Thursday, 10 February 2011

Canada Is Becoming A Nation Of Colonies: Why Immigrants Today Are Not The Immigrants Of Yesteryear.

Here is an article, written by a Sikh, that illustrates for us why immigrants today cannot be compared to immigrants of generations past.

These people have the right to keep their head buried in the sand, but the fact remains Canada is now a multiracial, multi-ethnic society of disparate, segregated communities.

[...]

In the long run, there is very little possibility that Canada, with its much smaller population but proportionately higher immigration, will ever become a melting pot like the United States where the English majority subsumed other major immigrant groups -- Germans, Irish, Scots and others -- into itself (read the mainstream) over a period of time.

Amidst all this, it is ridiculous when politicians describe multiculturalism as a celebration of this country’s diversity. They hop from a Chinese festival to a Pakistani enclave party and call it a celebration of diversity. But has anyone seen one ethnic group join another to celebrate this diversity?

When there is little social and economic interaction among various ethnic enclaves, what is there to celebrate about this so-called multiculturalism? It is pure segregation.

Some people could argue immigrant groups start assimilating into the mainstream only after their second or third generations. Yes, it happened in the case of earlier immigrants who came from the same ethnic and religious stock and got completely cut off from their ancestral lands.

But it has not happened with later immigrants who came from many different races and religions and are today wired 24-hours-a-day to their native lands thanks to the communication revolution. How much interaction do you see between the Chinese and the Indians, though both groups have been here for about a century?

I have been mulling in my mind for some time and intended to blog about some of the points he addresses in the article.

One of them is the farce that is multiculturalism. The ethnic festivals that are held in Toronto year round are typically visited by the members of the particular ethnic group that is hosting it. They are often joined by the presence of a few bored locals and some Toronto residents (almost all white) who go to these festivals the way some people bar hop on a Saturday night. But you do not see much cultural mingling among the many colonies that are carving up the city like gangland turfs.

The most important point is that we cannot compare the immigrants of today to the first European settlers who founded the nation. Those first settlers were of a stock that had little to lose by coming to a hostile uncultivated and unsettled land. They did so as a way of laying a foundation for their lives and in turn laid the foundations of a nation. They came from nothing to arrive at a land of unrealized potential. When they left their native lands they realized that they may never see it again. They settled into societies built by the British and French settlers who arrived before them and, because they were almost culturally cut off from their homelands, assimilated.

In 2011 immigrants settle in an industrialized, first world host society complemented by a social safety net that grants them access to the internet, satellite communication technology, cable television, and affordable air travel. This allows them to live a kind of satellite existence in Canada where they can be in constant contact with their home countries and can frequently visit them if they wish. Canada then becomes just a postal code and their "ethnic-enclaves" become a kind of urban sprawl expansion of the country from whence they came. Earlier immigrants didn't have these luxuries. When they left their countries they left them for good. Today's immigrants only leave their countries in body.

It is erroneous to include modern immigration into the grand immigration narrative as if immigration today is no different from the past because it excludes the modern world as context. For many immigrants coming to Canada doesn't necessarily mean leaving the old country behind. The effect this is having on Canada is that it is turning the country into a nation of colonies. This is not nation building but nation fragmentation.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The partial screed below echoes much of what you say here. This excerpt was taken from Vdare.

"A strong national identity, therefore, implies that what is indigenous takes priority over what is alien. It is incompatible with multiculturalism or diversity.

This is well understood by immigrants from non-European ethnic backgrounds, which is why they have been the first to segregate themselves into ethnic ghettos, with their own food, their own butchers, their own press, their own dress, and their own places of worship. They have come here looking for the wealth, security, stability, opportunities, and high standard of living Western societies can provide; they have not come here to become Westerners. They want what we offer only on their own terms.

From their point of view, Westerners are idiots for opening their borders, their job market, and their power structure to foreigners, in a way they would never dream of doing themselves—for being, in other words, so damn liberal!

The success of the liberal project was predicated from the beginning on the destruction of traditional forms—and by extension, in replacing what was local, specific, and unique, with global, vague, and generic abstractions.

In short, aggressive liberalism is inevitably hostile to a strong national identity.

This is also well understood by immigrants from non-European ethnic backgrounds—which is why they have been the first to ally themselves to aggressive liberal causes.
"

Anonymous said...

They did not assimilate, that was the problem. It the reason why multiculturalism was adopted.

". . . Read the history of the United States, read what is written in every magazine in that country by thoughtful men, and you will find that the principle of the melting pot has failed; and they are quite apprehensive. Every thoughtful man in the United States, every keen observer, every man who travels, every author, everyone who shapes and moulds public opinion in the universities and in the great foundations-all these are bewailing the fact that uncontrolled immigration has been permitted into that country, to such an extent that there is now in the United States a polyglot population, without any distinctive civilization, and one about which many of them are in great despair . . . it is because we desire to profit by the very lessons we learned there that we are endeavouring to maintain our civilization at that high standard which has made the British civilization the test by which all other civilized nations in modern times are measured . . .

. . . These people [continental Europeans] have made excellent settlers; they have kept the law; they have prospered and they are proud of Canada, but it cannot be that we must draw upon them to shape our civilization. We must still maintain that measure of British civilization which will enable us to assimilate these people to British institutions, rather than assimilate our civilization to theirs. That is the point; that is all that may be said with respect to it, and it is the point I desire to make at this time. We earnestly and sincerely believe that the civilization which we call the British civilization is the standard by which we must measure our own civilization; we desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that Unemployed demonstration civilization, that standard of living, that regard for morality and law and the institutions of the country and to the ordered and regulated development of this country. That is what we desire, rather than by the introduction of vast and overwhelming numbers of people from other countries to assimilate the British immigrants and the few Canadians who are left to some other civilization. That is what we are endeavouring to do, and that is the reason so much stress is laid upon the British settler, not upon the Englishman as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) said, but upon the British settler as indicating that standard of civilization on which we build our institutions and to which we hope to be able to make those who come to us not conform but assimilate, so that they may play the part in it that we ourselves play, that they may realize that the same conditions exist as in days gone by, when the people said "wherever the king's writ ran, there was freedom and liberty of conscience." So everyone who lives under British institutions in that part of the Empire which we call Canada may have freedom and liberty, regard for law and order and a desire for an ordered government of which they and we may well be proud. That I say to my hon. friend is our reason, rather than the reason which he suggested this afternoon.

As far as I can see it is the purpose of all governments to maintain that position; that is the intention of all governments, but we do say that there has been a singular lack of appreciation of that position during recent years by the present government. In various sections of western Canada they have planted colonies from far-off lands, who have settled upon the soil and maintained their own peculiar civilization rather than become assimilated to that British civilization which should prevail in this country, because there has not been a sufficient leavening of it to ensure that result. That is one of the complaints we make . . ."

R.B. Bennett
Leader of the Conservative Party 1927-38, Prime Minister of Canada 1930-1935
House of Commons Debates, June 7, 1928, pp. 3925-7.

Anonymous said...

Your insinuation that second- and third-generation immigrants do not assimilate just because they are not white is patently false, see actual national statistics: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010001/t/11143/tbl003-eng.htm

Anonymous said...

Here are additional statistics which demonstrate that you're blowing hot air out of your ass:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010001/c-g/11143/c-g002-eng.htm

PaxCanadiana said...

Your insinuation that second- and third-generation immigrants do not assimilate just because they are not white is patently false[...]Here are additional statistics which demonstrate that you're blowing hot air out of your ass

The graphs you provide are confusing when weighed against each other. For instance Chart 2 leads one to believe that third generation immigrants assimilate by being in a mixed union, which invariably means one partner is white, rarely is it mixed non-white couples. Yet according to Table 3 the majority members of all listed visible minority groups are not in mixed unions aside from Japanese. The best is Latin American with 30% in a mixed union which means 70% are in a racially specific union. The worst offenders are Chinese and South Asians with almost the vast majority of their members in non-mixed unions.

Table 3 actually supports my arguments. The Japanese are majority in mixed unions because we are not being flooded by Japanese immigrants. The least assimilated, if mixed unions are a bench mark, are South Asians and Chinese, the two largest sources of immigrants to Canada.

Chart 2's conclusions need further analysis. Superficially it appears to support the multiculti fantasy land. However how many non-white immigrant groups have been in Canada longer than three generations? There are some but their immigration was restricted for a time leading succeeding generations into mixed-unions. But as you can see the graphs are in decline. This is because of a lifting of restrictive immigration quotas opening Canada to non-white immigration. Since the majority of immigration to Canada is non-white I predict the mixed-union figures to decline further since immgration is enlarging the pool of potential partnerships within racial groupings. Smaller racial grouping compell some of its members to seek outside partners and assimilating by the mixed-union standard.

We can conclude then that mass immigration is undermining assimlation by enlargening non-white communities. Right? If not that then can you agree that we are at least importing too many people from too few source countries like India, China, and the Philipines, which is undermining assimilation efforts if mixed-unions are to be a bench mark?

Anonymous said...

I think when you have a 40% increase in the number of interracial unions within a single generation it demonstrates that the barriers are not racial, but cultural. "Canadian" is not a race, after all. I don't actually have any inherent adversity to large-scale immigration reform, I think you make some very relevant points in that sense; what I take issue with is the demonization of ethnic peoples, the blatant tagging of them as "third-worlders" as your readers seem to enjoy doing, the implication that people of colour within Canada cannot be assimilated when all the evidence is contrary to this. I DO think that a stronger national identity should be promoted but believe it or not, you are actually acting to impede this by pitting Canadians against one another. Furthermore, the outcome of immigration today, even at large volumes, is not all that different from generations past. How do you think we got Little Italy, Polish communities, etc.? It's because those immigrants clustered together when they first arrived, and their children assimilated more with each successive generation. Even so, I have female friends of Polish and Romanian descent who will only date Polish and Romanian men; the difference of course being that since they're white, no one is monitoring their "outmarriage" rate with native Canadians unless those native Canadians are minorities. My main point being, the patterns we are seeing now are typical of past immigration; however, I do agree that this may be unsustainable with unprecedented net immigration rates.

Anonymous said...

I also think that in the case of Arabs, religion is an obvious stumbling block in their outmarriage rates, and I was actually quite shocked to see that 40% of Canadian-born Middle Easterners outmarry. My impression was that their parents would kill them for this, sometimes literally. The statistics seem to show that multiracialism is working far better in Canada than many other Western countries, and that's another thing about your blog I take issue with: It doesn't differentiate between multiculturalism and multiracialism. Considering that my bf got his ass kicked by Russians in high school for not being Russian, and he's a white Canadian, I think it's quite obvious that the two are not one in the same.

Anonymous said...

Also, I forgot to mention before that the reason we see higher values at the .5 generation marks is because these are the children of intercultural unions anyway. Their values are inherently affected by this and entering mixed unions becomes a sort of inevitability for them. Eliminating them as a group, we still see the rising trend with each successive generation/being longer within Canada.

Anonymous said...

Pax -- this is your blog -- but, personally, I wouldn't bother explaining anything to the likes of "anonymous" above.

I'm a strong believer in free speech, but when commentary degenerates into a personal insult, I walk away without any further thought of engaging them in intelligent discourse.

Their personal opinions are often cemented in stone, never to see the outside of their blockheads. Sufferers of cognitive dissonance are prone to place more faith in gov't statistics than what their lying eyes, or natural intuitions tell them. So, essentially, you may be talking to an immovable brick wall that will never sway in the wind of change.

In addition, the commentator is most likely a racial minority defending their own status quo (or victimhood) in a White-majority country (84%), or perhaps a brainwashed, white leftist.

The latter's moral superiority reeks with self-righteousness, and they usually demand others to "get in line" with their mythical ideology..... or else, they subtly threaten to call you that dreadful word... "racist".

They're the classical "useful idiot" who hinges on regurgitated drivel placed on their plate, and lap up every scrap of propaganda placed there by their self-appointed "authority figures".

But, in converse, the "useful idiots" do provide some form of entertainment in the debating department. "Preaching to the choir" may become repetitious at times, and have certain drawbacks that dull the mind -- meaning the "useful idiots" just may serve as a viable purpose here, despite of what I've just written.

P.S. Leftists also lack a real sense of humour because they're so busy trying to save the world!

PaxCanadiana said...

I think when you have a 40% increase in the number of interracial unions within a single generation it demonstrates that the barriers are not racial, but cultural.

Let's take the Chinese figures in Table 3 as an example. Of the total only about 10% of Canada's Chinese population is in a mixed union. But of those born in Canada it says that 53.7% are in a mixed union. How many Chinese were born in Canada during that time? Let's say one and that person married someone who is white (let's not kid ourselves). The statistic then is 100% however it really doesn't tell us much.

I don't think this is too far from the truth. Canada's Chinese population has a birth rate below replacement levels at 1.3 which is below the national average of 1.5. Those with above average birth rates were Muslims and South Asians. The majority of Middle Easterners and South Asians born in Canada are not in mixed unions.

My prediction is that this will be the trend: that mixed unions will decrease as racial groups increase in size in Canada. Chart 2 suggests this slightly. My personal experience also leads me to conclude this but take that for what it's worth.

Those StatsCan figures are premature since the full impact of the "social experiment" are not fully realized and can only be speculated on which is what you did here. I doubt very much things are going to work out the way you expect them to.

"Canadian" is not a race, after all.

No, it is not but a race has been associated with what being a Canadian is. Go on, guess which one.

This isn't to suggest that Canada should be racially exclusive but there are unappreciated dangers to disrupting the racial balance which Canadians are comfortable with.

Besides, whites are a minority in the world already, a proportion that decreases with each passing year. Why should whites become racial minorities everywhere even in the countries they dominate? What would that accomplish?

the implication that people of colour within Canada cannot be assimilated when all the evidence is contrary to this.

It's not that they cannot but do not and there is more evidence to suggest this. And colour has little to do with it as there are unassimilated white immigrants as well. Besides, what do you mean by assimilation anyways: having a job and paying taxes and shopping at the mall?

I DO think that a stronger national identity should be promoted but believe it or not, you are actually acting to impede this by pitting Canadians against one another.

Multiculturalism is doing a better job at that than I ever could yet it's the official state religion. Go figure.

the outcome of immigration today, even at large volumes, is not all that different from generations past. How do you think we got Little Italy, Polish communities, etc.?

Italians may be proud Canadians but they are prouder Italians. We got little Italy and Polish communities because we imported too many of them at once and that's the problem: too many immigrants from too few source nations.

This did, and does, hinder assimilation efforts made worse today with telecommunication technology and cheap airfare that has rendered Canada's immigrant communities into satellite colonies of foreign nations. It is colonialism, not not immigration.

the patterns we are seeing now are typical of past immigration

You are ignoring the obvious: that immigration patterns today are not typical of past immigration. Past immigration was fueled by immigrants from nations that shared a European ancestry with the host society. Bereft of telecommunications tech. and cheap airfare they were compelled to disappear into Canadian society and be "more Canadian than Canadians" as the refrain went. That is no longer the case today or even desired where multiculturalism rules.

PaxCanadiana said...

Their personal opinions are often cemented in stone, never to see the outside of their blockheads. Sufferers of cognitive dissonance are prone to place more faith in gov't statistics than what their lying eyes, or natural intuitions tell them.

Statistics are subject to manipulation. I don't think the figures are indicative of much at the moment but are merely a snapshot. What anon was hoping to argue is that all is well and the "social experiment" is generating the desired results. I don't think that is the case and the conclusions are premature.

In addition, the commentator is most likely a racial minority defending their own status quo (or victimhood) in a White-majority country (84%), or perhaps a brainwashed, white leftist.

I think there is some truth in that but this isn't to say anon is guily of it.

I believe some hide their racism towards whites behind a facade of moral grandstanding and exhibitionism. I find that there is a love/hate relationship minority groups have towards the white majority. It's a complex issue for a post reply but I do know that a pale skin or complexion is the most desired.

You can find skin whitening creams in all of Asia often sold by Asian celebrities. Almost all, if not all, of India's film stars have light complexions and often are spokes models for the creams. Asian women walk around with a parasol in the summer sun, even here in Toronto, to hinder tanning.

Whites are the most desired skin of all skin colours which is why, 9 times out of 10, one of the spouses in a mixed union is white. This is a manifestation of non-white racism directed at other non-whites.

The latter's moral superiority reeks with self-righteousness, and they usually demand others to "get in line" with their mythical ideology..... or else, they subtly threaten to call you that dreadful word... "racist".

My objection is how they control the debate about immigration in this coutry which is to say there is no debate about immigration in this coutry. And that's how they like it because it means no opposition.

It is an important issue since it is taking this coutry in directions Canadians may or may not want. There are unexplored unintened consequences that may be realized but since we never talk about it we will not be able to avert them or prepare for them. Everyone seems to think it will work itself out somehow. It's so typically Canadian.

Anonymous said...

They will all assimilate but it will be slower in later groups. Once the original immigrants are dead, there is little to connect anyone to their old ethnicity and homeland.

PaxCanadiana said...

They will all assimilate but it will be slower in later groups. Once the original immigrants are dead, there is little to connect anyone to their old ethnicity and homeland.

You mean they way Europeans assimilated into native North American societies preserving them for genertations to come and making it the mainstream? Or were they margnialized and made politically impotent by placing them on reserves?

You might be right were it 1900 but in 2011 there is much to connect immigrants to the homeland like satellite communications, the internet, and affordable air travel. What we have in effect is colonialism and population replacement, not assimilation.

Canadians do not fully appreciate how much they are losing their country and their place within it.