Toronto article in Fall 2009 Intelligent Life Magazine

[ladyscraper]

Pretty funny article. Toronto is the most livable large city I can think of. I love it here. It might not be flashy for tourists but if someone comes to visit here to hang out with people that can show them around real neighborhoods instead of looking for attractions (dur dur there is the Empire State Building like I saw on tv dur dur dur), I have no doubt they would have an awesome time.

 

[Northern Magus]

I think we have to be careful about patting ourselves on the back too soon about this. Our 'experiment' is only about 30 years in the making, really.

Canadian Multiculturalism isn't perfect and to portray it as such is irresponsible. We do far too little to assimilate newcomers

Canadian values offend many around the world. Canadian practices and perspectives do also.

Well I hate to interrupt your tilting at windmills, but I think it's pretty funny that in a thread where we were talking about the need to stop shitting on ourselves, you go ahead and do just that.

First however, I'm going to debunk the false claim you put forward about the age of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism in Canada can be traced back at least to Governor General Lord Tweedsmuir in 1935 who promoted it throughout his time in office. It was picked up again by Senator Paul Yuzyk in 1964, endorsed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in their final report of 1969, adopted as official policy by the Trudeau government in 1971 (the first in the world to do so), entrenched in s.27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, and reaffirmed in the Multiculturalism Act 1988. In other words, it's been around far, far longer than you are willing to acknowledge.

As for your lamenting that newcomers aren't assimilated, well that's precisely the point. Assimilation is monocultural and monolithic in nature, demanding the evisceration of the original culture, language, traditions and beliefs that make each member of our society an individual. It denies the richness of a person's identity and in doing so is fundamentally intolerant and repressive. Sharing a half continent with three founding cultures and immigration from every country in the world, assimilation is not a viable option as there is no dominant culture to assimilate into and it would be contrary to our constitution even if we did. Difference is a healthy building block for any society, and here in Canada it has created a culture that is pragmatic and permeable. And inclusive.

Finally, as for your branding people "irresponsible" for being proud of our multicultural country and viewing it as a model for the world, I can think of at least one other "irresponsible" fellow who gives our country precisely the kind of pat on the back that you find so abhorrent:

"Canada is today the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe, without any doubt in my mind. . . . That is something unique to Canada. It is an amazing global human asset." -Karim al-Hussayni, the Aga Khan

So I really don't know what to say on behalf of us "irresponsible" guys, other than I'm humbled to be grouped with such illustrious company.

 

[TO City of Light]

"Canada is today the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe, without any doubt in my mind. . . . That is something unique to Canada. It is an amazing global human asset." -Karim al-Hussayni, the Aga Khan

I think this is a true statement. What is so scary is that what does that mean for the global future.








.

 

[pman]

petit probleme

Canada has its own sense of identity and its own culture because it has a unique set of cultural values that are routinely expressed socially, culturally, politically, and legally. It's true that many overlap with those of other countries, but its mix is unique and distinct. But perhaps that kind of perspective only comes with living elsewhere. What's undeniable is that Canada is the most successful experiment in multiculturalism that the world has ever known, and it should be prouder of it because it's the type of social harmony and inclusion that other countries can only envy.

Nation building presupposes nationalism, which is inherently exclusionary and intolerant. Rejecting this, and building an inclusive culture based on cosmopolitanism and shared values, is what has been occurring and continues to this day. It has been a magnet for immigration and growth, and a recipe for success.

It may be more difficult to recognize, but it's definitely an identity all its own.

Of course this Canada doesn't include Quebec. Try displaying a Canadian flag east of St. Laurent in Montreal and see how far it gets you. If you're reading this please ask yourself if you believe even a small fraction of your fellow Torontonians could carry on a conversation in French or could discuss their favourite quebecois tv shows or movies. We have to be clear on this if we're ever going to change the federal political reality that has so damaged Toronto: Canada is a state, not a nation. To Quebecers Canada is simply a giant pinata, which is perhaps why Montreal gets to have a better transit system than Toronto. We paid for it.

Since Toronto's problems begin with money, and since the federal take from the GTA is at least $4 billion a year, we need to stop being so starry-eyed about Canada and start recognizing it as one of Toronto's key problems.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"Since Toronto's problems begin with money, and since the federal take from the GTA is at least $4 billion a year, we need to stop being so starry-eyed about Canada and start recognizing it as one of Toronto's key problems."

I disagree with this statement. Money in itself is of no value. When actions cannot come to fruition it is because of a lack of initiative, sense of cohesion, and inappropriate allocation of resources. People blame lack of money but that is not how things work. Resources (human and wealth) flow towards initiative.

Toronto is a product of Canada and our entire existence is intertwined with the other regions of the nation. This does not mean residents of Toronto owe the nation anything, but nor does the nation at large owe anything to us.

 

[Tewder]

Well I hate to interrupt your tilting at windmills, but I think it's pretty funny that in a thread where we were talking about the need to stop shitting on ourselves, you go ahead and do just that.

My questioning of hackneyed clichés and government propaganda is not an issue of 'shitting' on ourselves as you so elegantly put it.

First however, I'm going to debunk the false claim you put forward about the age of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism in Canada can be traced back at least to Governor General Lord Tweedsmuir in 1935 who promoted it throughout his time in office. It was picked up again by Senator Paul Yuzyk in 1964, endorsed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in their final report of 1969, adopted as official policy by the Trudeau government in 1971 (the first in the world to do so), entrenched in s.27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, and reaffirmed in the Multiculturalism Act 1988. In other words, it's been around far, far longer than you are willing to acknowledge.

Your 'debunking' is more than a bit grasping... Multiculturalism (with a capital 'M') as a specific state-sponsored and funded mandate is recent to 1971, no matter what some GG in the early 1930s 'promoted', so in order to have this dialogue lets not be disingenuous about the terminology, agreed?

As for your lamenting that newcomers aren't assimilated, well that's precisely the point. Assimilation is monocultural and monolithic in nature, demanding the evisceration of the original culture, language, traditions and beliefs that make each member of our society an individual. It denies the richness of a person's identity and in doing so is fundamentally intolerant and repressive. Sharing a half continent with three founding cultures and immigration from every country in the world, assimilation is not a viable option as there is no dominant culture to assimilate into and it would be contrary to our constitution even if we did. Difference is a healthy building block for any society, and here in Canada it has created a culture that is pragmatic and permeable. And inclusive.

Where do you come off with such simplistic blanket assumptions like assimilation = mono-culture or monolithic?? We already agreed that xenophobia and intolerance are not part of the Canadian identity. This doesn't mean, however, that there is no 'identity' to start with. Moreover there is ample room in Canada for the celebration of individual expression, cultural expression, freedom of speech etc. in all kinds of different contexts, all of which are part of the Canadian identity, but this doesn't mean there are no common central laws, languages (English and French) history and traditions informing the ideals of the 'social contract' we share, our lingua franca of communication, and the principles and tenets of our social collectivity, including the rights and responsibilities of citizenship thereto. Assimilation is about the duty of educating and acclimatizing newcomers to these very things so that they can be responsible, engaged and fulfilled contributing members of the nation... and this is nothing at all about imposing some dated sense of nationalism to wield over other nations.

You yourself mention the Constitution. Isn't this document a reflection of our values and identity, indeed a very part of that identity? Do we accept cultures or individuals coming here and living in ways that are contrary to those things? No, and this is not an eradication of any rights to self-expression or culture...

Viewing assimilation as some sort of nefarious tool of cultural engineering is so completely incompatible with any real understanding of the Canadian identity and its history that it offers a profoundly weak defence of Multicultural ideology.

Finally, as for your branding people "irresponsible" for being proud of our multicultural country and viewing it as a model for the world, I can think of at least one other "irresponsible" fellow who gives our country precisely the kind of pat on the back that you find so abhorrent:

"Canada is today the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe, without any doubt in my mind. . . . That is something unique to Canada. It is an amazing global human asset." -Karim al-Hussayni, the Aga Khan

So I really don't know what to say on behalf of us "irresponsible" guys, other than I'm humbled to be grouped with such illustrious company.

I'm happy for you. I also don't disagree with the sentiment. Canada *is* a wonderfully rich, tolerant and diverse place. No question we should be proud of this. The Aga Khan's expertise on Canada notwithstanding it is indeed irresponsible for Canadians to smugly resort to empty boosterism on this issue, and I can't help but feel that your boasting of Canada's superiority in this regard smacks of the very kind of chauvinistic nationalism you claim to reject. At the end of the day we need to look a little deeper into these issues, with a little more honesty and realism. Diversity is a great thing and now the time has come for that diversity to transcend its Multiculturalism (capital 'M' again) in the interest of truly building something bigger and more inclusive, rather than fragmented and deconstructed.

 

[pman]

but TR

I agree with you on one thing TR. Toronto residents don't owe the nation anything. Yet the nation takes around $4 billion a year more from us in taxes than it gives back in spending.

We've had a tremendous amount of imagination in Toronto over the past 30 years - and all we got was transit lines never built, declining health and education systems, and crumbling infrastructure. What we never had was the money to fix what we already had, or implement all those wonderful plans.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ You get what you vote for.

 

[toraerach]

Viewing assimilation as some sort of nefarious tool of cultural engineering is so completely incompatible with any real understanding of the Canadian identity and its history that it offers a profoundly weak defence of Multicultural ideology.

There are many reasons why Canadians could and do see the word "assimilation" in this light. Our attempts to assimilate our Aboriginal peoples is a shameful stain on our history and certainly is an example of "nefarious...cultural engineering." So was our treatment of various Francophone populations both inside and outside of Quebec, if not to a lesser extent. The residential schools, for example, were justified as tools of assimilation. They failed and now we now have an entire segment of our population still dealing with that collective trauma. Why should we not approach any attempt at assimilation with some degree of skepticism?

I'm not saying that cultural integration of immigrants isn't desirable or that official Multiculturalism doesn't have its problems, but we have to acknowledge the fact that every new person or new group to our country will change our culture and national identity somehow. At the same time though, we can't use immigrants as a scapegoat for the dramatic changes our country has gone through over the past 50 or so years - changes that have rendered the country as described in The Maple Leaf Forever or Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town quaint if not obsolete with regards to today's Canada (that is, if the Canada they imagine ever really existed outside of Orange Halls and Anglican churches).

 

[pman]

not sure about that

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that the only way to have a nation with some kind of collective identity and social cohesion is to recreate the horrors of the residential schools or to go back to the bad old days of the repression of the quebecois. It's not unreasonable to ask whether or not a society that bases its identity on the differences among its people can have any discernable identity in the eyes of the rest of the world, can generate any sense of belonging to something greater among its citizens, or can undertake any major projects that require some sense of shared purpose. It's also not unreasonable to examine the experience of other cities with large immigrant populations (Sydney, NNYC, London for example) to see how they deal with questions of integration, identity, assimilation and nation-building. Multiculturalism is a Canadian fact, but it's not clear that it should be a religion.

 

[Tewder]

So true, pman. This so-called 'fear' of a Canadian identity is also quite unique to Toronto which as we know has identity issues of its own. No big identity issues in Quebec, however, or across many parts of this nation where you will find regionalism cohabiting side by side with a core sense of national identity.

Lesouis, it is important we are aware of our history and its issues, both good and bad, and that we have an ongoing national dialogue about these things, which is yet another reason why assimilation is important. By promoting Multiculturalism we do not achieve this. By ignoring a Canadian identity and/or history in preference of encouraging newcomers to celebrate the culture and identity of their homelands is simply wrong when it comes to government mandate.

 

[Whoaccio]

On the one hand i agree that multiculturalism is a sort of dead end identity pathway. To begin with, multiculturalism isn't the most clearly defined concept on earth. Perceptions of it range from cultural balkanization to a benign side effect of liberalism with alot of mushiness in between. Then you get the problem that multiculturalism is actually pretty widespread. Toronto might be very multicultural, but it's not like the rest of the world is Montana and we are all that notable. There's really not that much here that you couldn't see in London, or Sydney, or New York or Vancouver in terms of multiculturalism. And then what? Where does multiculturalism lead? Identities change over time, but multiculturalism is more of a concept than an identity and can't really evolve. Londoner used to mean one thing a century ago, something else 50 years ago and something different today. "Multiculturalism" will be the same thing 500 years from now.

It's tangential, but I'd also point out that multiculturalism has problems within immigrant communities. It's solvable, but I'm sure I'm not the only one whose noticed Eastern Europeans don't always have the best things to say about Blacks, or that a South Asian parent would not take kindly to their daughter dating outside the clan. If you look at mixed-race couples, they disproportionately involve one white spouse. Going forward, multiculturalism will just eat itself apart if mono-cultural elements of immigrant communities aren't discouraged.

On the other hand, Canadian identity and heritage aren't real winners either. Nobody likes to say it, but the simple fact is we are a fairly boring country. That's not a bad thing, most people come here specifically because they don't have to worry about something exiting happening. As an identity though people have had hundreds of years to move to Canada/Toronto because of our history and it hasn't really been such a major draw so far. On a global scale, it will take a few hundred years for us to join the Paris or Rome club, no amount of CanCon boilerplate about the War of 1812 and how 62 British soldiers died will change that. In the mean time, we are better off making new history to be remembered for.

The only real way forward is cultural syncretism. We have such a huge pool of human talent from all over the world, the cultural syncretism that could come from it is our best shot at forming a real, 21st century, identity. Promoting Toronto as a kind of Epcott Center is a dead end. Nobody will come here to experience the glories of Americanized Thai food and California Maki rolls. They will go to Thailand, or Tokyo, or California. In L.A. there were the guys who started making Korean-Mexican food. L.A. has lot's of Koreans, and lots of Mexicans, now you can only get kimchi tacoos in L.A. Toronto has nothing like that, or at least not enough of it.

 

[Northern Magus]

I could be wrong, but is Tweder wearing a tinfoil hat and not taking his meds??

Since he's ranting and pontificating about how terrible it is to let others keep their cultures, let's review what he's said and see just how little credibility he has.

Exhibit A: His weak grasp of facts and inability to do simple mathematical rounding

Our 'experiment' is only about 30 years in the making, really.

Multiculturalism (with a capital 'M') as a specific state-sponsored and funded mandate is recent to 1971

Exhibit B: His rank hypocrisy

Canadian values offend many around the world. Canadian practices and perspectives do also.

Where do you come off with such simplistic blanket assumptions??

Exhibit C: His laughable non-sequiturs

"Canada is today the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe, without any doubt in my mind. . . . That is something unique to Canada. It is an amazing global human asset." -Karim al-Hussayni, the Aga Khan

I can't help but feel that your boasting of Canada's superiority in this regard smacks of chauvinistic nationalism.

Exhibit D: His outright delusions

No big identity issues in Quebec, however, or across many parts of this nation where you will find regionalism cohabiting side by side with a core sense of national identity.

Exhibit E: His attempts to trivialize what one word really means

as·sim·i·late
1. To make one thing like another, to homogenize
2. To incorporate and absorb

Assimilation is about the duty of educating and acclimatizing newcomers to these very things so that they can be responsible, engaged and fulfilled contributing members of the nation... Viewing assimilation as some sort of nefarious tool of cultural engineering is so completely incompatible with any real understanding of the Canadian identity and its history

Exhibit F: His thinly-veiled contempt for New Canadians

We do far too little to assimilate newcomers

encouraging newcomers to celebrate the culture and identity of their homelands is simply wrong

It's clear to me that Tweder's really ranting on about his disdain for others who are different and are proud of their family's background, language, and culture. He clearly doesn't want to discuss it, but under a policy of assimilation, the rights of minorities are always abrogated, and they have fewer liberties. Assimilation's acolytes always claim it's for the greater good, but it's really about repression and forcing others to fit into a particular mold that's not of their choosing.

After all, how can you have a policy of assimilation and yet allow "newcomers" to use their homeland language on public signs?

Assimilation has been proven throughout history to be an affront to human liberty and dignity. In the final analysis, multiculturalism best upholds the rights of individuals, especially those of minorities, and remains the best foundation for cultivating a tolerant, pluralistic society within Canada.

 

[Whoaccio]

Huh? Assimilationist policies are not in and of themselves an affront to human rights. On a case by case basis, some policies promoted in the name of assimilation (like Quebec's language laws, or French prohibitions on burqas) are quite tangibly an affront to personal freedoms. Other policies though, like clearly illustrating societal norms with respect to things like gender equality or promoting adoption of the local language wouldn't really fit any definition of illiberal behavior.

At the end of the day, multiculturalism vs. assimilation is a bit of a false debate. We require immigrants to take certain normative positions. They have to live by the laws of Canada, including the Charter. From there, it's just a question of what is covered and what isn't. Do religious courts have any legal validity under our laws? Does freedom of religion supersede other freedoms? To what extent is it reasonable to accommodate differences? None of those are changed by saying you support multiculturalism or assimilation.

There is also a difference between "multiculturalism" (the pluralistic acceptance of a discrete set of social, ethnic and religious differences) and "Multiculturalism" (the promotion and preservation of ethnic, social and religious differences.) They have different implications. Sure, it's inhumane to say you can't wear that hat here. There is no reason we have to, or should, publicly fund groups like the Canadian Arab Federation to do nothing but stir up shit and call duly elected politicians "whores" though.

 

[kEiThZ]

NM,

I understand where Tewder's coming from and I am an immigrant. I don't think its fair to label his views as racist.

I agree with Tewder as well, that far too little is done to encourage immigrants to absorb at least some of the Canadian identity. And there are practices that are abhorrent to Canadians and should be labelled as such. As an Indian immigrant, I doubt you'd want me to bring over attitudes on caste and class from the Indian subcontinent. Nor would you want to me bring over their attitudes about women.

I am fairly sure that this is also what Tewder means when he says others might find our values offensive. They would. I don't think you'd find that conservative Gulf Arabs would think of our values as all that enlightened. In fact, they'd consider our view of religious and women's rights to be abhorrent. Although not Arab, from that region, the Iranian government has cited our repeated efforts to sanction their human rights record as imperialistic and an attempt to impose our values on them. I am certain that if they liked our values they would not be protesting as much.

Back here, the reality is that multi-culturalism as an official policy has done very little to really promote a national identity. And I think outsiders to some extent see that. That's why we are looked at as copy-cat Americans. It's cause we really haven't done much to define and defend our own culture (save Quebec). So it's lead to a fair bit of absorption of what's coming from south of the border. Canadians in reality, probably have more in common north-south by region, with Americans, than east-west with each other. It'd be tough to say that a Vancouverite has more in common with a Torontonian than someone from Seattle. In this regard, there's no doubt that multi-culturalism has not worked. It's done little to promote national unity and a national identity. That's not to say it's not worthwhile. We have one of the most successful immigration policies in the world because of it. But the policy isn't perfect and one of its flaws has been its lack of impact on national unity.

Anyway, let's not take the debate to such extremes. I have not seen Tewder advocate anything as extreme as what you've pitched on here. He's not out to turn every immigrant into a flannel wearing, hockey playing, Tim Horton's drinking hoser. He's not advocating interring all new immigrants at Tim Horton's till they can say double-double without an accent. So please don't paint him as some kind of bigot.