Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Any Way You Look At It Immigration Is Colonialism If You're A Native.

Canada's first nation's peoples occupy a paradoxical place in the immigration question. On the one hand they are used to justify immigration (from non-traditional sources) while on the other hand they are used to shame Canada for being a nation founded on "stolen land". They serve to justify immigration while questioning its legitimacy at the same time. Whatever the case may be aboriginals serve as stones to be thrown at Canada's host white majority population to undermine its legitimacy and place in Canadian society.

We've all heard it. The saying goes, "all Canadians are immigrants expect native Canadians." The intent of this statement is to conflate everyone who is not native Canadian into an immigration narrative as if the first European settlers and the next batch of immigrants to arrive tomorrow are one and the same. This view is too simplistic and it is superficially true but the issue is more complex than that albeit not hard to understand.

Simply put immigrants today are coming to a country that is, for the most part, different from the one they left. (This isn't entirely true since too much immigration from too few source countries has created what are de facto colonies on Canadian soil. We give them cute names like Chinatown or Little Italy but they are extensions of foreign nations into Canadian territory due to the anti-assimilated behaviour of those who arrived. It is colonialism, at least culturally, but we give these immigrants/colonialists citizenship which allows us to pretend colonialism isn't happening.) This isn't too dissimilar from what the first European settlers experienced when they left their native countries and arrived in Canada. They arrived and entered into a host society constituted of the indigenous peoples who populated the land. As the European presence grew it eventually overshadowed the indigenous host society only to replace it and itself become the host society that we, and the world, have come to be familiar with. That host society is a European presence in a North American context.

That host society is what immigrants today are entering into and since the vast majority of immigrants to Canada today are from what are called non-traditional sources, meaning non-European sources, history seems to be repeating itself. What we have is the mass introduction of a people, predominately Asian, into a host society dissimilar from itself. This mass introduction, if history truly repeats itself, will overwhelm the host society and eventually replace it creating a new majority and new national identity, a "new Canada" if you will (what was wrong with the old one?)

There are those who object to this prospect (such as myself and I believe the majority of Canadians as well) and this is where native Canadians become a useful tool to deflect opposition. You see, if we are all immigrants (except native Canadians of course) then who are Canadians, especially white Canadians in whose faces link Canada to its historical settler foundations, who are they to complain when non-European immigrants do what their European forefathers did: settle and colonize indigenous lands? If Europeans settled on "stolen lands" then why not Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc.? Immigration is colonialism's legacy; it is colonialism just expressed in another word. If we are all immigrants (and if no one is illegal) then the next person to immigrate to Canada is a colonizer since he or she have every intention to settle on stolen indigenous lands.

The great hypocrisy in all of this is that those who justify their presence in Canada by invoking the native Canadian card are often from countries who have suffered from colonialism as well; a negative period in their histories from which many nations have not yet recovered. Yet, they see no parallel in what they are doing here in Canada. You see, colonialism is only bad when it's happening to you. When you're the one doing it and have a lot to gain from it then that's different.

In this vein immigration isn't population growth but population replacement; it isn't immigration but colonialism. This is doubly true for immigrants today who are not only colonizing "stolen" indigenous lands but are contributing to the colonization of the host society that replaced the indigenous one that preceded it. And this is done with tacit government approval in the guise of multiculturalism.

Since Canada was founded on "stolen land" it is odd to hear immigrants (even the children of immigrants and aren't we all children of immigrants?) accuse Canada of being an apartheid state. I have heard this hypocritical nonsense before from Arab and Palestinian rights groups operating on Canadian universities. Their arguments are made bankrupt by the fact that they make these statements while benefiting from the fruits awarded to them by the alleged apartheid state of Canada simply by living here. By immigrating to Canada immigrants express their approval of the colonization of "stolen lands" (as long as its not theirs) and wish to be apart of it. If the rights of indigenous Canadians are really a concern for them the only way they can be taken seriously is if they pack their bags and make their denouncements from the lands of their ancestors. However seeing how the individual in this case, one Chadni Desai, is south Asian then maybe she should get her own house in order first before moral grandstanding here in Canada.

Any way you look at it immigration is colonialism if you are native Canadian. And they are still losing out because of it. In this SaultStar article First Nations chiefs attack the immigration system as a disservice to Canada's indigenous peoples.

First Nations chiefs slammed the federal and provincial governments Monday for efforts to attract and to educate immigrants in light of education and other funding shortfalls faced by natives in this country.

"It has been been mentioned here many times how many millions of dollars they are pouring into bringing people to this country when we've got the demographics of a young population that's a ready workforce that needs the capacity, that needs the education," Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee told a crowd at an education rally Monday that stopped traffic east of the city for a little less than two hours. "We could take advantage of the energy sector, we could take advantage of mining, forestry."

Madahbee complained that during a recent hospital visit he saw no Anishinabe people working in higher-paying jobs.

"If there's any Anishinabe working there at all, they're working in custodial positions. Where are they in the labs? Where are they as doctors? We need education," said Madahbee.

This dismay was expressed in response to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's intention to "spend $30 million over the next four years to provide scholarships to international students completing doctorates at Ontario Universities."

The moral exhibitionists who make allegations that Canada is an apartheid state oftentimes harbour liberal views regarding immigration as if the two points of view are not connected in some way. If there was any sincere concern for the issues facing Canada's native community then advocating lower immigration targets and forcing the government to look to Canada's indigenous population to satisfy labour shortfalls would be prominent. This would help lift them out of their third world status. But aside from us racist immigration reformers this option is never made by those who pretend to care. Indeed, immigration pushes native issues further and further off the political radar because as a political voting block they do not matter compared to voter rich urban centers where the majority of Canada's immigrants reside. And I don't see this changing anytime in the future. For native Canadians it's more of the same: more immigrants, more colonialism, the beat goes on.

But does anyone even truly care about native issues? It seems when First Nations chiefs speak no one cares to listen. Perhaps it's because when they do their responses are uncomfortable. What good is immigration to native Canadians when it continuously displaces them from jobs that they could be trained for? What good is immigration if it marginalizes native Canadians politically and removes their concerns from mainstream discourse to make room for hijabs, and kirpans, and silly Chinese superstitions? What good is immigration to native Canadians at all if ever? It's easy to dismiss white Canadians who disagree with immigration. It's not so easy when even the indigenous population sees no benefit to the immigration system as well so we'll ignore them, just like we always do.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

“The intent of this statement is to conflate everyone who is not native Canadian into an immigration narrative as if the first European settlers and the next batch of immigrants to arrive tomorrow are one and the same.”
Agreed. Canada of today is vastly different from 18th century Canada and will be vastly different from 23rd century Canada. What’s your point? Immigration is, was and will always be there. Agreed, the “pioneer European settlers” had it far worse than today’s immigrants. And today’s immigrants will have it far worse than the 23rd century immigrants. It’s called progress. Yes, the pioneer European settlers and their descendants built an enviable, thriving, modern first-world nation out of the wilderness. And today’s immigrants and their descendants will improve upon it and create pollution-free hovercrafts, breakthrough vaccines, green societies and what-have-you. Going on about how today’s immigrants are different from previous ones is pointless. The immigrants aren’t different, the times are different. End of story.

“That host society is what immigrants today are entering into and since the vast majority of immigrants to Canada today are from what are called non-traditional sources, meaning non-European sources, history seems to be repeating itself.”
What is traditional? What is non-traditional? For the last two or three centuries, immigration to Canada was mainly from Europe; for now and the next few decades, it will be from Asia. After that, it will be from Africa or South America or wherever. Immigration is a universal and fluid phenomenon, and is governed by rules of supply and demand, need and availability, not “traditional” or “non-traditional” sources.

“There are those who object to this prospect (such as myself and I believe the majority of Canadians as well) and this is where native Canadians become a useful tool to deflect opposition.”
What is this “majority” you speak of? I am a South Asian newcomer and I work in a company where 95% of the staff is white Caucasian of “traditional” European ancestry. We have free and frank discussions on immigration, and I have found them to be quite open, inclusive and supportive of current immigration trends and numbers. And before you jump to conclusions that they’re just being politically correct, I have quizzed them openly about this, and they were refreshingly candid. Yes, there are issues (as with everything in life), but overall they were quite positive. Now, it’s decidedly a small sample, but at least it’s grounded in statistics, unlike your statement which is simply plucked out of the air.

“The great hypocrisy in all of this is that those who justify their presence in Canada by invoking the native Canadian card are often from countries who have suffered from colonialism as well; a negative period in their histories from which many nations have not yet recovered. Yet, they see no parallel in what they are doing here in Canada. You see, colonialism is only bad when it's happening to you. When you're the one doing it and have a lot to gain from it then that's different.”
Hey, you started it! But joking aside, what you choose to call colonization is nothing but immigrant settlement patterns not just today, but throughout history. And as for so-called ethnic enclaves, well, birds of a feather flock together, as you yourself have pointed out in one of your posts; it is as much a characteristic of whites as of blacks and browns. How is 95% European Rosedale not an ethnic enclave, but 90% Chinese Markham is, or 85% Sri Lankan Scarborough is?

Pax, a lot of what you say is right, such as lack of assimilation, rampant fraud, corruption, culture of entitlement, pressure groups and political opportunism. By all means include these in your posts, instead of just fuming diatribes against immigration and multiculturalism in general. Just my 2 cents.

EuroCanadian News said...

Mass immigration and arguments that support it in any way are all clearly being used to support the interests of big business.

The system needs to be re-designed, and I specifically mean the constant government support of business and corporations, including foreign ones, (i.e. Capitalism) at the expense of the Canadian people.

Mass immigration serves big business very well, so every argument survives when the academic and guilt-tripping public statements dovetail with corporate interests.

This is the problem.

The solution is radical.

Re: Apartheid. In Canada the only formal apartheid is anti-White, in everything from fishing policy to immigration to government hiring.

As long as you're not of primarily European heritage you should be okay.

PaxCanadiana said...

Agreed. Canada of today is vastly different from 18th century Canada and will be vastly different from 23rd century Canada. What’s your point?...The immigrants aren’t different, the times are different. End of story.

My point is there is a difference. If by different you mean that Canada is a much more technologically advanced and open society than its 18th century self then yes it is a different place. If you mean Canada is different due to the composition of its population then you're wrong. Canada still is a country of largely European ancestry within a North American context. Current immigration trends will change this and the question is if Canadians want this to happen. If not then mass immigration from non-traditional sources needs to be justified. Otherwise immigration patterns need to be corrected. Conflating all immigration into one grand narrative is an attempt to not have to deal with the difficult realities that non-traditional immigration will mean for the country in the long run.

Immigrants today are not the same of immigrants past. Instead of strengthening a European presence in Canada they are diluting and will likely marginalize it. Coupled with modern technology immigrants are not really leaving the home country behind. In effect Canada is being colonized yet again. It's popultaion replacement, not population growth.

What is traditional? What is non-traditional?

Traditional: Europe. Non-traditional: everywhere else. Those are not my terms by the way but the parlance in immigration circles.

Immigration is a universal and fluid phenomenon, and is governed by rules of supply and demand, need and availability, not “traditional” or “non-traditional” sources.

There is some truth to that but should immigration be allowed to alter the demographic make up of the country? Were 10% of India's population be allowed to immigrate to Canada purely for supply and demand purposes they will cause a radical transformation of the Canadian society at all levels.

Truth is Canada accepts more immigrants than it needs, especially from Asia, but numbers are kept high for election reasons.

What is this “majority” you speak of?

The silent majority.

I am a South Asian newcomer and I work in a company where 95% of the staff is white Caucasian...I have found them to be quite open, inclusive and supportive of current immigration trends and numbers.

I guess it's a matter of optics but do they live in immigrant heavy neighbourhoods or mixed race neighbourhoods or white majority communities? Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words. Don't you think the fact that they are talking to you, a confessed south Asian immigrant, has any influence on what they say? So they work in a majority white workplace, go home to their majority white neighbourhoods, and their only exposure to immigration is the few non-white co-workers. And that's your sampling size?

unlike your statement which is simply plucked out of the air

The incessant positive remarks about immigration made by those in the media who have assumed they speak for all of us are equalaly "plucked out of the air". However for me that is not the case.

what you choose to call colonization is nothing but immigrant settlement patterns not just today...How is 95% European Rosedale not an ethnic enclave, but 90% Chinese Markham is, or 85% Sri Lankan Scarborough is?

So you agree, immigration is colonialism. And I consider Rosedal an ethinic enclave and repsresentative of Toronto whites. They love immigrants, they just don't want them in their neighbourhoods. At least not non-white ones.

instead of just fuming diatribes against immigration and multiculturalism in general.

Canada is my only country and mine to lose. I see much value in what Canada's European settler past has accomplished but immigration and multiculturalism will undo all that. I want to preserve it and I believe most Canadians agree with me.

Anonymous said...

“Canada still is a country of largely European ancestry within a North American context. Current immigration trends will change this and the question is if Canadians want this to happen.”
And that will be a tragedy, how exactly? A country is made up of people that swear allegiance to it. Doesn’t matter if they’re of European, or Asian or African descent, as long as they truly believe and act in the nation’s core ethos and interest. Do many of them show divided loyalties? Absolutely, and I’m totally with you there. Deport their a**es out of this country. But it’s not origin-specific. I can cite as many examples of Italian-, Armenian-, Swiss- and Croatian-Canadians of convenience as of Asian Canadians.

“Truth is Canada accepts more immigrants than it needs, especially from Asia, but numbers are kept high for election reasons.”
What la-la land are you living in? Wake up and smell the coffee. Much as you yearn for white west Europeans to immigrate here in droves, that just ain’t gonna happen. And boy, you’re not going to like the reason for that; it’s because they enjoy an equal (or better) lifestyle than we do here. We can only hope for immigrants from Asia and eastern Europe. Are we doing a good job of selecting them? No, we can do much better.

“Don't you think the fact that they are talking to you, a confessed south Asian immigrant, has any influence on what they say?”
No. My friends (yes I’m proud to call them my friends) are bigger persons than that. Give a little more credit to your own kind. I do.

“Their only exposure to immigration is the few non-white co-workers.”
Wrong again! You’ll be surprised at how much they know and are interested about South Asian culture and other cultures. In fact, they probably know as much as you do, Pax!

“They love immigrants, they just don't want them in their neighbourhoods. At least not non-white ones.”
Speak for yourself, Pax. I’m one of the few non-whites in an overwhelmingly white neighbourhood. I got the traditional welcome cookies when I moved in, my kids play with theirs, we go to each other’s barbecues, we’ve started a collection to renovate the local hockey rink, the wives have a reading club … I could go on. Yeah right, they sure “don’t want me in their neighbourhood.” And before you pounce, this is not about me. I have other South Asian, Chinese and Korean friends living in mixed neighbourhoods who have nothing but good things to say about their white neighbours.

“Canada's European settler past has accomplished but immigration and multiculturalism will undo all that. I want to preserve it and I believe most Canadians agree with me.”
People once believed the earth was flat. Believe what you like, friend, doesn’t necessarily make it true.

Anonymous said...

4:56 PM says:

"I am a South Asian newcomer and I work in a company where 95% of the staff is white Caucasian of “traditional” European ancestry."

South Asia gives us a region.. why not your country??

"We have free and frank discussions on immigration, and I have found them to be quite open, inclusive and supportive of current immigration trends and numbers."

I'm surprised you didn't include their devotion to the CBC television program "Little Mosque on the Prairie".

Pax has already touched on this segment, but I'll try to expand on it.

By definition, neither "free" nor "frank" would apply to discussions on immigration, especially when speaking to a racial minority. Do you think your White Canadian co-workers would honestly open up to you at the risk of losing their jobs?

Just one word out of place, would have them answering to the boss for their "racist" viewpoint, then onto sensitivity training courses, and even possibly hauled before the Inhuman rights tribunal.

As a racial minority, you still have the power of free speech, whereas White Canadians have been so brow-beaten into submitting to p.c. these past couple of decades, that many have become reluctant hypocrites.

So, I'm amused at "newcomers" who seem to think they've got all the answers to complexities they'll never understand.

Today, speech codes are much in vogue, much like the citizens of the former USSR had to use when the slightest slip of the tongue could land an innocent person in the Gulag.

Anonymous said...

Pax says:

"However seeing how the individual in this case, one Chadni Desai, is south Asian then maybe she should get her own house in order first before moral grandstanding here in Canada."

Yes, and considering the fact that some 890,000,000 poor Indians live on less than $2 per day, according to this video.

These hypocritical sell-outs escape their own impoverish, and over-populated countries, arrive in our White western nations and have the unmitigated gaul to lecture us!!!

PaxCanadiana said...

And that will be a tragedy, how exactly?

You are attempting to downplay race as if it is not an issue. It is as evidenced by the fact that your white co-workers who give lip service to immigration most likely live in white majority communities.

A study conducted by a man named Robert Putnam, a Harvard progressive, discovered that the more diverse a community became the less its inhabitants felt apart of it. In other words diversity weakens communities.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

A British paper, the Daily Mail I think, published a map charting demographic patterns in major American cities. The map revealed that people of similar racial backgrounds clustered, preferring to live amongst those of their own race. We see the same thing here in Canada.

The Globe and Mail reported on a study that concluded "Visible-minority immigrants are slower to integrate into Canadian society than their white, European counterparts, and feel less Canadian, suggesting multiculturalism doesn't work as well for non-whites". It found "that the children of visible-minority immigrants exhibited a more profound sense of exclusion than their parents."

http://www.ntab.org/admin/eZeditor/files/f_32_Globe_and_Mail_Article_-_How_Canadian_are_you.pdf

Being south Asian you know very well how much skin complexion is important. Think of some dark skinned Bollywood stars off the top of your head. Skin lightening creams are sold in India. Skin can be a marriage maker or breaker. Race matters. Are you more comfortable moving to a white majority country or a black majority country?

The tragedy is a fracturing of my country. I feel Asian immigration will turn B.C. into a Quebec of the west coast. There is already a Sino-centric party called the Nation Alliance Party. Canada will lose its Euro-American character that Canadians identify with. That may not be tragic for you as a south Asian immigrant, who has lots to gain from it, but it is to a lot of people. And since race oftentimes equates culture current immigration trends undermine Canada's Euro-American identity, not contribute to it.

What la-la land are you living in?

It's achingly obvious immigration is tied to politics. I've explained why many times on my blog and I don't have the space to repeat here. And I never specified a preference for western European immigration since European immigrants typically integrate best.

it’s because they enjoy an equal (or better) lifestyle than we do here.

Is that why more Britons are leaving the U.K. than immigrants entering?

You’ll be surprised at how much they know...about South Asian culture and other cultures.

Yet they live in white majority neighbourhoods. Go figure. Besides, I doubt they'd agree that Asian culture should dominate in Canada.

Speak for yourself, Pax...I have other South Asian, Chinese and Korean friends living in mixed neighbourhoods who have nothing but good things to say about their white neighbours.

When you say mixed you mean white majority. And they'll never live in black majority neighbourhoods. And neither will you. Asians and south Asians are comfortable with whites. You identify with them due to your own unacknowledged racist impulses. And whites will tolerate their presence to a point. If too many move in then whites will move out. This is what happened in Springdale in Brampton. And I doubt your Chinese or Korean friends will move to south Asian dominated neighbourhoods either.

People once believed the earth was flat.

No they didn't actually. That was a Protestant slam against Cahtolics that has gotten out of hand. It was also a modern misinterpretation of paintings. Mankind has known the world was round since the ancients.

It seems you think the world is flat. Next time an immigration issue arises in the news read the comments to the online editions. They are quite telling.

Anonymous said...

"You’ll be surprised at how much they know and are interested about South Asian culture and other cultures."

Oh, sure! Do your white "friends" know of the plight of the Dalits in India, or, are they even familiar with the term?

If Canada and other White western nations had NOT introduced a cluster of anti-white suppression programs, nor enshrined an authoritarian series of political-correct doctrinaires, nor introduced mind-numbing "hate" laws, nor unfairly gave minority races, through employment-equity, first dibs on jobs/promotions, nor obsequiously celebrated multiculturalism, etc, etc., .....could you, as a "South Asian newcomer" not imagine occupying a similar position of a "Dalit" in our country?

"Much as you yearn for white west Europeans to immigrate here in droves, that just ain’t gonna happen."

Unfortunately, you may be right, but I sense a certain glee in your words. However, you then contradict yourself when you say:

"We can only hope for immigrants from Asia and eastern Europe."

Not sure who you're referring to with your "we" pronoun, but I'm hoping for more immigrants from eastern Europe, and only a trickle from Asia.

...and if there's any doubt about White racial suppression, continue reading HERE.

Anonymous said...

Pax, With all due respect to the great effort you make here and the bounty of detail you put forth to justify your belief, I feel you frame your position incorrectly in this current piece. If the current discourse that the European diaspora that settled North America are immigrants no different to the current crowd, then since science tells us that we are all out of Africa, then logically, natives also are immigrants. These Asiatics migrated, allegedly, across the Bering land bridge and settled/conquered NA. The European diaspora did not steal this land, they conquered it and are here under the auspice of right of conquest. Inherent in this legal concept is the fundamental difference between the status of European settlers and the current wave of immigrants.

Anonymous said...

The point, as Mackenzie King articulated so well, is that Canadians "do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population."

A country is not made by allegiance as J.S Mill outlined.

"A PORTION of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others — which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively."

It is an identity born of "political antecedents possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past." This does not comes from words on a scrap of paper mumbled in unison with self-serving others.

Ethnic enclaves do not arise because of those that join them, but because of those that leave them. In other words Euro-Canucks are showing there displeasure, despite the tired, self-serving racist diatribe of the South Asian interlopers, for invasion of their neighborhoods by non-Euro others by voting with their feet in a mass white flight. And they flee because they have no recourse. They are not allowed the fundamental right of freedom of association.

After all is said in done the fundamental question is, do the founding Canucks have the right to live in a community without Asians, do they have a right to freely associate and if not then Mills admonition has come to fruition, freedom cannot exist in a multi-racial society.

Anonymous said...

To be frank, Pax and her self-pitying xenophobic friends don't like non-white immigrants and specifically how many of them there are here. Pax and her xenophobic friends will have to get used to it seeing as how the white race is dying INTERNATIONALLY. There are simply not enough white people on planet Earth to make immigration primarily European. Displacement is an inevitability. Luckily for them, minorities within Canada have historically been nowhere NEAR as racist as the majority are.

PaxCanadiana said...

Pax, With all due respect to the great effort you make here and the bounty of detail you put forth to justify your belief, I feel you frame your position incorrectly in this current piece.

I seem to have inadequately stated what I was trying to say so perhaps I can clarify here.

My overall intent was to point out how arguing from the "we're all immigrants" angle is nothing short of arguing in favour of colonialism. If immigrants today are no different from the first European settlers to Canada, euphemistically expressed in the term "newcomers", then what entails from this is that immigrants arriving today are colonizers in the literal sense. They are settling on indigenous lands and claiming it for themselves. They are condoning the colonization of indigenous lands by immigrating here. What makes this more criminal is that they are coming from nations that have historically suffered from European colonialism from which they longed for, and gained independence. So, why is it bad when, say, Europe colonized south Asia but it is good when south Asians settle in Canada, a nation founded on indigenous lands? Bear in mind there are more south Asians living in Canada now then there ever where Europeans in the whole of India yet somehow it is not considered the south Asian colonization of Canada.

My second intent was to point out the preexistence of a host society ready to meet an arriving dissimilar people. We know what happened when the Europeans discovered North America and are routinely disparaged for what followed, oftentimes by hypocritical immigrants who apparently lack any sense of irony.

But what grew out of it was a Euro-North American society of which Canada and the U.S. currently are (and I MEAN currently). Canada became a nation with a reigning Euro-North American identity. This is the new host society into which immigrants are introducing themselves with government consent driven by politically opportunistic motives.

However, the majority of immigrants to Canada today are dissimilar from the host society that greets them. It seems history is repeating itself and Canadians need to be aware of this. Do Canadians want to surrender their Euro-North American identity to what will be an Asian-North American identity? I doubt they do.

So since Canada developed a Euro-North American host society it became a nation with an identity, history, language(s), and culture. Are these things not worth preserving? Must they be consigned with a recently introduced culutre and people who have no place in Canada's foundational history?

This is why I don't buy this "we're a nation of immigrants" nonsense. It's a matter of how far back you want to go. If we go back far enough then we're all Africans. Does that justify the European conquest of Africa?

PaxCanadiana said...

Oh, sure! Do your white "friends" know of the plight of the Dalits in India, or, are they even familiar with the term?

I actually thought of that after I posted my comment. I doubt they do. The Dalits are India's dirty little secret that south Asian immigrants do not want westerners to know about lest it render their accusations of racism and discrimination hypocritical and self-serving.

Most south Asian immigration to the west is restricted to the upper castes of Indian society. This is evidenced in last names and light skin tones.

About half of Indian immigration to Canada is from the Punjab state which is home to the majority of India's Sikhs. Sikhism, to its credit, claims to have abandoned caste by the adoption of the equalizing last name Singh upon baptism. But old social habits die hard and Sikhs are very cognizant of caste and social status (as well as skin complexion).

You see this here in Canada with names like Dosanjh, Dhaliwal, Dhillion, and Virk. These are sub-castes of the landowning, warrior Jat Sikh caste which is an offshoot of the wealthy, princely Jat-Hindu caste. Jat Sikhs dominate in Punjab and are very politically influential there and seemingly here in Canada. Ruby Dhalla is a perfect example of this. She is from a high caste immigrant family and her alleged treatment of her nannies, the fact she has servants is telling, and her disgust of low castes while in India is reflexive of her caste status.

Knowing this, hearing the tired refrain "came to Canada for a better life" applied to south Asians invites laughter. Many of them, comparatively speaking, live great lives in India, better than average Canadians. Yet greed and social status drive them west.

Western citizenship is valued in India like a high priced designer label. It's fashionable and it signifies status, so much so that many are willing to engage in fraud just to get it. That's why there is a rush to the west. But because of the large presence of Sikhs in Canada and their dominance of Indo-Canadian politics Hindus tend to go to the U.S. instead.

If you happen to see a dark skinned south Asian they are most likely Bengali or Sri Lankan who pretty much had to resort to scamming the asylum system to get in. You see, our immigration system keeps Dalits and other low castes out for the most part and that's how upper caste Indians like it. It keeps their temples here clean and dirt free. That's why the Indo-Canadian community is mostly light skinned and from a high caste. Since Canadian society doesn't observe the caste system it would be a travesty for a Brahmin to have to wait in line behind a Dalit or be more successful. And how would they turn away a Dalit from entering one of their temples if Canada is supposed to an egalitarian society? Kinda of awkward for them don't you think?

PaxCanadiana said...

The point, as Mackenzie King articulated so well, is that Canadians "do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population."

In a similar vein Ted Kennedy said, when he was reforming the U.S.'s immigration system, that it wouldn't upset the "ethnic mix" of the nation. How right he was!

A country is not made by allegiance as J.S Mill outlined.

Good points and we shouldn't shy away from discussing them.

There are several factors that I feel are fundamental for a stable and vibrant nation: race, religion, history, language, and from these, culture. One must not be possessed of all of these but can share enough to have a sense of belonging and a people to call theirs. And even within there is enough room for "home grown" diversity, not the imported manufactured multicult variety.

We have real world examples. Japan is largely homogeneous but is not bereft of diversity and is culturally vibrant. It is also socially stable as evidenced by the after math of the earth quake and tsunamia disaster.

Hindu dominant India on the other hand had Islam forced upon it coupled with an uneasy relationship with its Sikh and Christian minorities. Some speculate it is only a matter of time before India implodes as the Hindu population collapses as Dalits flee caste oppression through conversion. Diversity may be India's Achilles heel. So far it is stabilized by its Hindu majority but once that majority is gone then fear the worst. I think the same fate will befall Canada if it continues along this route. This is why Canada, like India, needs to maintain a dominant majorit society. It is the glue that keeps the country together. "Diversity is our strength" is just a four word sentence.

PaxCanadiana said...

To be frank, Pax and her self-pitying xenophobic friends don't like non-white immigrants and specifically how many of them there are here. Pax and her xenophobic friends will have to get used to it seeing as how the white race is dying INTERNATIONALLY.

Alas, you are right. But so is Asia. Korea and Japan have the lowest birth rates in the world. Due to male fovourtism more boys are being born in India and China dooming many males to perpetual bachelorhood. The higher birth rates in India are from lower castes and Dalits, India's future.

There are simply not enough white people on planet Earth to make immigration primarily European. Displacement is an inevitability.

Does that make you happy? Is that a tone of triumphant glee I detect? Who needs a standing army when you have an immigration policy to exploit but you're going to have to fight the Chinese over who rules what in a future Canada. Them and Muslims who seem to have a head start in this.

Do you honestly believe an Asian dominated Canada split along Chinese, Indian, and Muslim lines will make this a better country? On what do you base your assumption that Canada will survive? The partitioning of India left scars that still haven't healed so what do you think will become of Canada? How is Canada any different? I believe Canada will become partitioned like India with Quebec leaving long before having seen the writing on the wall. This is based on independence movements worldwide and the tribal nature on humans.

It's typical head-in-sand; see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil; naive Canadian exceptionalism that assumes my country will escape the fate immigration patterns may doom it. We must consider the worst of outcomes, not just assume the best will always win out.

Luckily for them, minorities within Canada have historically been nowhere NEAR as racist as the majority are.

I hope you're right. But that's because, according to your implied logic, they're the minority. But when they're the majority, then what?

Anonymous said...

"I hope you're right. But that's because, according to your implied logic, they're the minority. But when they're the majority, then what?"


Then they will have had a history of living in a largely secular, liberal nation with separation of church and state. History influences everything. For a glimpse at Canada's future, one need only walk into a city public school now. The kids do not care about colour, they grew up together. They just go skateboarding together and try to blend into the dominant culture. Oh, but there's THAT aspect of human nature, wanting to fit in, that you always manage to overlook or dismiss. You flatter yourself too much; that is the REAL reason the second-generation non-whites are so likely to marry whites - they are attempting to marry into the dominant culture. They WANT to assimilate.

And why do second-generation Canadians statistically attend universities in much higher numbers than Canadians with Canadian-born parents (particularly the males, whose failure is becoming something of a national crisis)? Well, I chalk that up to their parents making them because of their "immigrant mentality" - you've been given an opportunity here and you MUST excel. You didn't really think immigrant mentality was JUST the Protestant work ethic, did you? LOL.

Anonymous said...

I also think that the inevitable displacement is being handled in a "kinder, gentler" way by method of making it gradual. A nation as large as ours when the population drops to 15 million (without immigration), what do you think is going to happen?? The siren call would go out for workers in desperation anyway, and then they would REALLY come by the hordes. Not to mention overpopulation elsewhere would mean they'd be looking for elbow room an an essentially empty country would be just the ticket. Really, the way it's being handled is the ONLY way. At fewest, the targets would still need to be 125,000 per annum to avert future disaster.

PaxCanadiana said...

Then they will have had a history of living in a largely secular, liberal nation...For a glimpse at Canada's future, one need only walk into a city public school now. The kids do not care about colour, they grew up together.

Better still go visit a university. Neil Bisoondath, an immigrant from Trinidad, correctly observed that at the university level ethnic groups segregated themselves, which was especially true for the Canadian born children of immigrants. You can read about it in his book The Cult of Multiculturalism. It's available in the library system.

His observations reinforced what I experienced first hand on not one but two Canadian university campuses.

You may be right to make that assumption about children but things change when they become adults. Speaking of children, a study by CNN found children were biased towards lighter skin.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-13/us/doll.study_1_black-children-pilot-study-white-doll?_s=PM:US

This preference seems to carry over into their adult years as evidenced by articles I provided in above comments.

But to throw you a bone accent may trump race when it comes to children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=accents-trump-skin-color

Needless to say it appears children prefer those who are more like themselves.

They just go skateboarding together and try to blend into the dominant culture.

They also engage in exclusionary practices. Tell me, can anyone be "desi"? What's an NRI? A PIO?

The pan-Indian "desi" identity is THE dominate culture for the western born children of Indian immigrants. They have no need of what may be referred to as the "mainstream" white culture of Canada and therefore care not to blend in since "Canadian-desi" is their identity. And it's racially exclusive. Just observe who will be paying attention to Bollywood's nomadic awards show that will be held in Toronto this June.

You flatter yourself too much; that is the REAL reason the second-generation non-whites are so likely to marry whites - they are attempting to marry into the dominant culture. They WANT to assimilate.

That conclusion is premature and flawed that will not stand the test of time. I argued that before and will not repeat myself here.

And why do second-generation Canadians statistically attend universities in much higher numbers than Canadians with Canadian-born parents (particularly the males, whose failure is becoming something of a national crisis)?

There are cultural reasons why but mostly due to an adverse view of manual labour. It is frowned upon. But also, so what? A university education is proving overrated. The U.S. is producing more Phds than it knows what to do with. Canada has more engineers than it can handle. A university education is no measure of success as Canadian born children of immigrants are learning.

http://www.torontosun.com/life/2011/03/03/17483356.html

Portuguese children have one of the highest drop out rates in Toronto but are highly concentrated in the construction trades. These are skills that are expected to be in high demand in the future yet I see Asians on construction projects are in short supply. How many Asian graduates from law school or business school do we need? It is possible that these Portuguese drop-outs will make as much if not more money than the university educated children of immigrants. Yet India and China remain Canada's top two sources of immigrants. If it were not about politics and voting blocks and truly about supply and demand it is apparent India and China are providing immigrant labour Canada has no need of.

You're naivety is astounding but not surprising given the amount of propaganda circulating in support of the immigration industry. Your arguements are unsubstantiated, just rhetoric and assumptions that superficially make sense but prove hallow on closer inspection.

PaxCanadiana said...

I also think that the inevitable displacement is being handled in a "kinder, gentler" way by method of making it gradual.

So it's okay to take over another country so long as you do it in a "kinder, gentler" way? There are about 10,000 Tibetan exiles living in the Parkdale neighbourhood of Toronto who would love to hear your theories about that.

Or take a trip to Fiji and explain to indigenous Fijians that the south Asian take over of their country is okay because it is being done in a "kinder, gentler" way.

A nation as large as ours when the population drops to 15 million (without immigration), what do you think is going to happen??

Greater job oppotunities and security for those of working age. This may translate into larger families, which translates into a growing population. Ta Dah!

Not to mention overpopulation elsewhere would mean they'd be looking for elbow room an an essentially empty country would be just the ticket.

If Africa over populated? Why not go there?

Really, the way it's being handled is the ONLY way. At fewest, the targets would still need to be 125,000 per annum to avert future disaster.

For starters it is not the only way.

Second of all 250,000 immigrant quota does not come close to averting the disaster it is supposed to help Canada avoid. How will 125,000? By saying so alerts me to conclude that you don't know what you're taling about.

Anonymous said...

In actual fact Pax, YOU are not sure what you're talking about. You've mentioned 1,000,000 being the targets needed to avert disaster but basically every demographer has said that the current targets EXCEED what is needed to offset the low birth rate; having said that, they also expressed concern that importing in 250,000 newcomers a year may ultimately prove unsustainable given the demographic issues facing ALL Western nations and some Eastern ones, where they're all competing for talent. Where is your source that argues that 1,000,000 is what is needed and do you have more than one? It may be true that for extremely dark people, they prefer lighter skin but that by no means means they prefer PALE. My feeling is that humans are naturally drawn to the medium (read: tan) skin tone which indicates optimal health. It's why dark people want to be lighter and pale people want to be darker. If it were as simple as skin colour gingers, the whitest of the white, would be the most in demand but as we can see, that is certainly NOT the case. What they really find aesthetically appealing is the phenotype white people possess; it's not really about skin colour. A Middle Eastern or lighter-skinned Indian person is not seeking to become "whiter" and may even see that as a negative, but perhaps they want their children to have straighter noses or blue eyes.

I agree that skilled trades are under-valued and that degrees aren't everything - that is precisely the reason why whites continue to earn more despite educational disparities in Canada: www.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/808647--race-plays-big-role-in-pay-study
Oh, but that can't possibly be! White privilege isn't alive and kicking TO THIS DAY, right? It's all a figment of "the liberal media" and non-whites' collective imagination, as one of your readers suggested, right? Well, if that's the case, why the strong opposition to immigration if you don't fear A LOSS OF PRIVILEGE. You've got nothing to lose, right?

Finally, there is no such thing as "colonization by invitation." The notion itself is laughable, really. Are white people THAT desperate for victimhood??

Anonymous said...

Yes Pax, I'm clearly wrong about non-whites in Canada(adults and children) WANTING to blend into the dominant culture. I suppose all of these people play hockey because they think it will give them lighter skin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_players_of_black_African_descent

Anonymous said...

Paz, have you taken a look at Canada's biggest bands that have emerged within the last decade? Metric, Billy Talent, they both have South Asian members. Only one I can think of, Alexisonfire, is all white and they've expressed a fondness for Chinese culture. You're trying to paint this picture of a deeply divided Canada but I'm speaking now from subjective experience and observation: I just don't see it.

Anonymous said...

Also, if you don't think Africa is at risk of overpopulation, you've CLEARLY never taken a look at their birthrate. They lack water; we have lots. In 20 years time, with an empty country, they'd just come flooding in.

Anonymous said...

Does that justify the European conquest of Africa?

Luckily for them, minorities within Canada have historically been nowhere NEAR as racist as the majority are.


These two implied positions are founded in the same mythology of the noble savage. It's not what we do but who we are.

Except of course that the Spanish and Portuguese,(and later the British) in both West Africa and the Americas met cultures of brutal racist savagery who practiced ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism. If the current warfare brought against Libya is justifiable upon human rights grounds, then the European war of conquest of Africa and the Americas is more than justified upon the same legal premise of just war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#West_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

Anonymous said...

"To be frank, Pax and her self-pitying xenophobic friends don't like non-white immigrants and specifically how many of them there are here."

Hook, line and sinker. Try using your baiting comments elsewhere. Here, for example.

"A nation as large as ours......"

I'm always amused whenever hearing immigrants using the possessive plural pronoun "ours", as in the above example when referring to Canada.

(In contrast, CBC's talking head, Peter Mansbridge and his ilk, never use that possessive term when speaking of Canada. Instead, they'll say "this country".)

As an immigrant, you seem emboldened enough to want to surrender MY country to "hordes" of other non-European immigrants.

You can't give something away that doesn't belong to you. Hence, your contradictory term "our" has no meaning to me, when you're referring to my country.

Supposedly, by watching too much CBC propaganda or reading the Toronto Star, will have that affect on immigrants.

Assimilation may be your goal, but my "xenophobic" nature just can't see you fitting in, yet.

I hope Pax will continue using that possessive pronoun, and, in turn, encourage other Canadians to assert sovereignty over our own nation, or else we'll lose it to the foreign invaders.

Pax says: "Your arguements are unsubstantiated, just rhetoric and assumptions that superficially make sense but prove hallow on closer inspection."

I'm inclined to agree..... just circuitous debating points that lead nowhere, and also avoids several good, solid points you brought forward.

He's "right" and you're "wrong". End of story.

Anonymous said...

"Does that justify the European conquest of Africa?

Luckily for them, minorities within Canada have historically been nowhere NEAR as racist as the majority are.

These two implied positions are founded in the same mythology of the noble savage. It's not what we do but who we are. "

I'm speaking specifically of hate crime rates within Canada. Despite there being ample opportunity as they are the largest ethnic group and on any given day you're more likely to encounter a white than a non-white, whites remain the group least likely to be targeted for a hate crime within Canada. What are the groups MOST often targeted? Surprise surprise: Blacks and Jews. I'm not making a historical inference to colonialism per se but a current one. Perhaps it's by method of being inundated with white faces everyday by way of the media, but non-whites don't harbour anywhere near the amount of hatred and resentment towards whites as whites do towards non-whites within Canada. Hate crimes would suggest that is a statistically verifiable fact.

Secondly, there is no such thing as colonialism by way of invitation. The notion itself is laughable.

Anonymous said...

"As an immigrant, you seem emboldened enough to want to surrender MY country to "hordes" of other non-European immigrants. "

HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M AN IMMIGRANT, ANONYMOUS? It's frustrating isn't it? Not being able to be certain of a thing about me from my stance? Surely as an admitted "xenophobe," you have the audacity to assume you can identify my ethnicity as well from my words, like you assume you know where I was born from my stance? Guess you'll just have to call me Canadian, then! After all, I grew up here, what the heck else could I be? LOL!

Anonymous said...

"He's "right" and you're "wrong". End of story."

Who could possibly argue with irrefutable rhetoric like that? Btw, you STILL haven't proven that I'm an immigrant. LOL. I wonder how many of these Pax will let through. Seems it's only my more succinct comments that don't make the chopping blocks. All of these most recent ones have had brevity, think they'll get approved, Pax?

PaxCanadiana said...

Yes Pax, I'm clearly wrong about non-whites in Canada(adults and children) WANTING to blend into the dominant culture.

Black Canadians (and I mean black Canadians because they are as much African as white Canadians are European) are indistinguishable from their white compatriots, skin colour aside. So I am not surprised you had to resort to a list of black Canadian hockey players since Asian, African, and south Asian players are lacking.

Black Canadians, like white Canadians, are also seeing the erosion of their national culture due to the demands of immigration and multiculturalism since they both share the same culture.

Blacks in Canada have not developed a unique cultural identity as those in the U.S. Their culture is either that of the host majority society or mimicry of African-American culture, the Island cultures of the Caribbean, or African. But in Toronto you can tell who is Canadian and who is African-Canadian.

My point it this: black Canadians have as much to lose as the host white majority. Their identity is being eroded and being segregated by the influx of African and Caribbean Island immigrants whose Canadian born off spring identify more with the country of their parents than the country in which they were born.

Also, just becasue a few non-white players pick up a hockey stick is no bench mark for community integration. What if a minority conform but the majority doesn't? If a white person converts to Sikhism does that mean widespread Canadians acceptance of Sikhism? Just because Kazim Nadri plays hockey can we now say that Muslims are fully integrated? I don't think so.

It is also no gurantee of hockey's longevity in the country. Cricket and soccer are sports of increasing popularity in Canada. A league in Toronto that saw generations play on it closed since those moving into the neighbourhood were immigrants who didn't care much to play it. I understand the cost of the sport prohibits many from playing it but it doesn't cost anything to follow a sports team. My prediction is hockey will become a third rate niche sport in Canada due to immigration.

PaxCanadiana said...

Paz, have you taken a look at Canada's biggest bands that have emerged within the last decade? Metric, Billy Talent, they both have South Asian members. Only one I can think of, Alexisonfire, is all white and they've expressed a fondness for Chinese culture. You're trying to paint this picture of a deeply divided Canada but I'm speaking now from subjective experience and observation: I just don't see it.

Metric has a south Asian band member? Which one would that be?

As for Alexis on Fire, who cares if they have a fondness of Chinese culture? I love Chinese food and films. As well as Japanese films. In fact I love foreign film. So what's your point?

A country has to have a culture to express a fondness for it. So how does Chinese culture reinforce the Canadian identity? How does multiculturalism?

Look at it this way: what if Alexis on Fire went to China and all they experienced was African cultures. How do you think they'll react? The Japanese had an obsession with Anne of Green Gables. How do you think they'd feel if they visited Canada and all they saw were south Asians, saw south Asian styles, and ate south Asian food?

Alexis on Fire, and the bands you mention, come from and participate in what is essentially a form of white musical culture. It is white rock. This doesn't mean you have to be white to play it but it is, nevertheless, an expression of white culture.

Now to the point: what is it to say you have a fondness of Canadian culture? If you identity it then how is immigration and multiculturalism helping it thrive? Or is it killing it? To say multiculturalism is the Canadian identity is to say Canada has no identity at all and thus there is no such thing as Canadians only citizens.

You forgot to mention Arcade Fire and Broken Social Scene.

PaxCanadiana said...

Also, if you don't think Africa is at risk of overpopulation, you've CLEARLY never taken a look at their birthrate.

Yeah, but do you know what the life expectancy is for the average African? They're dying off as fast as they are being born.

It's is mostly due to western privilege that causes us to assume that Africa is over-populated. It isn't. It is home to vast tracks unpopulated and underpopulated land.

But the question is how much of is is habitable? As you correctly allude to, there are geographical challenges that limit demographic expansion on the continent, like water for instance.

Well, how much of the Canadian territory is habitable?

For starters the Canadian Shield is one giant rock covered in a thin layer of soil. You can see it when you travel into Ontario's cottage country. Growing seasons are short and crops yields are challenging meaning it is terrible for farming. It is also 40% of Canada's national territory.

Then there's Canada's tundra. This is an area of permafrost that is technically a desert. Located in Canada's north is occupies 30% of Canada's geography.

So right now over 50% of Canada is either a cold desert or rock or both. There's a reason why 80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. This is the most habitable areas of the country. It is also the most arable parts of the country which is 5% of Canadian territory. This is also where the vast majority of immigrants settle and will settle indefinitely, destroying priceless farmland and Canada's ability to feed itself.

So Canada is not as habitable as you think. Ask yourself this: do you want to live north of the 60th parallel?

In 20 years time, with an empty country, they'd just come flooding in.

Tell me, where in the country are they going to go?

PaxCanadiana said...

I'm always amused whenever hearing immigrants using the possessive plural pronoun "ours", as in the above example when referring to Canada.

If they are dual citizens you have to wonder which country they mean? By "our country" does that mean my country that they have a claim to or is it their native country which I don't have a claim to.

Anonymous said...

HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M AN "IMMIGRANT, ANONYMOUS?"

No need to shout! Did you not make the following statement? "I am a South Asian newcomer and I work in a company where...."

"It's frustrating isn't it? Not being able to be certain of a thing about me from my stance?"

Not "frustrating", at all! You presume too much!

"Surely as an admitted 'xenophobe,' you have the audacity to assume you can identify my ethnicity as well from my words, like you assume you know where I was born from my stance?"

Note the word "xenophobe" is wrapped in quotation marks, which indicates a word taken from (your?) own context in a previous comment.

Assuming for the moment that I am an "admitted xenophobe" (now remember, those are your words)... what's your point here.... are you using the "straw man's" approach?

Or, was this supposed to be a "gotcha" moment where anyone losing an argument resorts to the lowest common denominator by engaging faulty inferences meant as a slur?

"Guess you'll just have to call me Canadian, then! After all, I grew up here, what the heck else could I be? LOL!"

Don't keep us in suspense too much longer... what country were you born in? Simple question.. nothing to be ashamed of.

As for myself, White -- born and bred right here in my own country - Canada.

Here we go again.

"Btw, you STILL haven't proven that I'm an immigrant."

I don't need to! You've accomplished that feat on your own. Yes?

PaxCanadiana said...

In actual fact Pax, YOU are not sure what you're talking about. You've mentioned 1,000,000 being the targets needed to avert disaster but basically every demographer has said that the current targets EXCEED what is needed to offset the low birth rate

Name one. In my research that hasn't been the case.

Here are three links that beg to differ.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798050/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1203562v60u4113/

www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4070

From the Fraser report we read:

Does immigration help the economy and the labor force, or reduce the problems stemming from an aging population? The short answer to each of these questions is “No.” Curiously, about the only people who do not believe that immigration benefits the economy and the labor force and reduces problems stemming from an aging population are those whose business it is to research and study these questions.

It is the economists, the demographers, the statisticians, and the academics who find the answers. Most economists consider the question of whether immigration
helps the Canadian economy is essentially settled. That is to say, they do not believe immigration contributes significantly to our economic
prosperity or our per-capita income.


It is correct to say that immigration does help offset an aging society but to what extent is the real discussion. Right now Canada's current immigration quotas are too low to accomplish what it allegedly is supposed to. Besides, if they were serious about it they wounldn't be importing the parents and grand parents of immigrants.

they also expressed concern that importing in 250,000 newcomers a year may ultimately prove unsustainable given the demographic issues facing ALL Western nations and some Eastern ones, where they're all competing for talent.

That's the first I have ever heard that. And of that 250,000 at most only 25% are selected for skills. And of the 25% many fail to find jobs in their field. Guess we don't need them.

Where is your source that argues that 1,000,000 is what is needed and do you have more than one?

My source was an OECD report I read years ago but failed to find via google. It disussed how OECD nations are combating an aging demographic and concluded that immigration numbers were less than sufficient to accomplish that; that they needed to radically increase immigration quotas for it to work. Hope the three links above help out.

Oh, but that can't possibly be! White privilege isn't alive and kicking TO THIS DAY, right?

Whites earn more becasue they are the majority and immigrants are not needed. This is why white previlege is a misconception. However that will change as whites are displaced as the host majority. So buck up, this country will be yours soon enough.

Finally, there is no such thing as "colonization by invitation."

I didn't invite you here. In fact 99.9999999% of Canadians didn't invite you here. You invited yourself by filing out an application. Tamil boat people invinted themselves here and see how Canadians reacted? A large influx of people from a single source country with an adversity to assimilation is colonialism. Go ahead and tell me Chinatown is Canadian. Besides, would you agree that native Canadians invited the European settlers to come here. Or was it thrust upon them?

PaxCanadiana said...

I'm speaking specifically of hate crime rates within Canada. Despite there being ample opportunity as they are the largest ethnic group and on any given day you're more likely to encounter a white than a non-white, whites remain the group least likely to be targeted for a hate crime within Canada.

What's a hate crime? Seriously, the interpretation of one is so broad it can mean almost anything.

What are the groups MOST often targeted? Surprise surprise: Blacks and Jews.

Oh, I'm sure they are. That's what they keep telling us so it must true and not politically motivated. And if antisemitism is on the rise could it be correlated with the increasing presence of Muslims in Canada due to immigration like it is in Europe? Is criticism of Isreal an antisemtic act now? I'm sure it is.

but non-whites don't harbour anywhere near the amount of hatred and resentment towards whites as whites do towards non-whites within Canada.

Perhaps not but they do for each other. And I wouldn't use the word hate here, it's too strong a word, but I would say they don't care much for each other. Just look at settlement patterns. How many Asians are settling in black neighbourhoods?

Secondly, there is no such thing as colonialism by way of invitation. The notion itself is laughable.

I didn't invite you here and neither did 99.9999999999999% of the Canadian population did either. And I doubt anybody in the native community invited you here. So who invited you?

Anonymous said...

"whites remain the group least likely to be targeted for a hate crime within Canada."

Canada does not keep crime statistics by race. However, it is apparent, based upon the US stats that crimes by blacks against whites is hugely disproportionate, under-repoted by the MSM, and seldom classfied as hate crimes. Hate crimes stats in Caanda are manipulated.

Jews aren't white? Really?!

Family re-unification is not immigration by invitation. It is colonization. The reference, whether human or other species is a settler population and "a settler is a person who has migrated to an area and established permanent residence there, often to colonize the area."

Anonymous said...

"Assuming for the moment that I am an "admitted xenophobe" (now remember, those are your words)... what's your point here.... are you using the "straw man's" approach?

Or, was this supposed to be a "gotcha" moment where anyone losing an argument resorts to the lowest common denominator by engaging faulty inferences meant as a slur? "

No, the South Asian gentleman you were speaking with is another person. To be quite clear, I AM NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL. There are quite a few anonymous commentators on this blog (as you yourself can attest to, being one of them), but since the option isn't given to choose a moniker, from what I have seen none of us have done so. So what exactly was the point of YOUR smug and presumptuous post? To prove that you pigeonhole people? Aren't clever enough to discern that this blog has several readers? That you can't identify the ethnicity or nationality of a person from a simple exchange, in spite of the fact that you THINK you can because you remain a narrow-minded xenophobe? There was no need to prove my point, we already knew all of these things.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't invite you here and neither did 99.9999999999999% of the Canadian population did either. And I doubt anybody in the native community invited you here. So who invited you?"

Again, you don't know that I am an immigrant. You are being presumptuous based on the fact that I disagree with much of what you say. To be perfectly honest, I can't speak for BEING invited to this country since I was born here but I know that there have been active campaigns in other countries since the post-WW2 era to recruit immigrants to Canada and if you don't believe me you need only do a Youtube search for promotional videos from Canadian government immigration bureaus to see that the campaign continues. Immigrants don't understand the dynamics that await them; they are lured here by the promise of opportunity and a better life. You can demonize them all you want but that remains a fact.

Regarding immigration being more than adequate for time being, one source I was able to locate is this one: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013098

"At the moment, Statistics Canada reports that Canada's average of 240,000 new Canadian immigrants per year more than compensates for our dismal fertility rate. However, those studying long-range trends say this is nowhere near enough, particularly as global competition for skilled labour becomes more aggressive in the coming decades." I've read something similar elsewhere but encountered the same problem that you did in terms of getting the exact article you are looking for using Google.

"However that will change as whites are displaced as the host majority. So buck up, this country will be yours soon enough."

And who exactly said the intent is displace whites as the majority? Combatting the obvious xenophobia, race-baiting and stereotyping going on on your blog and celebrating white displacement are NOT one in the same. You are attempting to act as a voice for entire ethnic groups in Canada, do you not realize the audacity and offensiveness in doing that? From what I've seen, objectivity isn't your best trait so I doubt you'll recognize it but your blog could certainly use a little balance! You can't even say for certain that I disagree with the fundamental premise of Canada's needing immigration reform. Until my admission in this very post, you couldn't say for sure that I was an immigrant! You only assumed as much. On a personal level, I am pro-enviromentalism. I believe that a shrinking population is an inherently good thing and that Canadians do not require "replacement." Had you asked me (prior to seeing this blog, of course) what I thought of importing in vast numbers of people into Canada when the birth rate would indicate a shrinking population, my instinct would be to say that nations with a large carbon footprint, such as ours, need smaller populations, not larger ones. I'm also an advocate of childfree living and take pride in the "green" aspect of choosing such a lifestyle. I came across your blog when I was RESEARCHING immigration reform within Canada. I have yet to hear you touch on this issue. In comments to me, you've touched on some of the more pragmatic aspects of your "message," such as invaluable Canadian resources and the effect overpopulation would have on these, which I appreciate. I feel that in choosing the tone and direction that you have for your blog, you've essentially thrown away an opporunity to reach out to Canadians from all walks of life. I understand, though, that you are merely reflecting the concerns of your core readership, a demographic to which I don't belong - hardcore xenophobes. I just think it's unfortunate as there are bigger issues than whether white people can peacefully co-exist in Canada with those who are not white. Considering the fact that one need only walk outside their door for evidence of this, it takes away credibility from your blog. Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, I'm sure they are. That's what they keep telling us so it must true and not politically motivated."

You're right, Pax. Statistics Canada is lying, I'm sure: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008017-eng.pdf

Anonymous said...

"And of that 250,000 at most only 25% are selected for skills. And of the 25% many fail to find jobs in their field. Guess we don't need them."

Pax: The percentages are even worse; only 17% of immigrants are actually selected under the skilled worker program.

The other 83% are their immigrant families and sponsored family members who lack any skills, and unnecessarily displace Canadians in our schools, our hospitals, our old-age homes, and generally just take up space in our country.

In addition to shutting out lower-income Canadians from their rightful place in service-industry jobs, this un-needed immigrant pool also force wages downwards due to their surplus numbers.

For a handy tool of information, check out this paper.

Anonymous said...

"....but since the option isn't given to choose a moniker...."

Under "Choose an identity" below, click "Name/url", then choose your moniker.

"So what exactly was the point of YOUR smug and presumptuous post? To prove that you pigeonhole people?"

Pigeonhole people? - You mean something like official government policies, and many company programs whenever the question of employment equity arises?

"Aren't clever enough to discern that this blog has several readers?"

"clever enough"? I refer you to the top line of this post.

".....in spite of the fact that you THINK you can because you remain a narrow-minded xenophobe?"

Allow me to be a little more "presumptuous", but you seem fixated on xenophobia... and I also sense you're itching to call me a "racist" instead.

"....they are lured here by the promise of opportunity and a better life. You can demonize them all you want but that remains a fact."

Governments don't usually follow the directions of tax-slaves, generally known as working Canadians. It would be a lengthy essay explaining that issue to you. Case in point - Why in hell are Canadian soldiers engaging in military activities over in Libya?

Anyhow, you presume too much once again, when suggesting Pax "demonize(s)" immigrants, when in fact, she has stated elsewhere on this blog -- that is not the point.

"I feel that in choosing the tone and direction that you have for your blog, you've essentially thrown away an opporunity (sic) to reach out to Canadians from all walks of life."

LOL. ...and become a congenial, robot partner along with the controlled mass media in Canada (eg. C.B.C. / Toronto Star) that are propaganda mouthpieces for those at the top of the food chain?

You're either very naive or very young, or perhaps both.

"......that you are merely reflecting the concerns of your core readership, a demographic to which I don't belong - hardcore xenophobes."

Would "ethnic minority" be a more apt description to describe you?

"I just think it's unfortunate as there are bigger issues than whether white people can peacefully co-exist in Canada with those who are not white."

That sounds like a feeble attempt at white racial guilt-tripping.

"Considering the fact that one need only walk outside their door for evidence of this, it takes away credibility from your blog."

A Toronto or Vancouver door, perhaps, but rest assured, the vast majority of Canada is still relatively free of "multiculturalism".

Furthermore, if you're so uncomfortable with the tone of this little blog, why do you return?

Judging from your own tone, free speech and diversity of opinions that differ from your own, don't seem relevant to you. It appears to me, that a large chip sits atop your brown leftist shoulder. Whether it remains there for eternity, is of no concern to me. However, if you feel so strongly about your issues, why not start a blog, as Pax has done here?

Anyhow, Pax can handle herself well enough without my interjection, if she chooses to do so.

It has been fun.... time to move onto to another thread. The last word goes to you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ March 28, 2011 - 5:20PM

If YOU feel so passionate about this issue, why not start a political party to represent your xenophobic (again, by your own admission, read back your comments, you claimed it as an apt description of yourself) interests? You think the current political parties do not represent your desires properly, so you can get active politically or you can continue to whine. Since you choose to do the latter, don't you find it a little hypocritical if someone comes onto the blog and expresses an opposing opinion, EXACTLY as you are doing? And you are correct, if you live out in rural Canada or Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, etc., you are relatively free of diversity. So with that in mind, I'm not sure what the problem is. You want to be surrounded by carbon copies of yourself, that much is understood, but when you start claiming that that is the case for everyone you have to expect someone to pipe up and say, "Actually...." The point is, don't speak for everyone. So far, I've heard Pax speak on behalf of South Asians (first AND second-generation), blacks, Chinese, Japanese, heck just about everyone. If you can't handle a little vocal disagreement from people WHO ACTUALLY BELONG TO THESE GROUPS then the illegitimacy of these claims is made evident FOR them. Young people from various parts of Canada continue to pour into Toronto so I guess they are fleeing the diversity of the East Coast? LOL.

Anonymous said...

"It appears to me, that a large chip sits atop your brown leftist shoulder."

Again, a shoulder for which the colour you can't verify because the fact remains that the colour of it doesn't matter. Welcome to the future of Canada, old man. Enjoy your stay.

PaxCanadiana said...

Again, you don't know that I am an immigrant.

Fine. I didn't invite your parents here nor did the 99.99% of Canadians either. If you want to go back far enough the native peoples of Canada didn't invite anybody here. It's still colonialism. Sheesh.

there have been active campaigns in other countries since the post-WW2 era to recruit immigrants to Canada

Yeah, but they didn't do it in ridiculously high numbers nor did it dramatically alter the ethnic mix of the nation. It pandered to the economic needs of the country, with a little humanitarianism thrown in. It was a "tap on, tap off" approach. Today it is about ethnic voting blocks.

they are lured here by the promise of opportunity and a better life.

For some perhaps, but for others, like upper caste south Asians, that's bull shit. They lived a good life back home but the pursuit of status and greed drove them to my country.

Regarding immigration being more than adequate for time being, one source I was able to locate is this one

You left this part out: "Nor will immigration be the solution." Their claim that current quotas are "more than adequate" is dubious since few whose job it is to follow immigration trends agrees with that. I wish they referenced the StatsCan report.

The crux of the argument is immigration is not the solution but an increasing birth rate is. This is where the money should go to not a wasteful immigration system of dubious benefit that the only guaranteed outcome is the replacement of the host society.

Besides, if it is more than adequate then why continue high numbers during an economic slowdown?

And who exactly said the intent is displace whites as the majority?

No one but that is the only guaranteed outcome of the current immigration system and it seems some people are happy about that. Having non-white immigration is fine but to the point where it threatens to reduce the racial majority to minority status is something that needs to be addressed.

You are attempting to act as a voice for entire ethnic groups in Canada

No, I'm trying to add diversity of opinion to a discussion that is important to a lot of people. Any discourse on immigration matters, when it is allowed, is so one sided that it is leaving many Canadians misinformed on an issue that is equally important to them as is health care, the economy, and the environment.

Until my admission in this very post, you couldn't say for sure that I was an immigrant!

I don't care if your an immigrant or not. It's the unchallenged assumptions I care to address and anyone can agree or disagree with I say.

of importing in vast numbers of people into Canada...my instinct would be to say that nations with a large carbon footprint, such as ours, need smaller populations, not larger ones...I have yet to hear you touch on this issue.

I've written on environmental issues and more or less agree with you. Immigration is a threat to Canada's natural heritage. Canadians care more about southern Ontario's rural charm than paving it over to make gawdy tract housing for status seeking Sikh Indians. Not worth the sacrifice in my view.

I just think it's unfortunate as there are bigger issues than whether white people can peacefully co-exist in Canada with those who are not white.

It's not just white people but can people of all races peacefully co-exits anywhere. This is just as important an issue as any that you have mentioned. Social stability is just as important as environmentalism if not more so.

PaxCanadiana said...

"Oh, I'm sure they are. That's what they keep telling us so it must true and not politically motivated."

You're right, Pax. Statistics Canada is lying, I'm sure: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008017-eng.pdf


Oh for the love God!

How many of those crimes are self reported? Who has the motivation, and much to gain politically, from reporting victimization through so-called hate crimes?

What's a hate crime? How do you prove one? How do you know you're a victim of one? It's so vague now anything can be a hate crime for God's sake.

PaxCanadiana said...

Pax: The percentages are even worse; only 17% of immigrants are actually selected under the skilled worker program.

I took the more liberal end because being more generous in numbers it still shows that the vast majority of immigrants to Canada are not selected for their skills.

Official figures put principal applicants, those selected for skills, at 25% of all immigrants. Their spouses and dependents make up the rest of the economic class pushing it above 50% of total immigration. This is why saying more than half of Canada's immigrants are economic immigrants is so deceptive. Though technically true closer inspection reveals that is not the complete picture.

jesse Taylor said...

I am not nearly as eloquent as the authors on this post but I will say as a rural white Canadian that I and many of my friends here are not in favour of the current immigration policies and feel marginalized by them. The opinions expressed by urban white's are not generally in line with rural Canadians. At what point will newcomers stop referring to us as immigrants. I beleive that after 5 generations I have earned the right to call myself a Canadian and I find it insulting when newcomers draw a parrallell to generational Canadians. I find that I have little in common with the "Canadians" that I have met in our inner city enclave system. Unfortunately immigrants must perpetually bombard us with how much we need them and how our country might fold without them to reinforce for themselves that they are important to us. We flourished before you were here, and we will after we smarten up and decrease these overstretching intake levels that are devastating our National Identity.

Anonymous said...

Everyone I know is against immigration altogether. My whole family is against it but that may be due to half of our province has had to leave to find work in other provinces as the federal government spends billions bringing in third world outsiders who do not even speak english or know our culture. The biggest losers have been white males and secondly white females and thirdly natives. We did not have homeless shelters in canada before massive immigration. Everyone spoke in english. There was little crime. There were few gangs.