Thursday, 14 May 2009

Is Mass Immigration And Multiculturalism Creating A Racist Society? Contemplating The Failed Social Experiment.

Canada has been described as a "social experiment", proof that a myriad of disparate people gathered into a single social and political context can live in peaceful coexistence. But sometimes experiments fail and depending on who you ask Canada as a "social experiment" is either working or failing, a conclusion often arrived at by way of ideology.

I, for one, think the multicultural model is not working and some recent publications suggest this.

Macleans Magazine recently published a piece on Canadian attitudes toward people of faith.

Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along together. But when it comes to the major faiths other than Christianity, a new poll conducted for Maclean’s finds that many Canadians harbour deeply troubling biases. Multiculturalism? Although by now it might seem an ingrained national creed, fewer than one in three Canadians can find it in their hearts to view Islam or Sikhism in a favourable light. Diversity? Canadians may embrace it in theory, but only a minority say they would find it acceptable if one of their kids came home engaged to a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Understanding? There’s not enough to prevent media images of war and terrorism from convincing almost half of Canadians that mainstream Islam encourages violence.

I love this line: "Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along." That's something only journalists, politicians, and immigrants who have no desire to integrate into Canadian society say. Same thing with multiculturalism is "ingrained as a national creed". The truth is most Canadians have no real need for multiculturalism as it is irrelevant in the conduct of their daily lives. Sure, they may eat Chinese food every now or then or enjoy a samosa but they can live without them and many do.

Those findings leave little doubt that Canadians with a Christian background travel through life benefiting from a broad tendency of their fellow citizens to view their religion more favourably than any other. Across Canada, 72 per cent said they have a “generally favourable opinion” of Christianity. At the other end of the spectrum, Islam scored the lowest favourability rating, just 28 per cent. Sikhism didn’t fare much better at 30 per cent, and Hinduism was rated favourably by 41 per cent. Both Buddhism, at 57 per cent, and Judaism, 53 per cent, were rated favourably by more than half the population—but even Jews and Buddhists might reasonably ask if that’s a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty result.

So, the majority of those surveyed view Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism in an unfavourable light while at the same time Judaism and Buddhism enjoy majority support albeit marginal. I think the reason for this is that Canadians equate Islam with Arab, and Sikhism and Hinduism with Indian, and view the adherents to these faiths as being actively engaged in a cultural program to transform Canada into reflections of their homelands whereas Jews and Buddhists are not. In that sense the negative impression Canadians have of Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism is a rejection of the cultural transformation these faiths are imposing on Canadian society.

Angus Reid took that debate national, asking how far governments should go to accommodate minorities. A strong majority of 62 per cent agree with the statement, “Laws and norms should not be modified to accommodate minorities.” A minority, 29 per cent, agreed with the alternative statement, “On some occasions, it makes sense to modify specific laws and norms to accommodate minorities.” Another nine per cent weren’t sure. In Quebec, 74 per cent were against changing laws or norms, the highest negative response rate on the accommodation question in the country.

And:

Leaders of religious groups contacted by Maclean’s commonly said their impression is that urban attitudes are more open, especially in Toronto and Vancouver—huge magnets for immigrants. Yet familiarity does not appear to be a reliable predictor of tolerance or acceptance. The Sikh community is prominent on the West Coast, but only 28 per cent of British Columbians surveyed reported a favourable impression of Sikhism. That was well below the figures in provinces where Sikhs are far less numerous, like neighbouring Alberta, where 47 per cent reported a favourable opinion of Sikhism, or Ontario, where Sikhism was rated favourably by 35 per cent.

In other words the people who have to live with them don't like them or care about their religion. Not exactly the kind of thing we are being told by our elites in the media and in politics.

Much of the article laments over the failure of us plebes to fully digest the patrician world view that has been shoveled down our throats over the past 30 odd years. What the elites don't get is that Canadians never wanted the multicultural model that has been imposed upon them and they still don't and if we don't abandon it we may be fostering an increasingly racist and intolerant society which brings me to this Toronto Star article. In it we read:

Crunching thousands of numbers from 41,666 people interviewed in nine languages, the just-published study found skin colour – not religion, not income – was the biggest barrier to immigrants feeling they belonged here. And the darker the skin, the greater the alienation.

[...]

The more discrimination someone faced, the more they were likely to identify with their ethnic group, rather than as Canadian.

Visible minorities identified themselves much more strongly by their ethnic origin through the second, third and fourth generations.

While 65 per cent of recent black immigrants, 70 per cent of South Asians and 52 per cent of Chinese felt they belonged in Canada, those numbers dropped to 37 per cent, 50 per cent and 44 per cent in the second generation.


A third of Chinese, South Asians, Filipino and Southeast Asians reported discrimination; half of blacks did and 40 per cent of Koreans and Japanese did.

[...]

"Among minorities born in Canada, blacks have the lowest sense of belonging, the lowest level of trust in others and the weakest sense of Canadian identity. They are the least likely to vote," Reitz and Ryerson University assistant professor Rupa Banerjee wrote in the book Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion. "Among recent immigrants, blacks have high levels of volunteers but among the second generation this has disappeared."

Should we worry?

Reitz pointed out that the first wave of migration of blacks from the south in the United States were embraced for their culture and differences in the north, creating places such as the prosperous, dynamic Harlem in New York City.

A few generations later, Harlem was a ghetto that exploded into race riots.


"I'm not saying that is going to happen here. But we have indications of social problems in communities. There is the perception of a crime problem. Some children of immigrants have high dropout rates. We ought to be asking why."

The study reminds us that multiculturalism isn't the problem. But it is and pretending it isn't doesn't adequately address the problems that are being created by mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Here are more findings from Allan Gregg you can read at his blog.

...With an aging workforce, declining birth rates, and concerns about retirement pensions, one would imagine generalized support for enhanced immigration. But research conducted by The Strategic Counsel in 2005 suggests otherwise, and that Canadians are far from sanguine about the country’s increasing diversity. A full 75 percent of those surveyed believe that Canada is currently accepting too many immigrants, and 40 percent think that immigrants from some countries “make a bigger and better contribution to Canada than others.” The breakdown is disturbing: almost 80 percent claim that European immigrants make a positive contribution, the number falling to 59 percent for Asians, 45 percent for East Indians, and plummeting to 33 percent for those hailing from the Caribbean.

[...]

...But, when asked what the focus of multicultural policy should be, by a ratio of 3.5:1 Canadians say immigrants should “integrate and become part of the Canadian culture,” rather than “maintain their [own] identity.” To some extent, it seems that Canadians, like their brethren in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, have had their fill of multiculturalism, hyphenated citizenship, and the like. While visitors often marvel at the multicultural mix evident on our city streets, there is also growing evidence that Canada’s fabled mosaic is actually fracturing into community self-segregation by ethnic group. In 1981, Statistics Canada identified three “ethnic enclaves” where more than 30 percent of a particular community consisted of a single visible minority group. According to “Visible Minority Neighbourhoods in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal,” a 2001 StatsCan report, that number had exploded to 254 ethnic enclaves. To be sure, not all of these communities are poor – Richmond, British Columbia and Markham, Ontario, whose Asian populations top 50 percent, are middle to upper-middle class areas – but an alarming number of them consist of people whose incomes fall far below the Canadian average. Despite good efforts and well-intentioned policies, poverty and disenfranchisement in Canada is increasingly taking on racial overtones.

And this:
As is the case in England, France, and other advanced liberal democracies, national unity in Canada is threatened by the growing atomization of our society.

The warning signs are already there but are being ignored becuase the failing social experiment needs to be saved to satisfy the egos of those who champion the multicultural model by proving to themselves, the country, and the world how right they are. But if it fails, and it appears that it is failing, the results will be disastrous in the form of a less harmonious, ghettoized, and increasingly racist society.

We can correct this be revamping the immigration system. The first step is to decrease immigration targets to what Canada really needs and not the needs of the immigration industry. While doing this Canada needs to give special consideration to those who best fit into Canadian society and yes, this does mean favouring European immigration much like Japan should favour Asian immigration. Secondly Canada should adopt a melting pot approach over accommodation becuase accommodation is not integration. By assuring the host population that it is not being overrun by an influx of immigrants who threaten to replace them as host population Canadian society will be a more accepting place for immigrants. Ironically, if it is the intention to make Canada a more racist and intolerant society then all we need to do is stay the course.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for bringing Allan Gregg's article to my attention.

Some excerpts:

"For the moment (2006?), non-white Canadians represent only 13 percent of the population, but, given the last twenty years of immigration, this figure will increase dramatically in the coming years."

NON-White Canadian residents have now increased to an unprecedented 16% and continues to rise exponentially!

"Surprisingly, it appears that first generation non-white immigrants actually enter Canada with a greater sense of belonging than white immigrants, but within a generation that feeling diminishes among visible minority groups, while white immigrants report a growing sense of belonging and involvement."

The first generation trend is not surprising when considering some of the h*ll-holes these people come from.

On a smaller scale, if I was born and bred in Toronto's Regent Park area and was fortunate enough to move into the upscale Rosedale area, I would do everything within my power to inculcate "a greater sense of belonging" to remain there. And my offspring (representing the 2nd generation) who are not of the original moneyed-class elites may feel somewhat alienated due to their family roots. I'm not sure whether that analogy would apply to today, but it was certainly reminiscent of the recent past.

"As Kymlicka observed, anti-racism programs soon became the largest budget line item of Canada’s Multicultual Secretariat, the government began direct funding to ethnic organizations and insisted that public institutions such as the civil service, the CRTC, and Transportation Canada reflect the ethnic diversity of the country through quotas."

All these anti-racism programs could have been avoided had these over-educated social engineers been briefed on the affairs of basic human nature or at least looked to the country directly south of us to observe how the U.S. has fared since their United States Supreme Court decision that ended legal segregation in U.S. education, implemented affirmative-action and a plethora of other gov't initiatives designed to handicap motivated people from achieving their best performance.

Canada's unnecessary experiment in multi-racialism is proving equally disastrous. Racial priorities trumps merit in all endeavours and this always occurs at the expense of over-achieving white people in their own country.

The only real fracture we had prior to the 1970s was between Quebec and the (ROC) rest of the country which, incidentally, was on the mend.

Anyhow, I noticed Amren.comalso highlighted the Toronto Star story with commentaries.

PaxCanadiana said...

Allan Gregg's comments are something to take note of. I have seen him on TV as interviewer and interviewee and he strikes me as a man of integrity and objectivity. Unlike Canadian journalists who are for the most part ideologically driven cheer leaders of multiculturalism and mass immigration Gregg doesn't spin the information he collects. He reports it as is.

Anonymous said...

Call them out by name!

The weakness of this blog is that it focuses on the symptoms of the problem, rather than the source. Who have been the biggest lobbyists for open borders, pluralism, and hate speech laws across the Western world? What do they feel they stand to gain from it? Who were the primary pushers of cultural marxism and far-left ideologies throughout the 1960s? Look at their last names. Who controls the media (and Hollywood)that tells us how we should feel about multiculturalism?

While White liberals, the political parties, and immigrant advocacy groups do share a great deal of responsibility for the state we're in, they too are symptoms. White Christian civilization did not commit mass suicide by itself. We have been subverted by alien forces who have much to gain from the weakening of our society.

The answer is an uncomfortable one that stands against everything we're told to believe about these people. But from what I can tell, it is the cold hard truth, and one that we can't afford to ignore. Otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.

Anonymous said...

Canadian like Bhuddism because it requires no commitment, has no right or wrong, and nobody goes to hell in Buddhism and movie stars love it. Perfect for the morally depraved relativist Canadian culture.

Anonymous said...

Canadians like Buddhism because it requires no commitment, has no right or wrong, and nobody goes to hell in Buddhism and movie stars love it too! Perfect for the morally depraved relativist Canadian culture.