The fact that Ottawa allows in too many people into the country of great cultural, linguistic, racial, and religious variety irrespective of recent poll findings that Canadians are opposed to this doesn't by default mean Canadians "welcome immigrants with open arms". This isn't to say that Canadians oppose immigration outright but they do oppose the cultural and demographic transformations mass immigration is imposing on Canadian society and the incessant demands for accommodation that comes with it. It is more accurate to say that Canadians are suffering from accommodation fatigue then it is to say they "welcome immigrants with open arms".
State sanctioned multiculturalism enforced by immigration has moved beyond policy and into the realm of official state religion protected by "hate crime" laws and Orwellian name "Human Rights" Commissions to weed out and prosecute (persecute?) heretics. Since multiculturalism is a social re-engineering project of the elites that faces real opposition from the majority of Canadians a collection of slogans have been imagined for the purposes of indoctrinating the nation to view the multicultural "social experiment" in a favourable light. One of them is "Diversity Is Our Strength". But is it really?
Here is an article from The American titled A Smart Solution to the Diversity Dilemma that was brought to my attention via five feet of fury. The findings of political scientist Robert Putnam, who penned Bowling Alone), are mentioned and they deserve our attention. From the article:
It was not the kind of message a Harvard seminar expects to hear. Ethnic diversity causes a lot of problems, our guest speaker told us. It reduces interpersonal trust, civic engagement, and charitable giving. It causes us to disengage from society, like turtles shrinking into their shells, reducing our overall quality of life. The more diversity we experience in our lives, the less happy we are.
So how did Putnam come to conclude that ethnic diversity is so problematic? The answer begins with the notion of “social capital,” which Putnam defines in simple terms—“social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” Social capital turns out to be an exceptionally valuable commodity. Building complex networks of friends and associates, trusting others to keep their word, and maintaining social norms and expectations all grease the wheels of business by enabling cooperation.
But the value of social capital goes well beyond economics. Many of the activities from which people draw the most deep and lasting satisfactions are stronger and more prevalent in areas with high social capital. People living in these places tend to have more friends, care more about their community, and participate more in civic causes. Where social capital is greater, Putnam says, “children grow up healthier, safer, and better educated; people live longer, happier lives; and democracy and the economy work better.”
When he spoke to my class in 2004, Putnam had started to analyze the survey data, but he had not yet published any findings. He began by telling us about one result he encountered that was thoroughly upsetting to him—the more ethnically diverse a community is, the less social capital it possesses. When a person lives in a diverse community, he trusts everyone less, including those of his own ethnic group. In describing the behavior of people in diverse areas, Putnam told us to imagine turtles hiding in their shells.
Putnam walked us through how he came to his conclusion. At first, it was just a simple correlation. Looking at his list of the most trusting places, Putnam found whole states such as New Hampshire and Montana, rural areas in West Virginia and East Tennessee, and cities such as Bismarck, North Dakota and Fremont, Michigan. Among the least trusting places were the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. The most trusting places tended to be homogenously white, while the least trusting places were highly diverse.
Putnam told us he had been fairly certain the correlation would go away once other factors were taken into account. But it didn’t. He entered a long list of control variables into regression analyses that predict elements of social capital such as neighborly trust and civic participation. Many factors—especially younger age, less education, and higher poverty and crime rates—seem to damage community relations. But none of these factors could explain the robust, negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social capital. Sounding almost defeated, Putnam told us that ethnic diversity is not merely correlated with certain community problems—it causes them.
The writer argues, albeit unconvincingly, that intelligence would steer us away from the problems of ethnic diversity, that if we selected smarter immigrants then problem solved. I don't see how that will arrest the colonizing nature of today's immigration which brings me to this Toronto Sun piece titled Beware the trend toward ethnic ghettoization.
However, the scenario unfolding across its big cities today seems to convey the impression a future Canada could be more of a compartmentalized nation.
What hits a discerning newcomer is the rapid ghettoization of cities like Toronto. Mini cities have sprung up.
If you call it diversity, that is fine. But what one sees is these ethnic groups have become self-contained communities. Their sheer numbers have obviated the need for any interaction -- economic, social and cultural -- with other ethnic groups.
The Chinese of Markham have little interaction with the Indians of Brampton or the Pakistanis of Mississauga or the Sri Lankans of Scarborough or the Somalis of Islington.
Forget about the mainstream white society. These ethnic groups have little to do with them.
As mentioned earlier, there are no compulsions for people in these ethnic enclaves to leave their comfort zones. In addition, the Canadian government has given them enough incentives to stay in their ghettos with a beautiful thing called multiculturalism.
Basically this policy says: Be the way you are, and stay in your ghetto. Bluntly speaking, it breeds isolation.
As a result, these enclaves have become self-sustained communities, with their own markets, newspapers, religious and cultural institutions. They even elect their own people to represent them in the legislatures.
With their ranks being bolstered by fresh immigrants each year, where is the need for them to step out of their ghettos?
He's right but we shouldn't confuse multiculturalism with diversity as if they are one and the same thing. Diversity can mean many things like diversity of thought for instance but multiculturalism as it is understood in the Canadian context is something other, something we can do without. The writer concludes:
Ghettoization is not a positive development for Toronto's -- and Canada's -- future. It should not be confused with diversity.
Diversity may be a strength but multiculturalism is not.