenomy, everybody is American now, America is the global monoculture.

The UN is an American institution.  The EU is an American institution, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, NYSE, NASDAQ, FTSE, OAS, GCC, FVEY, NATO, ASEAN, RIMPAC . . .

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 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". 

For emphasis, "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". "

How is Canada so uniquely discriminating compared to any other state? What other country lacks this problem?

If blaming immigrants as 'not integrating' is unusually true and a bad thing regarding immigrants, should this behavior AMONG default citizens not also be considered 'bad'? That is, do you imply that we treat the immigrant any different than our own regardless? 

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Reich der Freiheit regiert die wellen, um die welt zu regieren.

König Dollar ist Aszendent.

Ruhm, Ruhm Halleluja!

Es wird alle Sklaven überall befreien.

Marktkräfte.

Manifestes Schicksal ist Schicksal.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How is Canada so uniquely discriminating compared to any other state? What other country lacks this problem?

It's not unique, but it is particularly bad in Canada because of the Multicultural Mosaic doctrine.

Obviously in America there is nativism, but as an immigrant you can defeat that by embracing Americanism and the Americans will accept you.

Problem for immigrants coming to Canada; there is no such thing as Canadianism, Canadians themselves are anti-Canadian, Canada is a fake country without any central narrative, so there's nothing the immigrants can ever embrace which will satisfy the priggish passive aggressive Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed with my South Asian acquaintances of late, is that they don't give a shit what Canadians think anymore.

First off, India is rising, becoming a regional superpower, so they are feeling the pride of it.

Second, there are so many of them here and they are so politically powerful, they're not scared of what Canadians think about anything, they see Canadians as their inferiors.

Back in the day, people came here meekly, hoping to fit in, now they are coming here with their own power and Canadians ain't gonna do anything to stop them and they know it.

Canadians are the ones who are meek, India is the empire now.  One Sikh buddy of mine says; we are taking over, Ontario will be Punjab soon enough.

Booyaka. 

 

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not unique, but it is particularly bad in Canada because of the Multicultural Mosaic doctrine.

 

I agree with you on this. My question is to dialamah's or to others perceiving an anti-immigrant sentiment as being unusually unfair, is to whether we do not already do this of ourselves? If we do, then the immigrant is not being treated exceptionally bad compared to how we treat each other. As such, the bias would then NOT be about immigration but to something internal, like that Multicultural doctrine. If we are somehow more abusively discriminating against the immigrant here in Canada (versus our own) as some normal "tradition", then what ideal country by contrast does not do this?

 

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Obviously in America there is nativism, but as an immigrant you can defeat that by embracing Americanism and the Americans will accept you.

Problem for immigrants coming to Canada; there is no such thing as Canadianism, Canadians themselves are anti-Canadian, Canada is a fake country without any central narrative, so there's nothing the immigrants can ever embrace which will satisfy the priggish passive aggressive Canadians.

I don't think positing 'pride' in ourselves as the U.S. may do better solves the problem. I agree that our historical origins actually have fault. Those redesigning the Constitution 1982 actually entrenched something presumedly 'proud (or 'pride-worthy') by the actual originators regardless of their faults. But this was a selective bias by those (like the Trudeau's) who have literal family links to the specific historical relationships of their own idea of what 'Canada' means.

I think they are like children who have fond memories of going to the lake with their cousins and can't accept that their 'parents' infighting among the diverse intermarriages from distinct English/French  or Catholic/Anglican  philosophies clash. Given the power to interfere with their parent's faults, they've just formulated a Constitution that at least conserves their OWN family's unique interests without sufficient justification on how this rationale affects others outside their OWN joint clans. As such, PRIDE itself proves to only enhance the problem because it still posits STEREOTYPES. While attempting to advance positive associations to their own groups is rational from a self-centered perspective, it is still impositional to expect all others to accentuate the positive while ignoring the negatives. 

Thus 'pride' IS the problem. Presuming it is relatively good to have positive stereotypes of outsiders towards you, this cannot logically occur without accepting the 'negative' ones also. Nature operates like physics: For every action, an equal and opposite reaction exists. Similarly, for every demanded 'positive' some group expects outsiders to accept of them as a whole, how can it be appropriate to expect others to assign a positive stereotype without the negative ones when the problem is actually STEREOTYPING at all? 

When an immigrant (as with anyone) demands a proud interpretation of others about themsleves AS IF THEY ARE ONE KIND OF PEOPLE, then they are setting themselves up FOR requring the negative associations to ride along with them. So, for instance, if one coming in presents themselves as say, "Saudi Muslims" with pride, they are asserting they believe in their segregated interests if they want to hold onto some posited stereotype but are hypocritical if they demand the negatives be ignored. 

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see immigrants being treated badly, people say shit on the internet, but I don't see them saying much to peoples faces.

My immigrant friends, which includes many South Asians? Nobody messes with them.

What, some guy think he's gonna roll in from butt f*ck Alberta and mess with the Top Mali's or the Sikhs?

They will kill him.  These immigrants take no shit from anybody in Canada, nobody f@cks with them, they are hardcore, Canadians ain't.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Ain't nothing wrong with stereotypes. Buying into positive stereotypes does not mean you automatically accept all the negative ones as well. Not all stereotypes are created equal.

The immigrants are the only ones allowed to be racist in Canada.  Only whitey has to STFU, Punjabi man is racist as he wants to be, and India is racist to the bone, there's a caste system.

Moreover they hate gays and they think most white Canadian men are gay, and they think the government is at fault for teaching them to the be gay.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I got more Russians up in here now.

The family which owns the two properties to one side of me got their friends to buy the property on the other side of me.

They're all intellectuals, they grew up in the Soviet Union, but they are right wing as all get out as a result.

Once again, my people.

The new neighbor comes over to say hello, pretty cute for an older broad, Russian, keeps herself in shape.

She says "now you have another Russian neighbor, what do you think?"

 "I love Russians"

"But now you are surrounded by Russians" says she.

"Slava Rossiya"

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see immigrants being treated badly, people say shit on the internet, but I don't see them saying much to peoples faces.

My immigrant friends, which includes many South Asians? Nobody messes with them.

What, some guy think he's gonna roll in from butt f*ck Alberta and mess with the Top Mali's or the Sikhs?

They will kill him.  These immigrants take no shit from anybody in Canada, nobody f@cks with them, they are hardcore, Canadians ain't.

That's because our country does NOT have a prideful origin as our present Constitution presumes. Our country's origins are based upon Brittain and shaped by the formation of the U.S. So it is impossible for most of us to actually have a sincere 'pride' in our own country because our formation is contingent upon outsiders with an usual degree compared to others. Our original domain was formed by a coalition of people PROUD of their distinct other-country origins along with their religions who were not WANTING to be 'free' as the U.S. ideal was evolving. We were made up of the defectors against the idea of American freedoms and comprised of mostly the 'British Loyalists' of authoritarian believers and the abandoned children of those believing in Church and States Monarchies of France prior to their revolution.

To repair, we'd require starting anew by relinguishing any traditional adherence to some 'Canada' that existed prior to the present. We'd need to first establish an identity made up of individuals and NOT the groups,....especially those based upon a corelated religious affiliation to some tribal association to countries afar. I don't know if this could occur especially now because PRIDE is something that is demanded by the religious-cultured groups with more power than individuals in this era. Individualism that lacks any 'traditional' association is squashed dead with ease because the individuals are precisely individual by definition for BEING most distinct and disempowered for not willing to align to some stereotype of some group as defined by those groups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

That's because our country does NOT have a prideful origin as our present Constitution presumes. Our country's origins are based upon Brittain and shaped by the formation of the U.S.

I take pride in that, I am British North American.  My family is on both sides of the border.  I embrace my British and American origins.

I don't subscribe to some fake country made up Canadian history, I embrace my culture.

Wolfe & Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham.

Brock & Tecumseh at the Heights of Queenston.

Bishop & Barker, Victoria Crosses.

I am an United Empire Loyalist come from Britain to America.

The Multiculturalism I embrace is Les Deux Solitudes.

God save the Queen & Her Mohawk Warriors, Vive le Quebec libre, je me souviens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why, even though I am British American and I embrace the peoples of the Commonwealth as my people, I still respect the French Ethnonationalist State in Quebec

The Two Solitudes. 

One rule for us, another rule for them

The Queen allows for both

A unified republic cannot.

Republican English Canada will bring the Confederation down, they just don't realize what they are messing with, because their history was erased, so they don't know the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Ain't nothing wrong with stereotypes. Buying into positive stereotypes does not mean you automatically accept all the negative ones as well. Not all stereotypes are created equal.

This is the anti-logical problem that assures that the problem will never go away. It is fine to have good stereotypes for oneself....we call a pride in oneself. But to DEMAND others to perceive you the way you perceive yourself in only a positive way is lost the moment you express this demand because you could only hold such a stance if you DID NOT APPROVE of how others behaved towards you. But this would mean that you may be simply having a negative stereotype yourself about the very outsiders you perceive are being negative towardes you. And if you assert that you are somehow more correct about your perception, this asserts that those disagreeing ARE the negative people who alone need to do the changing.

To give a relative example regarding economics, we here think it is alright for an individual to inherit some personal wealth (a 'good' factor passed on) without limits, yet we also think it is NOT alright to inherit a debt in the same way. This thinking by ancient standards looking at us would make us look like we devolved. The reasoning in the past was that IF you believe in inheritance at all, you have to first accept the debts of your parents if you are to accept the benefits. We do have this in law to some degree: the law would say that if you accept the benefits of an inheritance, you first must pay any associated debts. But we don't permit by law that any individual accept an inherited debt. Instead, we distribute this loss to the whole. 

Why should an individual who has an accidental fortune inherited to them not have a greater burden to accept the associated debts that are forced upon those of which most of them LACK the same fortune? This assures that some people are forced to inherit the debts based upon those inheriting the benefits to an unusual degree. Nature still has balance and so any unit gain by one requres an equal and opposing loss to at least one other. 

Stereoyping oneself, for good or bad, as an individual is fine. Imposing others accept your perception of favorable stereotypes requires you have negative stereotypes about others that you expect to be ignored unfairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

But to DEMAND others to perceive you the way you perceive yourself in only a positive way is lost the moment you express this demand because you could only hold such a stance if you DID NOT APPROVE of how others behaved towards you. But this would mean that you may be simply having a negative stereotype yourself about the very outsiders you perceive are being negative towardes you. And if you assert that you are somehow more correct about your perception, this asserts that those disagreeing ARE the negative people who alone need to do the changing.

Stereoyping oneself, for good or bad, as an individual is fine. Imposing others accept your perception of favorable stereotypes requires you have negative stereotypes about others that you expect to be ignored unfairly.

Who wants to impose their perceptions on others? Not I. People are free to have their own perceptions and I am free to have my own, ain't nothing wrong with stereotyping, it's a neutral term, not inherently negative like you seem to want to portray.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Stereoyping oneself, for good or bad, as an individual is fine. Imposing others accept your perception of favorable stereotypes requires you have negative stereotypes about others that you expect to be ignored unfairly.

Fighting human nature is folly.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens, hyper territorial apex predator xenophobic by deeply ingrained nature.

If you try to force the apex predator into a corner, try to make him, and I say him because the male is the dangerous one, be something he is not, you will start wars.

Understand that Canada was unique within the British Empire, it's the only Confederation.

Confederation is not a country, it's two countries, and you can't reconcile them, they have to be kept separate, or it will implode.

You tell a Quebecois to just be an individual?  No more Je me souviens?  That's a casus belli for a civil war.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I take pride in that, I am British North American.  ...

Unfortunately, then you contribute to the problem and assure that it cannot be resolved. I don't share your 'pride'. I was adopted at birth and was treated by them as somehow distinct as though my genetic roots are still something that makes me who I am. And yet to the culture(s) that I am supposedly related to genetically (Natural genetic family), I also don't share. So if you don't belong either to some cult of genetic nor environmental heritage, are we the ones required to be forced to associate to some 'pride' outside of our individualism? Your homage to some historical group should be personal and not imposed upon others, including your own children, as far as I'm concerned. THAT would solve the problems. But neither you nor those immigrants from distinctly different similar faith in 'pride' and authority over your own or others is equal in arrogance. You presume something 'superior' (that 'good pride') about who you are that you think others should share MINUS any possible negative ones. 

If you can at least begin to see the logical problem, then we could try to find the next steps is acting for change. Some HAVE drawn the line. These are those who simply and overtly assert their distinct status and demands they be privileged with exception to others in an authoritative way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Unfortunately, then you contribute to the problem and assure that it cannot be resolved. I don't share your 'pride'. I was adopted at birth and was treated by them as somehow distinct as though my genetic roots are still something that makes me who I am. And yet to the culture(s) that I am supposedly related to genetically (Natural genetic family), I also don't share. So if you don't belong either to some cult of genetic nor environmental heritage, are we the ones required to be forced to associate to some 'pride' outside of our individualism? Your homage to some historical group should be personal and not imposed upon others, including your own children, as far as I'm concerned. THAT would solve the problems. But neither you nor those immigrants from distinctly different similar faith in 'pride' and authority over your own or others is equal in arrogance. You presume something 'superior' (that 'good pride') about who you are that you think others should share MINUS any possible negative ones. 

If you can at least begin to see the logical problem, then we could try to find the next steps is acting for change. Some HAVE drawn the line. These are those who simply and overtly assert their distinct status and demands they be privileged with exception to others in an authoritative way. 

Having pride in your heritage is not part of the problem. Having pride in your heritage doesn't mean that no other group should have pride in their heritage.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Who wants to impose their perceptions on others? Not I. People are free to have their own perceptions and I am free to have my own, ain't nothing wrong with stereotyping, it's a neutral term, not inherently negative like you seem to want to portray.

Yes, IF you accept the stereotypes though, then you have to accept the negative ones in equal measure, is what I am saying. But most do not. For those who do embrace this though, they tend to become the extremes who overtly announce their 'pride' and often become the obvious represented counterproductive groups of society, ...like the Neo-Nazis, for instance. They, for instance, overtly assert the logical validity of their bias and believe intrinsically in competing to go against those opposing it with whatever authority they can impose. 

Thus, for me, I think abandoning stereotyping at all in social or political forms. The stereotyping WHEN enforced in laws is itself a problem, whether FOR or AGAINST some class of people based upon 'cultural' ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...