Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged

[George Wallace]

A couple of posts in another thread have brought up some ideas for discussion.  The question could be asked as to where Canada is headed with its' Policies on Multi-culturalism and on Visible Minorities?  Are they one and the same or two distinctly different issues that are being confused with each other?  Is our idea of Multi-culturalism a better method than the US philosophy of "Melting Pot" towards integration into our Society?  Are we truly integrating new Immigrants and Refugees into our Canadian Society with our Policies, or are we in effect watering down what it is to be Canadian and creating instead a series of ethnic ghettos that have more Cultural, Linguistic and Political allegiances to a foreign country and destroying our 'Canadian' identity?  What does it truly mean to be a 'Canadian'........ is there a 'Canadian Culture'?

Go said "Canada is not a multicultural country, only 14% of our population is a vis-min"

We love to sell ourselves on fairy tales like we are the most multicultured nation in the world but good point about 14% vis min

I'll bet the USA is far higher percentage (look at the liberal's attitude towards the US)

The definition of multi-cultured has probably changed from 40 years ago. At one time Irish, Italian, Germans, etc all living in one city was considered mixed ethnicities.

Just some food for thought...

Hold on a second...don't confuse "multi-cultural" with "visible minorities". The vismins are just a part of being multicultural. The groups you named are all parts of it, as are Russians, Poles, white Bosnian Muslims, Italians, Portuguese, etc. It doesn't really consider what colour your skin is: it means what cultural practices you follow.  In fact, you can easily argue that an increasing percentage of young vismin Canadians (much to the alarm of their elders...) are actually drifting away from their cultures. If everyone just lives a blahh grey "McCulture", then we really don't have multiculturalism no matter what colour Canadians are.

On the other hand, the 14% vismin figure is not necessarily a useful one either. IIRC, the black population of the US is about 12%. That seems, on the face of it, prettty small, right? Now, let's not pretend for one second that that 12% of US population has not had a HUGE effect on US life, history and culture. It isn't how many, but how influential, that matters IMHO.

IMHO the most significant groupings of "multi-cultural" Canadians, whether by virtue of being vismins or just by virtue of their heritage, are in our cities. It just so happens that about 80% of Canadians (IIRC) live in cities. So, the places where most of us live are in fact also the most "multicultural", which affects the way we think about ourselves as a nation. It's what most Canadians see every day when they go to work or school.

Finally, I wouldn't be so sure that the US is actually all that much more "multi-cultural" than Canada(although from what I have seen and read the good old "Melting Pot" ideal is fast becoming a myth). I believe that Toronto, by virtue of the fact that more than 50% of its residents were not born in Canada, actually outpaced New York City. Now, whether this is automatically a good thing (or even an important thing...) is another story.

Anyway-face it: the WASP demographic is in decline in this country, as it is in the world in general. Canada is changing as we speak, so we better learn to deal with that in an intelligent way, or we won't be able to point smug little Canadian fingers at other countries and cluck self-importantly about what a tolerant place we are compared to "them". We have to work at it, and acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of new Canadians just want to work hard, worship their God in their way, and have a good life. I know-I'm married to one.

Cheers

Perhaps we should start off with what is the difference in "Multi-cultural" Vs "Visible Minorities".  I would argue that the "Visible Minorities" are not necessarily that "Visible".  I have worked with many who have Native ancestry who one would never identify as being so, until they pull out a Treaty Card or make a statement to the effect that they are.  Looks and linguistic similarities are not enough to make one "Visible" at times.  I can use the example of the Mall and the Handicap Parking spots, and I am sure most of you have experienced this at one time or another, where a person will park a vehicle with Handicap Card or Plates in a Handicap Space at the Mall.  You watch as a person gets out and they walk into the Mall showing no visible signs of having a Handicap.  They may be able to function relatively normal and compensate for their Handicap, thus hiding the fact that they are.  Of course they may not be Handicapped at all, but how do we know?  You would have to confront them.  Cause a scene perhaps.  Perhaps the person has a bad heart, that would not be obvious to laymen like you and I.  So at times this distinction between "Multi-cultural" Vs "Visible Minorities" may be a whole lot of shades of gray.

 

[xFusilier]

The superiority of the "melting pot" versus the "cultural mosiac" is oft held as one of the unyeilding constants of Canadian social studies.  Almost every Canadian student has at some time had to sit through a junior high school social studies class and hear the teacher wax poetic about the inherent superiority of the "cultural mosaic".  Usually this is intended to be accepted as dogma by the students.

I would submit that the difference between the two is that the "melting pot" model of societal integration sees mainstream society as a monolithic mass that basically stays unchanging.  This would be reflected to a certain extend in the American facination with history and the founding of their nation.  Americans, tend to see their culutral values as a constant, and it is the obligation of those that wish to become productive members of society to adapt to new cultural norms.  The "cultural mosaic" model sees culture as a more fluid thing, that culture changes with the experiences of those individuals that consitutes it and invites individuals from outside of the mainstream to play a role in shaping it.  Is one better than the other, hardly, each has its own strengths and drawbacks.

Culture in and of itself cannot be discerned through simple observation, whilst ones status as a visible minority can.  While I agree with George that not all minorities are visible, the addition of the adjective visible means that to be a visible minority ones status as a member of the minority group must be readily observable.  This further points out one of the problems with defining "visible-minority" hand in hand with "multi-cultural", the assumption that someone who appears to be a member of the majority subscribes to the culture of the majority.  Shades of grey indeed.

Another problem with "multi-culturalism" versus "visible minorities" is the fact that while we accept as a key tennant of our political culture the equality of the human condition, that all persons regardless of colour, are of equal value, we also accept the fact that there are some elements of culture that have no value in our society.  The examples may seem absurd as they are intuitive, but they do point to the fact that we may make value judgements about different cultures where we are loath to do so in reference to the individuals who practice them.  Cultural practices such as pedophillia, cannabalism, female circumcision, are seen as repugnant by members of mainstream society.

This dichotomy is further illustrated by the fact that for years in Canada the term multiculturalism was used to define the range of cultural practices in Canada by European immigrants who could not be differentiated simply from the colour of thier skin.  Thus the argument that "visible minorities" and "multiculturalism" often show no correlation.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The whole concept of "visible" minorities implies that somehow "invisible minorities" are of less worth. 

"Culture" used to mean what kind of funky clothes you wore to your brother's wedding.  A kilt, sari, an ao-dai, a kirpan, a whatever.   Now it seems to refer to excuses for conducting criminal activities.

The term "culture" requires a definition here for any meaningful discourse to take place.

 

[UberCree]

The way I see it the term "visible minority" is a descriptor used for things such as affirmative action.
Multiculturalism is a practice or action.  It may involve inclusion of visible minorities, or it may not.
The two are completely different.

 

[midgetcop]

I usually see the term "visible" minority when filling out job applications i.e. "do you consider yourself a visible minority?"

I should probably start checking off "Yes" because of my height.  ;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

I always check "other".  In the explain field I put: Hetero-Anglo-Caucasian-Male-Canadian.... :warstory:

 

[ZipperHead]

This is a very interesting subject. We were talking about it at work today, and it is interesting how people interpret it.

I am white, blonde haired (when I have hair), blue eyed male. One would say that I am a "normal" Canadian, one that is very much in the majority, according to all the surveys. I have a Cpl that works for me who is of East Indian descent, and obviously falls into the visible minority category. Who is "more" Canadian? My mother was born in Finland, and moved here in the '50's. My father was born in Canada, moved to Finland as a boy, moved back in the '50's, and the rest, as they say is history. So I am, arguably first (or second, if you want to get technical) generation Canadian. My good Cpl? I have never bothered to ask (though he did provide some insight on a few questions I had regarding the difference between Sikhs and Hindu's). I suppose I don't care, because he is just as Canadian as I am, even if his great-great-great-Grandparents came over in the 1800's, beating my family by a good 50-100 years. However, I KNOW there are people who don't consider him as Canadian as me, because we assume that if you are white, you are more Canadian.

I am quite annoyed by these "self identification" surveys that make their rounds, as are almost everybody else I know. We have to pigeon-hole everybody into convenient categories (white hetero male, lesbian Aboriginal female). It doesn't help with the hyphenation of Canadian (Irish-Canadian, French-Canadian, Indo-Canadian). I can honestly say that I have never (seriously) identified myself as Finno-Canadian as A) I was born in Canada, so I am Canadian (I should sell that line to a beer company....) and B) I would forever be trying to explain what the hell a Finno-Canadian is.

I think a good part of the reason we are so apt to resort to naming people "majority" or "visible minority" is in good part to the "White Man's Guilt": that we feel we need to keep punishing ourselves for the sins of our forefathers. As mentioned, my family came to Canada circa 1950. Why should I be excluded from the "visible minority" or what I really think falls under "immigrant from other than Northern/Western Europe" group?? If I move to certain areas of Canada, I would be in the visible minority. Then what? Do I receive preferential treatment? Or do I always default (via the sins of our fathers) to being The Man. When the population of major urban areas (such as Toronto) has a visible minority population of greater than 50.1%, then what? How can a majority be a minority? Is "whitey" then the visible minority, and gets affirmative action in his/her favour?

I think the worst thing out of all of this is the fact that most people who move to Canada just want to become Canadian. The powers that be, aided by a vocal minority from any chosen group, try to decide what is best for all of us, and just further drive a wedge between "us" and "them".

Al

 

[TCBF]

"I am white, blonde haired (when I have hair), blue eyed male."

- 'Aryan Al'.  ;D

- "I would forever be trying to explain what the hell a Finno-Canadian is."

- Not to me.  I'm from Thunder Bay!

But, you make some good points.  Who got more support, my family coming off the boat from Ireland in 1820, or a Jamaican family who landed last week?

Tom

 

[GO!!!]

As posted in the thread that inpired this one...

What I'm saying is that the only reason we are able to smugly embrace the "multicultural" theory is that people who practice any other type of culture than the European ones (who I am deliberately lumping into a large group) are (or were) a tiny minority. Face it, after two generations here, alot of people have to think to come up with their ancestry, and they all act in roughly the same ways.

The cultural non-conformists are such a small minority that the effects of their respective cultures, both good and bad, are diluted in the population in which they reside. Where they choose to concentrate themselves into racially homogenous communities is when we notice. (Jamaican men shooting each other in Toronto and asian gangs in Vancouver and Edmonton)

Thus, our being multicultural is just allowing cultural non-conformists to exist - which we have, because they are so small in numbers. Or were. Now that the problems associated with some of the cultures we previously allowed to ghettoize themselves and become inward - looking are starting to surface (extreme violence, misogyny, polygamy etc.) Statements like "communities in crisis" are being made - when it is not a community that is the problem. It is one ethnic group that was never encouraged to live in the manner that made this country what it was; instead choosing to perpetuate the behaviours that made their home nations less desireable to live in in the first place.

This is what I mean when I say that Canada is not a multicultural nation. It is a unicultural nation, with a few pockets of cultural non-conformists, who were quaint and supported, when vastly outnumbered, but are now becoming microcosms of their nations of origin.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As posted in the thread that inpired this one...

What I'm saying is that the only reason we are able to smugly embrace the "multicultural" theory is that people who practice any other type of culture than the European ones (who I am deliberately lumping into a large group) are (or were) a tiny minority. Face it, after two generations here, alot of people have to think to come up with their ancestry, and they all act in roughly the same ways.

The cultural non-conformists are such a small minority that the effects of their respective cultures, both good and bad, are diluted in the population in which they reside. Where they choose to concentrate themselves into racially homogenous communities is when we notice. (Jamaican men shooting each other in Toronto and asian gangs in Vancouver and Edmonton)

Thus, our being multicultural is just allowing cultural non-conformists to exist - which we have, because they are so small in numbers. Or were. Now that the problems associated with some of the cultures we previously allowed to ghettoize themselves and become inward - looking are starting to surface (extreme violence, misogyny, polygamy etc.) Statements like "communities in crisis" are being made - when it is not a community that is the problem. It is one ethnic group that was never encouraged to live in the manner that made this country what it was; instead choosing to perpetuate the behaviours that made their home nations less desireable to live in in the first place.

This is what I mean when I say that Canada is not a multicultural nation. It is a unicultural nation, with a few pockets of cultural non-conformists, who were quaint and supported, when vastly outnumbered, but are now becoming microcosms of their nations of origin.

You posted the word "culture" or variants therein at least a dozen times without giving a clue what your definition is.

How do you "practice "another" culture"?  Aren't they good enough at it they don't need practice?

But seriously - just what do you mean by that?  I know you can practice religion, but who practices culture, and what does it mean?

Does culture really mean religion?  I don't know, which is why I ask. I'm Ukrainian - well, my great granparents were, anyway, my parents and three of my granparents were born in Canada.  I don't paint eggs funny colours, eat cabbage rolls or speak anything but English, but I do eat a lot of garlic and keep my friends close and my enemies closer (hmm, maybe I'm really Sicilian).

So what is "culture"?

 

[Glorified Ape]

I think the problems like Jamaican gangs, Asian gangs, East-European/Russian mobs, etc. have a tendency to be blown out of proportion (as a problem) relative to the respective group as a whole. Asian/Jamaican gangs etc. are not a representation of the norm for their respective groups. Yes, they're a problem, but such problems gauged against the entirety of effect achieved by multiculturalism are minimal to say the least. An analogy might clarify - capitalism isn't a bad idea simply because it can facilitate corporate abuses - yes, it's a problem in capitalist systems but there are measures that can be taken to minimize such abuses and the benefits gleaned are far greater than the sum of abuses created. It's the old "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" / "cut your nose off to spite your face" thing.

The melting pot has its own advantages and disadvantages - France has a melting-pot approach to immigration and look where that got them. There will always be problems with any policy approach or paradigm, but problems are not equivalent with hopelessness or complete failure. It seems that every problem these days gets blown out of proportion into a world-changing, earth-shattering harbinger of a cultural, political, military, or economic apocalypse soon to come. I'm not sure if this is really a new thing, as there have always been doomsayers, or whether I'm just noticing it more.

 

[Brad Sallows]

France doesn't have problems because it has a melting-pot ideal; France has problems because not everything in the pot has melted.

 

[Glorified Ape]

France doesn't have problems because it has a melting-pot ideal; France has problems because not everything in the pot has melted.

Heh.. good point, though I think the lack of melting may be a product of the mentality accompanying the ideology. I think a large part of the blame also has to be borne (obviously) by the newcomers themselves.

 

[TCBF]

"I think the problems like Jamaican gangs, Asian gangs, East-European/Russian mobs, etc. have a tendency to be blown out of proportion (as a problem) relative to the respective group as a whole. Asian/Jamaican gangs etc. are not a representation of the norm for their respective groups. Yes, they're a problem, but such problems gauged against the entirety of effect achieved by multiculturalism are minimal to say the least."

- Very good points.  The vast majority of the people from these groups just want to live, work, and raise their families in Canada.  The govmint should ensure they can do so without fear of the gangs/triads/ter groups that came over to tax/control their respective diasporas. 

Tom

 

[Dare]

I would submit that the difference between the two is that the "melting pot" model of societal integration sees mainstream society as a monolithic mass that basically stays unchanging.  This would be reflected to a certain extend in the American facination with history and the founding of their nation.  Americans, tend to see their culutral values as a constant, and it is the obligation of those that wish to become productive members of society to adapt to new cultural norms.  The "cultural mosaic" model sees culture as a more fluid thing, that culture changes with the experiences of those individuals that consitutes it and invites individuals from outside of the mainstream to play a role in shaping it.  Is one better than the other, hardly, each has its own strengths and drawbacks.

What binds together a "cultural mosaic" if not a culturally constant set of values? It is not the "melting pot" (which is quite dynamic in many ways) that is dependent on a rigid unchanging monolithic mass. It requires centralized influence to keep the mosaic from tearing apart, just as the thread in a quilt. Given not all cultures are equal, or tolerant of eachother, it requires an especially firm and unyielding hand to keep that fabric together. I would say that the idea of a "melting pot" is simply the naturally evolution of a "cultural mosaic". The only question is, what will our culture melt into if we leave it under the control of the elites who dictate what our "Canadian culture" (the thread) is supposed to be. After this, what will it melt into once the cultural elitists can no longer dictate to the mosaics what binds them. Do we not wish to shape our destiny? Or do we leave it in the hands of others, abdicating our responsibilities?

 

[UberCree]

I detect some of you are fearful of multiculturalism.  Is it because you may be dethroned as the majority culture (you can roast me for making a HUGE generalization here) ???  If enough Asians immigrate to Canada to become mainstream will you then support multiculturalism or will you adopt mainstream Asian cultural practices ???  Culture is dynamic and changing.  In California and Texas hispanics will be the majority soon and will have the right to dictate mainstream culture... you could argue anyway.  This is just all rhetorical and are questions I ask myself daily. 
;D

 

[George Wallace]

Culture is dynamic and changing. 

True.  I think that our policies on multi-culturalism actually stifle that.  We are encouraging ethnic groups to maintain a lot of their culture, but not to 'share' and blend it with the rest of Canadians.  There is something, that in the past North Americans did to survive.  With the institution of Canada and the United States as countries, the sharing and blending of cultures have actually diminished with each succeeding generation, and now we see 'Cultural Ghettos' in our cities; the Little Italy's, Chinatowns, Jamaican Quarters, etc.  These can sometimes fester into areas of extreme hatred and violence, as we have seen with some Sheik communities in BC, Jamaican or Haitian communities in Montreal and Toronto, Muslim sects in some of the major metropolitan areas, etc.  No culture has a monopoly on this.  If they aren't encouraged to become part of 'Canada's dynamic and changing culture' we will be faced with continuing discord. 

 

[xFusilier]

What binds together a "cultural mosaic" if not a culturally constant set of values? It is not the "melting pot" (which is quite dynamic in many ways) that is dependent on a rigid unchanging monolithic mass. It requires centralized influence to keep the mosaic from tearing apart, just as the thread in a quilt. Given not all cultures are equal, or tolerant of eachother, it requires an especially firm and unyielding hand to keep that fabric together. I would say that the idea of a "melting pot" is simply the naturally evolution of a "cultural mosaic". The only question is, what will our culture melt into if we leave it under the control of the elites who dictate what our "Canadian culture" (the thread) is supposed to be. After this, what will it melt into once the cultural elitists can no longer dictate to the mosaics what binds them. Do we not wish to shape our destiny? Or do we leave it in the hands of others, abdicating our responsibilities?

What is Canadian culture?  The fact that it is very difficult to define "Canadian culture"  points to the fact that that there is nothing to melt into.  The mosiac is in and of itself consistently changing,  and I have yet to see an argument outside of "things just won't be like they used to", to illustrate why there is a requirement for a firm, unyielding hand to guide it.  The melting pot invariably means that various cultural contributions are diluted by the mass that already exists therin.  I don't understand your rail against "elites" however, in one sentence you argue for the need of a firm unyielding hand to guide it, but in another you rail against elitism, and abdicating out responsibilities, which is it?

There are arguments to the funding of culture (as independant from the Arts) in that the fundemental importance of culture to the human condition (everone exhibits it), leads one to question the valdity of those practices if the only justification for engaging in it is a big fat government cheque.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Culture is dynamic and changing.  In California and Texas hispanics will be the majority soon and will have the right to dictate mainstream culture... you could argue anyway. 

Define "culture".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think we're less a melting pot, and more like a lava lamp