[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Wait with enforcing cultural conformity?

That should've been "without", not "with".

[Zoupa]

The stupid part about multiculturalism is the implied narrative that Canada does not have a culture. No need to assimilate, there's nothing to melt into, so just bring all your cultural traits with you and set up Slovenia 2.0 in this neighbourhood.

[Jacob]

The stupid part about multiculturalism is the implied narrative that Canada does not have a culture. No need to assimilate, there's nothing to melt into, so just bring all your cultural traits with you and set up Slovenia 2.0 in this neighbourhood.

I don't think that's implied unless you look for that implication explicitly to reject it.

There is clearly a Canadian culture, as anyone can see if they care to look. It's just that with multiculturalism, you are welcome to infuse as much as Slovenia 1.0 (with the caveats about maintaining liberal human rights) into your particular version of Canadian culture rather than facing some sort of official pressure to adopt whatever version of Canadian culture some subset of your neighbours prefer.

[Camerus]

I would say that in the multicultural model, there is often some animus directed towards the original culture, generally with the purported goal of achieving more "equitable" future outcomes.

[crazy canuck]

I would say that in the multicultural model, there is often some animus directed towards the original culture, generally with the purported goal of achieving more "equitable" future outcomes.

In my experience the model gives a sense of admiration for the original culture because it creates the reasons for why people wanted to immigrate here in the first place.  That sense of admiration is further fostered by tolerance for differences that do not adversely affect core values of our liberal democracy.

[crazy canuck]

A good piece on the dilemma for the Conservatives- to give Bernier the boot or not.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-bernier-conservative-base-1.4787813

[Zoupa]

The stupid part about multiculturalism is the implied narrative that Canada does not have a culture. No need to assimilate, there's nothing to melt into, so just bring all your cultural traits with you and set up Slovenia 2.0 in this neighbourhood.

I don't think that's implied unless you look for that implication explicitly to reject it.

Agree to disagree. The very word implies that whatever Canadian culture there is when you get here, it's just as important than whatever yours is. The mosaic metaphor.

There is clearly a Canadian culture, as anyone can see if they care to look.

The Canadian gvt is woeful at informing and promoting Canadiana to new arrivals. They're not helping to look.

It's just that with multiculturalism, you are welcome to infuse as much as Slovenia 1.0 (with the caveats about maintaining liberal human rights) into your particular version of Canadian culture rather than facing some sort of official pressure to adopt whatever version of Canadian culture some subset of your neighbours prefer.

See, that's another problem. Canadian culture shouldn't be "some subset". It should be the mainstream. Your neighbours, when you arrive as an immigrant, are all Canadians.

I also can't recall in a modern democratic nation, any state applying "some sort of official pressure" to adopt a culture.

[Zoupa]

A good piece on the dilemma for the Conservatives- to give Bernier the boot or not.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-bernier-conservative-base-1.4787813

They should. He's going down the path of jingoism. Seems to work these days watching Ontario and the US, but it'd be good to see a national party discard him. Let him slink back to obscurity.

[crazy canuck]

I agree, let's see what they do

[Malthus]

The "context" is Jacob asking me, specifically, whether Native Canadians really had concerns about multiculturalism.

My take is actually pretty similar to CC's.

To me you came across as saying First Nations' concerns about multiculturalism aligned with Bernier's concerns about multiculturalism - that is, a loss of cultural coherence due to a lessening of dominance by the traditional founding nations.

However, from what I've now read it seems that the First Nations' cultures never had any cultural dominance in modern Canada - in fact Bernier's political fellow travelers are usually pretty swift to put the boot in when it comes First Nations' cultural significance and rights. So as I understand it, First Nation's concerns are that they are no more keen to be dominated, marginalized, and assimilated in the name of multiculturalism than they were in the name of English and French dominance cultural narratives.

In other words, I think it's a misrepresentation of First Nations' concerns about multiculturalism to enlist them to defend the defense of Anglo-Canadian or Franco-Canadian cultural dominance - and that is how you came across to me.

From what I've seen of the average politically engaged First Nation individual attitudes towards multiculturalism it's much more "you're all immigrants on Native land" rather than "multiculturalism is bad for a coherent Canadian identity and should be dialed back" (which is what Bernier seems to be selling).

See, I have repeatedly said that isn't my message. Why are you both insisting I was linking Native Canadian objections to Bernier's views, when I did nothing of the kind?

You realize two groups can have completely different reasons for objecting to something, which is great. Why are you both insisting I can't?

The only reason I can think of, is to kick the shit out of a strawman of your own design.

[Malthus]

The legal neutering of multiculturalism merely means that, as far as Native Canadians are concerned, the "founding peoples" ideology has won as against the "multiculturalism" ideology ... for now. The two remain contradictory.

No, the core problem with your analysis is the notion that First Nations view themselves as a founding nation of Canada.  That is your ideology, not theirs.  They view themselves as equal to, not founders of, Canada and its Parliament.

This is a beautiful example of making a distinction without a difference for the purpose of scoring a rhetorical point.

The analysis is exactly the same if you amend it to include that as the "winning" ideology vs. Multiculturalism.

Also, you are provably wrong.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/06/13/its-time-to-recognize-first-nations-as-founders-of-canada-steward.html

A few months back I wrote about the idea of officially establishing Canada's Indigenous peoples as one of the country's founding peoples along with the French and the British.

...

Just last Friday, Phil Fontaine, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, was enthusiastically applauded when he sought support for official recognition during a convocation address at the University of Toronto.

"Recognition of First Nations as founding peoples is the ultimate expression of reconciliation that Canada can extend to first peoples," Fontaine told graduates of the law faculty and the Munk School of Global Affairs.

Who am I supposed to believe as to the ideology of First Nations - you, or the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations?

[crazy canuck]

The legal neutering of multiculturalism merely means that, as far as Native Canadians are concerned, the "founding peoples" ideology has won as against the "multiculturalism" ideology ... for now. The two remain contradictory.

No, the core problem with your analysis is the notion that First Nations view themselves as a founding nation of Canada.  That is your ideology, not theirs.  They view themselves as equal to, not founders of, Canada and its Parliament.

This is a beautiful example of making a distinction without a difference for the purpose of scoring a rhetorical point.

The analysis is exactly the same if you amend it to include that as the "winning" ideology vs. Multiculturalism.

Also, you are provably wrong.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/06/13/its-time-to-recognize-first-nations-as-founders-of-canada-steward.html

A few months back I wrote about the idea of officially establishing Canada's Indigenous peoples as one of the country's founding peoples along with the French and the British.

...

Just last Friday, Phil Fontaine, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, was enthusiastically applauded when he sought support for official recognition during a convocation address at the University of Toronto.

"Recognition of First Nations as founding peoples is the ultimate expression of reconciliation that Canada can extend to first peoples," Fontaine told graduates of the law faculty and the Munk School of Global Affairs.

Who am I supposed to believe as to the ideology of First Nations - you, or the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations?

Perhaps the point I am making is too subtle for an internet debate but I will try one more time, the First Nations have a unique position related to treaty rights, constitutional protections and the honour of the crown to deal with First Nations. 

You attempted to suggest first nations have the concerns of a founding nation like the English and French.  Their concerns are different and unique and have to do with the attempts by the government to assimilate them into the English and French cultures.  When you hear a first nations leader talk about recognition as being an important step toward reconciliation, those comments are entirely related to that past history.  He is referring expressly to the recommendations on reconciliation which attempt to reverse and prevent any future attempt to assimilate.  Recent decisions from the SCC also go a long way to accomplish that goal.

I am not sure why you think this is mere rhetorical point getting.

[Jacob]

See, I have repeatedly said that isn't my message. Why are you both insisting I was linking Native Canadian objections to Bernier's views, when I did nothing of the kind?

Because you entered the discussion by taking up a question directed at Barrister - asking him if he could give concrete examples of "Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism" being antithetical to "Canadian identity," which formed the core of Bernier's tweets: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg1150841.html#msg1150841 and started talking about the Canadian

You realize two groups can have completely different reasons for objecting to something, which is great. Why are you both insisting I can't?

The only reason I can think of, is to kick the shit out of a strawman of your own design.

The actual reason is that I was trying to understand the substance of Beeb's agreement with Bernier that Trudeau exhibits some sort of "extreme multiculturalism" which does a disservice to "Canadian identity"-  and you responded to that by introducing the First Nations tangent that is presently dominating the conversation.

I appreciate now - after this back and forth - that you're not using First Nations ambivalence about the potential use of multiculturalism to undermine their claims as an argument to support Bernier's POV (and indeed the current Chief of the National Assembly of First Nations has called Bernier out on his anti-multiculturalism crusade). But that is how you came across to me at first, no strawman intended.

As an aside, Beeb has not yet at this point articulated an answer to the question. How is the current government's approach to multiculturalism extreme? And how is it harmful to Canada?

[Valmy]

As an aside, Beeb has not yet at this point articulated an answer to the question. How is the current government's approach to multiculturalism extreme? And how is it harmful to Canada?

Yeah what is the approach?

I mean in the US because of how our government is structured we have had, and continue to do so, entire towns and regions that spoke a language other than English and practiced a culture other than the mainstream one. And for the most part they get left alone to do their thing (so long as the mother country didn't do something like bomb Pearl Harbor or declare war on us or something). And of course parents have broad authority to control the education of their kids via private schools or homeschooling. Is this all that multiculturalism means or is there some positive policy behind it?

[Jacob]

I also can't recall in a modern democratic nation, any state applying "some sort of official pressure" to adopt a culture.

Denmark is pretty heavy handed and explicit in this department, as I understand it.