Toronto article in Fall 2009 Intelligent Life Magazine

[safeashouses]

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.

Say it again 'scaper, say it again,

Only caveat is that it takes a decent income to live and experience it here, but there's no place I'd rather live over 30.

 

[MisterF]

I would respectfully disagree that Canada does better at acclimatizing newcomers and building collective unity across its diverse groups. We do pretty much absolutely nothing for this in fact. In the USA on the other hand there is a shared notion of 'America' that Americans and newcomers believe in and seek. Is it uniform? No. Is it flawed and problematic? Yes. Does it evolve and mutate over time? Yes. Is it inherently valued by all citizens regardless of its perceived flaws? Yes again. To be American is to identify with and belong to one's cultural group, at the same time as the collective national identity.

Remember the vision of Canadian Multiculturalism was of a non-integrated 'mosaic' rather than of an integrated 'melting pot'.

I've posted published academic research showing that Canada integrates newcomers better, you've posted some fuzzy concepts that don't really say anything. Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. Re: the "mosaic" vs "melting pot" dochotomy, repeating it doesn't make it true. As shown by the research, it's a myth.

The university of Waterloo, similarly, for example, is more or less segregated and is seen as the "Asian university".

Those are some worst case scenarios, yes, but the enclave-trend does act against this natural force of integration you're bringing up.

I went to Waterloo. If that's the worst case scenario then we don't have a problem. Yes the Asian mathies congregated together but it's not like there weren't Canadian-born mathies too. The campus as a whole is fairly mixed....and ethnic Asian kids who were born in Canada hung out with the white kids much more than the kids from other countries. Which is what I've been saying all along.

But is that was intentioned when the official policy of multi-culturalism was implemented? That we'd get little Punjab in Brampton and little Hong Kong in Markham? Heck, Punjabis in Brampton don't even bother mixing with other South Asians in Toronto forget other non-indic cultures.

In my view, this is not a multi-cultural and diverse society anymore if people aren't mixing about. It's great that we can buy food from every part of the world. But is that we want Canadian multi-culturalism to be? A giant food festival? I recognize the stats that say children of immigrants integrate in a generation or two. But those stats come from era where there was no critical mass of immigrants in individual immigrant communities.

There was no critical mass of immigrants from individual immigrant communities in 2004?

But I, like Jenny, remain worried. One of the things I fear the most, is that allowing these communities to remain so insular, will inevitably result in them bringing over their cultural baggage. The abuse of women, for example, in South Asian communities is a big one that's only now showing up in stats. The preference to educate girls over boys, will probably also start coming thru. I have now even heard of south asian couples pursuing sex selection for babies (a practice that's banned in India but legal here). It's stuff like this that I worry about. When you set no limits other than the bare bones Ten Commandants stuff, there's a lot of practices that Canadians would find distasteful that slip under the radar.

Nothing new here. Immigrants never have mixed with the general population very much when there are large immigrant communities, and there have always been problems with cultural differences in the first generation. That goes back to Jews, Italians, even Scots going back to the early 1800s. The key point is that the second generation integrates much more. Always has.

I don't know what the antidote is. To me, encouraging these communities to interact with other Canadians more is probably a net positive.

That's exactly what multiculturalism as it's impremented does. Here's a question, what country's immigration policies are better than Canada's? Which country does a better job at addressing the problems you describe? Not the US. Certainly not France. Probably not the UK or Australia. So what exactly are you advocating?

Those of us who live in these communities know first hand the problems that are there. Labeling those of us who speak out as racist, anti-immigration (odd since we are immigrants) bigots, etc. will not help improve the lot of immigrants or Canadians at large.

Considering my parents have anti-immigrant tendencies, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people who are anti-immigrant are immigrants themselves.

 

[jenny_zhang]

If we want to do stat bombing:

http://restructure.wordpress.com/20...ort-discrimination-compared-to-their-parents/

The study, based on an analysis of 2002 Statistics Canada data, found that the children of visible-minority immigrants exhibited a more profound sense of exclusion than their parents.

Quoting studies will always yield different results.

That goes back to Jews, Italians, even Scots going back to the early 1800s. The key point is that the second generation integrates much more. Always has.

Clearly there is a fundamental difference between comparing Italians to Anglo-Saxon Canadians, versus comparing Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, African, etc, Canadians. There is a very obvious reason why the trends might not be the same.

Here's a question, what country's immigration policies are better than Canada's? Which country does a better job at addressing the problems you describe? Not the US. Certainly not France. Probably not the UK or Australia.

I would probably agree that Canada has the best model. But is being the best of such poor examples really something to be proud of, and should we not point out the faults which are still there?

I went to Waterloo. If that's the worst case scenario then we don't have a problem. Yes the Asian mathies congregated together but it's not like there weren't Canadian-born mathies too. The campus as a whole is fairly mixed....and ethnic Asian kids who were born in Canada hung out with the white kids much more than the kids from other countries. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I guess we had different experiences. I had several friends leave Waterloo and transfer to other universities because they felt too much isolation there. I would wager it is different from different programs.

 

[afransen]

I went to Waterloo. I had no problem finding friends, but it seemed a shame that a whole (large) segment of the student body was largely uninterested in being friends with anyone who didn't speak Cantonese/Mandarin. There is a proliferation of Ethnic+Interest clubs, like the Chinese Drama club, and Chinese Christian Fellowship (one each Mandarin and Cantonese). There is a pretty strong desire for segregation, which I think is a shame. Someone raised this point in the student newspaper and everyone covered their ears and shouted "Racism! Racism!"

 

[Northern Magus]

Since you object to my analogy, I guess you'd agree that Canada should, without any restriction, send planes out to every single country in the world and bring every single person who wants to immigrate into the country and settle them here. And this would cause no problems. I suppose that would be alright with you, since you disagree with my analogy and the fact you cannot "save" all the passengers you morally want to.

If you can't admit a problem, you can't solve it.

Can you admit a problem, "Jenny"?

Straw Man

A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Straw men are notoriously easy to construct, and require little more than extending the opponent's arguments beyond their original point until their stance appears ridiculous. Once the opponent has accepted (or failed to refute) such a set-up, one can simply attack the strawman position instead of the opponent's actual points, and claim any attempt subsequent attempt to correct the situation as a conceding the argument.
​

 

[jenny_zhang]

So you refuse to actually respond to any points I've made, but then complain with eighth grade debating tactics when I attempt to interpret your posts to their natural conclusion?

If, after all the preceding testimonials and discussion, this is your response....then, I can't help but think it's the mark of someone who just wants to "win" and not have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Tewder]

I've posted published academic research showing that Canada integrates newcomers better, you've posted some fuzzy concepts that don't really say anything. Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. Re: the "mosaic" vs "melting pot" dochotomy, repeating it doesn't make it true. As shown by the research, it's a myth.

I agree with Jenny that it is easy to cherry-pick tainted and extremely questionable stats/research to defend one's point... and is this really the forum for that? We're discussing concepts here, no harm nor foul. I'm not attacking *you* for supporting Multiculturalism. I'm interested to know why you do but reserve the right to disagree without being accused of racism or xenophobia. We all live in this Multicultural society, experiencing it daily and thereby forming our own impressions. It is no conincidence that you are hearing first hand reports here from Canadians of differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds who are experiencing very similar troubling trends with respect to the real consequences of government policy. Do you not care to even discuss this openly and question why?, or even entertain the notion that maybe a government policy is wrong??

Nothing new here. Immigrants never have mixed with the general population very much when there are large immigrant communities, and there have always been problems with cultural differences in the first generation. That goes back to Jews, Italians, even Scots going back to the early 1800s. The key point is that the second generation integrates much more. Always has.

Except that under Multiculturalism ethnic communities are now encouraged *not* to integrate. Why do supporters of Multiculturalism overlook this?? Are you for integration or not?? Our government's policy is one of actively promoting and funding balkanization, and this is what we should be discussing instead of strawman arguments surrounding immigration policy or xenophobia etc. Yes, there is always a natural tendancy for immigrant groups to cluster, as with for franco or anglo-Canadian groups for that matter, which is all the more reason why our government must encourage balance by having some policies in place for creating unity and integration between all Canadians.

Here's a question, what country's immigration policies are better than Canada's? Which country does a better job at addressing the problems you describe? Not the US. Certainly not France. Probably not the UK or Australia. So what exactly are you advocating?

I'd advocate a Canadian solution. If Multiculturalism isn't working we need to evolve and find new solutions. Other countries may do some things better than us and we may do some things better than other countries. Great, lets take what's better of all models and use it.

2nd Generation Canadians have little choice but to integrate. When you go to school with people of various cultures and have to interact with them everyday, your experience is going to be vastly different than those of your parents who may have grown up with certain prejudices that they refuse to let go.

Now, obviously there will be some people in successive generations who hold on to certain attitudes, but it almost invariably diminishes over time.

I'd be inclined to agree with you in the past under older policies of integration whereby successive generations would increasingly identify more with Canada and fellow-Canadians than with the culture/ethos etc of their individual ethnic homeland. Remeber, Multiculturalism as a funded government policy actually discourages this and promotes the separation of cultures. What many of us are concerned about is the growing lack of integration to the point where successive generations within a community are less likely to interact with people from other communities. As Keithz has pointed out we are creating a sense of tribalism, with many expanding and often conflicting ethnic groups living astride one another but not mingling with one another. Not a good scenario.

 

[kEiThZ]

There was no critical mass of immigrants from individual immigrant communities in 2004?

The paper is from 2004. When is the data from? For certain communities, yes the critical mass was not present. I was a handful of non-white kids in my elementary school class in Brampton in the very early 90s. I imagine that would be a completely reversed ratio today.

Nothing new here. Immigrants never have mixed with the general population very much when there are large immigrant communities, and there have always been problems with cultural differences in the first generation. That goes back to Jews, Italians, even Scots going back to the early 1800s. The key point is that the second generation integrates much more. Always has.

As Jenny pointed out. There are differences. It's rather ignorant to suggest that all immigrants from everywhere will be the same. There are major cultural differences between immigrants from the Western hemisphere and the Eastern one. And there's no guarantee that this wave of immigrants will necessarily integrate as easily as their predecessors did.

That's exactly what multiculturalism as it's implemented does. Here's a question, what country's immigration policies are better than Canada's? Which country does a better job at addressing the problems you describe? Not the US. Certainly not France. Probably not the UK or Australia. So what exactly are you advocating?

As Jenny pointed out, is 'good enough' acceptable? I wholeheartedly agree with you that our system is one of the best, if not the best out there. Quite often when I interact with my European counterparts on NATO courses, they are simply stunned that I as an immigrant fit well enough into Canadian society to even join the military.

However, this does not make our concerns irrelevant. If you want to consider where poor immigration integration could lead, look at the UK. They are probably the closest country to implement an immigration policy with a similar multi-culturalism context (as in a preference for MC) to us. Many of their failings actually come from practices we've had for a long time. For example, many of their South Asian immigrants are of Pakistani descent (the opposite mix of Canada, the US, Australia and NZ) and more specifically from Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan, etc. Many came over as refugees during various India-Pakistan bouts. And still more came over under sponsorship and various family class schemes. It is these groups of migrants (not other South Asians) who have had a tough time adjusting to life in the UK. Many did not come from urban areas in Pakistan itself, had lower levels of education and training than other immigrants, and very limited cultural exposure prior to arrival in the UK. No emphasis on integrating into mainstream English society there has lead to growing Islamization of the community, radicalisation of young people, poor socio-economic conditions, etc. Heck, the UK health minister recently complained about the high rates of genetic disorders in the community owing to the practice of marrying first cousins. Over there, the UK government is now trying desperately to better integrate this community into the mainstream. And they are going out of their way to encourage these people to take on a more 'British' identity and to scale back on the Kashmiri or Pakistani identity.

When I look at Canada, I can't see how the same situation as this would play out here any differently if we ended up with such an under-equipped community of migrants. What do we do in practice, that's really all that different from the UK to help immigrants integrate? Having had family who've migrated from India to the UK, their experience does not seem all that different to mine. Which leads me to conclude that our system could easily fall prey to the same problems. It seems, almost a matter of luck, that we've not had the same mix of immigrants from that part of the world and have thus avoided many of their issues by sheer luck of the draw. Our success, it seems, is largely due to a process which gets us the best immigrants. It has very little to do with integration. And that's what's bothersome here.

As an immigrant, I worry about all this for another reason. Again, looking at the UK, see the meteoric rise of the BNP and EDL. They have come into being in some part at least, because there are natives have come to resent immigration. I, sometimes worry, that a failure to better integrate immigrants, could lead to such a backlash here. Yes, I realize there's much more complexity to the issue, and the Brits have quite the history with race relations, but it's still worrying to have the BNP getting as many votes as it does...which means that more and more mainstream voters consider their gripes legitimate.

Considering my parents have anti-immigrant tendencies, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people who are anti-immigrant are immigrants themselves.

Careful now. I never suggested I was anti-immigration. In fact, I'd like to see immigration expanded. My complaints only lie with how we settle and integrate immigrants.

 

[syn]

I'd be inclined to agree with you in the past under older policies of integration whereby successive generations would increasingly identify more with Canada and fellow-Canadians than with the culture/ethos etc of their individual ethnic homeland. Remeber, Multiculturalism as a funded government policy actually discourages this and promotes the separation of cultures. What many of us are concerned about is the growing lack of integration to the point where successive generations within a community are less likely to interact with people from other communities. As Keithz has pointed out we are creating a sense of tribalism, with many expanding and often conflicting ethnic groups living astride one another but not mingling with one another. Not a good scenario.

The Canada successive generations would identify with in the past doesn't really exist anymore - at least not in the big cities.

I don't agree that Multiculturalism discourages and promotes the separation of cultures. It may support the celebration of unique cultural heritages, but that doesn't mean one can't also be a proud Canadian. There are many that successfully toe the line.

Canada is a society of immigrants; new immigrants are doing what older immigrants have been doing since the country was founded - forging their identity largely based on that of their homeland. It just seems 'Un-Canadian' to us because we see what older generations established as the norm.

Immigrants living in close proximity is nothing new either. It's hard to adapt to life in a new country, and it helps to have those nearby that you can relate to and share the experience with. Born Canadians do the same thing - that might be why it seems so alarming now. With a record percentage of immigrants in the city, something that was easier to ignore is now seen as a threat. Many who didn't care to really mingle with those of other cultures are now a bit insecure about large groups of immigrants doing the same thing. I've always wondered why people expect immigrants to assimilate into a new culture when people who were born here often don't do much to make the process any easier.

In any case, I stand by my statement that immigrant families integrate their background with Canadian ideals increasingly through successive generations. As Hipster Duck pointed out, we don't have any stats to support this, so much of it is anecdotal evidence. It kind of reminds me of the perception people have in the ROC of Toronto as a crime magnet, when in reality it's one of the safest cities in the country.

In my experience, the vast majority of friends I have that are 1st generation born Canadians have very different attitudes than those of their parents. It's pretty much inevitable, even if you live in a community with people from the same country. We see a lot more interracial couples and it's becoming increasingly common to see people of different backgrounds at a cultural event. While there is a contingent of immigrants that isolate themselves, I suspect this will always be the case to a certain degree...just as there will probably always be a certain group of Canadians who've been here for generations that don't care to mix outside their own group. At the end of the day you can't force people to interact with others if they don't want to.

 

[syn]

I went to Waterloo. I had no problem finding friends, but it seemed a shame that a whole (large) segment of the student body was largely uninterested in being friends with anyone who didn't speak Cantonese/Mandarin. There is a proliferation of Ethnic+Interest clubs, like the Chinese Drama club, and Chinese Christian Fellowship (one each Mandarin and Cantonese). There is a pretty strong desire for segregation, which I think is a shame. Someone raised this point in the student newspaper and everyone covered their ears and shouted "Racism! Racism!"

These groups can certainly lead to people segregating themselves. Ideally people would take advantage of these groups to explore other cultures - but many just want to stick with their own 'group'.

I think if there's a failing of multiculturalism it's not that people identify with those of their own background - it's that more people aren't open minded enough to move out of their comfort zone and experience new things. Fortunately that's something that seems to be changing for the better as time goes by.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

I'd be inclined to agree with you in the past under older policies of integration whereby successive generations would increasingly identify more with Canada and fellow-Canadians than with the culture/ethos etc of their individual ethnic homeland.

Hah. Even now, all it would take is one visit back to the ethnic homeland to really drive home just how Canadian you are. My parents are immigrants and their circle of friends is largely confined to people from their homeland, but they identify as Canadian all the same. After 40 or so years in Canada, there is just no going back for them.

 

[golodhendil]

I went to Waterloo. I had no problem finding friends, but it seemed a shame that a whole (large) segment of the student body was largely uninterested in being friends with anyone who didn't speak Cantonese/Mandarin. There is a proliferation of Ethnic+Interest clubs, like the Chinese Drama club, and Chinese Christian Fellowship (one each Mandarin and Cantonese). There is a pretty strong desire for segregation, which I think is a shame. Someone raised this point in the student newspaper and everyone covered their ears and shouted "Racism! Racism!"

Tying the presence of ethnic interest clubs to "segregation" has several problems. First of all, a significant number of people in these clubs are not immigrants but international students (and many of these clubs were in fact founded years or decades ago for and by international students), who thus need not be expected to "integrate" into mainstream society. More importantly, how much do these clubs really say about how "segregated" or "integrated" are the students?
Since we are all going by anecdotes here, I can tell you that many people in these clubs (including the ones you mentioned, and not just in UW but other universities as well) range from being barely able to speak Chinese, to those whose majority of friends are non-Chinese/non-Asians, and/or whose s-o is non-Chinese, to those who are fluently bi/trilingual and yet actively engaged in the mainstream society. Being in such clubs has not prevented any of them from being active participants in mainstream cultural, civic and political life.
These clubs have also made efforts, and are often successful, in building bridges across different cultural groups. A classical Chinese music club at UofT, started by a personal friend, has multiple non-East Asian members, playing ancient Chinese instruments that even most native Chinese can't play. The Chinese student newspapers in several universities have English sections designed to engage 2nd generation immigrants and non-Chinese students, including the paper at UofT which, under my tenure a few years ago, has invited non-Chinese contributors and started an ever-expanding English section.
Of course, there are certain people who really would refuse to move out of their comfort zone as syn said, and I can only speak about the various East Asian ethnicities with which I have the most intimate experience, but the notion (as held by certain board members such as jenny) that I had always challenged in these discussions is how widespread and serious these problems really are. And of course, whether these situations really say anything about the success or failure of official multiculturalism; does the existence of the same corresponding ethnic clubs in American universities point to a failure of the American melting pot approach?

 

[jenny_zhang]

does the existence of the same corresponding ethnic clubs in American universities point to a failure of the American melting pot approach?

I don't see any practical difference between American and Canadian approaches to integration/multiculturalism. It happens to be "official" here, but the effect in America is similar. It is "melting pot" in name only.

Being in such clubs has not prevented any of them from being active participants in mainstream cultural, civic and political life.
These clubs have also made efforts, and are often successful, in building bridges across different cultural groups. A classical Chinese music club at UofT, started by a personal friend, has multiple non-East Asian members, playing ancient Chinese instruments that even most native Chinese can't play. The Chinese student newspapers in several universities have English sections designed to engage 2nd generation immigrants and non-Chinese students, including the paper at UofT which, under my tenure a few years ago, has invited non-Chinese contributors and started an ever-expanding English section.

I accept what you're saying, at the same time I feel like you're making small points which don't really refute the overarching theme. Yes, there are a few non-Chinese students at various Chinese clubs, but the fact is that the majority is Chinese, most of these ethnic clubs operate mostly on the basis of ethnicity. Yes, they are "technically" open to all, and yes, there are some examples of cross-cultural interaction but let's just accept the obvious truth that these are mostly groupings of students by ethnic background. Otherwise there is no need for the "Chinese Christian Club", a Christian club would be more than good. This is troublesome in university, where a lot of students have trouble forming a social net and rely on these clubs to do so for them.

Again, I accept that I might be more alarmist than some people. But I just look at what we have now in terms of ethnic fragmentation in this society and worry about what the future holds.

 

[golodhendil]

I accept what you're saying, at the same time I feel like you're making small points which don't really refute the overarching theme. Yes, there are a few non-Chinese students at various Chinese clubs, but the fact is that the majority is Chinese, most of these ethnic clubs operate mostly on the basis of ethnicity. Yes, they are "technically" open to all, and yes, there are some examples of cross-cultural interaction but let's just accept the obvious truth that these are mostly groupings of students by ethnic background. Otherwise there is no need for the "Chinese Christian Club", a Christian club would be more than good. This is troublesome in university, where a lot of students have trouble forming a social net and rely on these clubs to do so for them.

Again, I accept that I might be more alarmist than some people. But I just look at what we have now in terms of ethnic fragmentation in this society and worry about what the future holds.

Again, my main point, as outlined in the paragraphs that you did not quote, is how much does having ethnic clubs really say about how segregated the population is. So what if the majority of students in those clubs are of one ethnicity, when a quarter or more of those are international students, and when being in such clubs have not precluded them from making friends outside of their ethnic circle (through classes and residence, which happened to be the case for, dare I say the majority, of people I know) or detracted them from participating meaningfully in mainstream society? Perhaps I just happen to be surrounded by a much more "integrationist" circle than usual, but I would say my experience has informed me to be optimistic rather than worried.

 

[Northern Magus]

So you refuse to actually respond to any points I've made, but then complain with eighth grade debating tactics when I attempt to interpret your posts to their natural conclusion?

If, after all the preceding testimonials and discussion, this is your response....then, I can't help but think it's the mark of someone who just wants to "win" and not have a reasonable discussion.

Yawn. This from someone who just childishly built a straw man? Pot, kettle, black.

I don't take any lectures from a self-loathing hater of ethnic clubs who is given to posts that scapegoat and bash refugees. Or posts that blithely turn their nose up at the results of objective study and analysis and try to push an anti-multicultural, anti-refugee agenda based on anecdotal evidence and rationalized prejudice.

It's quite telling that you claim to want a "reasonable discussion" and yet you build straw men, disdainfully dismiss objective evidence, and push hasty conclusions while admitting you're an "alarmist".

Says a lot about you.

So, please, keep on pretending that this "discussion" exists in a vaccuum and that it's completely abstract and without any consequences.

You're wrong: it doesn't, and posts that help foment contempt for "unassimilated" minority groups never are.