Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

The Cancer Called Multi-Culturalism

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Never bought into that one. Canada is a state of mind, and you don't get it three years off a boat and barely understanding the magic of the flush toilet. You don't get it being born in Chinatown and never even hearing English until they stick you in an ESL class. You don't get it with strict Muslim parents wrapping a chador around you and making you pray to Mecca fifty times a day - then sending you "home" when you become a teenager to find a proper husband who beats you and jams you firmly into your place in life.

There has been some commentary in the US regarding the protests over proposed new immigration bills noting how many "Americans" are burning the American flag and waving the Mexican flag, and signs talking about the US being stolen from the Spanish, and that it needs to be taken back. This from supposed Americans born and raised in the US. The commentary is that Latinos are welcome in the US but all the Mexicans protesting, even if born there, should be trucked across the border and dumped in what they appear to regard as their homeland.

I wouldn't mind a similar policy here.

Unless we are aboriginal, we all descend from immigrants.

Ooo, clever. I don't think I've ever seen that one before. Novel response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. 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.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

Theodore Roosevelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. 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.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

Theodore Roosevelt

Amen.

When you become a citizen here, you're a Canadian and that's all there is to it. Hyphens not welcome. All they do is promote division in a country that is too divided already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, Imagine is a pretty good song. A little overplayed but much better than that song about humps by Black-eyed Peas.

But I may be mistaken, but Betsy, didn't you once say you're Filipino?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ooo, clever. I don't think I've ever seen that one before. Novel response.

When faced with undeniable truth in an argument, dismiss it as a cliche or as a stereotype. Works every time. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is multi-culturalism ?

It's an attitude, and it's a policy. The policy affects and is affected by immigration policies, education policies, and economic policies to name a few.

When I read complaints about multicult, they usually mash it all together.

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.

I like the sentiment of the song, but it has served its purpose and it does make you reach for the dial when you hear it on the radio.

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.

If you look at the scale of conflict, and the politcal problems and costs of waging war, you'll see that there are less and less advantages to the military option.

Also, war between nations depends on there being nations in the classic sense. With global investment, nations don't really exist in that way. The economic advantages of war are hard to justify if you already own big pieces of the other nation. Could there be a war between European nations today, for example ?

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?

The problem that you talk about are a result of large scale immigration. France doesn't have a policy of encouraging multiculturalism, as Canada does, and they're having the kinds of problems you're talking about.

We have a new prime minister now. Do you think he will restrict immigration ? My guess is that the economics will dictate that things continue mostly on the same path as they have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:D

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

Get a grip, guys. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the economics of the situation trump all, unfortunately. Why have they increased immigration levels per year in Canada and let it remain for well over a decade? We know there are benefits, but what was the reason. How about we can't even maintain our own population levels without immigration. That's right, we are not producing enough kids to maintain or expand our numbers. I remember hearing that to maintain population, each family needs to produce 2.3 kids.

And a shrinking population means a shrinking economy, with all the bad spin off effects that would happen year after decade. So why can't we have enough kids? Don't you think that's a little weird, with all the sex going on?

Families are really on the wane these days. And if you're divorced, chances are you're not planning for any kids. And nobody wants kids. Birth control, the morning after pill, and abortions all serve to shrink our numbers. And so our politicians look at the data and realize the only way to keep the economy growing is to entice someone else's kids to come to Canada. And it really seems like we can't all get along after all. I know we are far more tolerant than France, but we practice our own brand of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW! See Bubber and Gerry jump into attack and insult mode pronto! Guns blazing. Right on cue.

:D

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

Get a grip, guys. :D

I wasn't attacking anyone. I need more smiley faces I guess. :angry:

But if you want to talk attacks and insults, being a stoned guy, I kind of take offence to your thread title. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I may be mistaken, but Betsy, didn't you once say you're Filipino?

yes.

And what about it?

It just strikes me as interesting that you take the side of those who don't think you belong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Multi-culturalism is a myth. How much people choose to assimilate is not something a gov't can control - one way or the other. Even with all of the Trudeau era propoganda you still will find that after 2 or 3 generations most immigrants merge into the Canadian mainstream. Similarily. eliminating the gov'ts so called multi-culturalism policy will have zero affect on what new immigrants choose to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I may be mistaken, but Betsy, didn't you once say you're Filipino?

yes.

And what about it?

It just strikes me as interesting that you take the side of those who don't think you belong here.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did Tommy Douglas.

Are you thinking J.S. Woodsworth, not Douglas?

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.

To be fair, he wasn't out of step with many people at that time, and I do believe he recanted the eugenics theory after Hitler actually put those ideas into practice. I did have a link to it but I have a slow connection now and am using my laptop, so don't have the info. The CBC of course failed to mention any of that in its biography.

There are many differences in cultures that we should not celebrate nor should we embrace, not all customs etc. are beneficial to Canada. e.g. poor treatment of women by some groups and intolerance of other religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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?

I think the offical multicultralism policy is just a scapegoat for Canada's greater lack of identity, something which certainly predates Trudeau.

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.

What I wanna know is how does a government policy promote divisions and racial divides. I think folks are puitting an awful lot of faith in the effectiveness of the policy. I'd wager the division and racial divides you speak of have a lot more to do with economic factors than anything else.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...