Ethnic pandering alert - Conservatives set to recognize Komagata Maru incident. ⇒
15 March 2007, late morning
Danger! Danger!
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
15 March 2007, late morning
Danger! Danger!
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
I simply don’t get this guy’s logic.
Isn’t he of Ukrainian descent? Isn’t his support of his family’s immigration to Canada “insulting the memory of the people who built Canada” and “betraying this country’s British heritage”?
As well, why is a colonial invasion okay & justified hundreds of years ago but a peaceful immigration process not, in our modern society?
Would he respect it if millions of people came in and conquered Canada?
So many questions every time you post a link to the hogtown front
by haran on March 15 2007, 11:47 am #
“What kind of ‘conservative’ fails to appreciate the significance of real cultural diversity? There’s more to cultural differences than ethnic restaurants and folk dancing. Cultural differences include things like misogyny, sharia law and a caste system that ranks people according to birth.”
Who can be the first to guess what negative aspect of “cultural differences” the writer left out that makes his statement so ironic?
by Matt on March 15 2007, 11:58 am #
Also, judging by this guy’s previous posts, it seems like he’s under the impression that millions of people are already trying to come in and conquer Canada. And no, he doesn’t seem to happy about it.
by Matt on March 15 2007, 12:00 pm #
If you read his site though, he argues there is less tension when Whites immigrate versus non-Whites. I don’t think that makes much sense, but I imagine that’s how he reconciles his position on immigration. (Actually, he brings this up in the post previous to this one.) Whether there is any truth to that is another story.
Also, I think it sucks how Canada has to deal with misogyny now, something which wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for all those immigrants. Damn them, forcing law students to act like jerk-asses. And no doubt it’s the Hindus who are forcing Michael and his friends to judge people based on where they were born.
by ramanan on March 15 2007, 1:14 pm #
Yeah, really. Maybe Canadian women should use the power to vote that they won fifty-four years after confederation to fight back against this whole misogyny thing that the non-white immigrants are bringing to Canada with them.
by Matt on March 15 2007, 1:51 pm #
“The Tamil concern about colonisation is related to insecurity about their physical safety and to fears that Tamils will become a minority in their traditional homelands.”
And why should they fear being a minority in their homeland – because as Darwin pointed out, over a century ago, competition exists when tribes are in proximity, and if one of the tribes grows smaller it will ultimately be absorbed, diminished or face extinction.
It recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. It recognizes that mass immigration is ethnic competition over territory and that it negatively impacts reproductive fitness. It realizes that territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction – precisely what is happening in the “multicultural†West today and precisely what the Tamils fear.
by Desmond Jones on March 16 2007, 3:00 am #
With all due respect, though, that’s a broad theory from over a century ago being applied to a specific contemporary landscape. Although you can certainly argue that things haven’t changed dramatically in that time from an anthropological point of view – and you’d have to know a lot more about that field than I do to argue either way – I just have a hard time believing that immigration poses a threat to the future and “reproductive fitness” of Canada’s “traditional” population.
Notions like “territory ensures survival” seem more at home to me in discussions of tribes than they do in discussions of predominantly urban immigration. I don’t see much evidence of Canada’s “traditional” populations losing territory or being displaced by immigrants. I guess that’s why these arguments have always seemed like fearmongering to me.
by Matt on March 16 2007, 9:41 am #
As an immigrant to Canada from another Western nation – Britain, I always find the suggestion that westerners should be afraid that us and our culture will die out rather odd. Do people not know how much ‘western culture’ has changed over time, and how much it will continue to change? Cultures have always been influenced by many forces, including different countries, religions and social systems. Look back 50 years, and things were extremely different – especially for women, and especially concerning religion. Western culture is not some unchanging ideal – it’s always been in flux, and will continue to be.
Immigration has actually had very little to do with that social and cultural change – it’s largely been driven by wars and technology, and continues to be. The people who are changing most are, in fact, immigrants themselves, to become more like us. Our culture is growing, spreading, and maturing. I certainly hope it continues to develop, and to take on positive aspects of other cultures, because a culture that does not change is a dead culture.
The only argument left can essentially be boiled down to protecting the ‘purity’ of race. And that’s just nasty.
by Kate on March 16 2007, 10:23 am #
“Different human ethnic groups and races have been separated for thousands of years. During this period, they have evolved some genetic distinctiveness.
Measuring these differences is now a straightforward process, thanks to the work of researchers like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza whose book The History and Geography of Human Genes documents the genetic distances between human groups.
In fact, on average, people are as closely related to other members of their ethnic group, versus the rest of the world, as they are closely related to their grandchildren, versus the rest of their ethnic group. If 10,000 Danes emigrate to England and ultimately substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 167 children (or siblings) in the ultimate total population, because of the close genetic relationship between Denmark and England This is not a great loss. However, if 10,000 Bantu emigrate to England and substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).And, of course, it works the opposite way as well: If 10,000 English emigrate to a Bantu territory and substitute for 10,000 Bantu natives, the average Bantu loses the equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).
This is a staggering loss. Small wonder that people tend to resist the immigration of others into their territory. At stake is an enormous family of close relatives. And history is replete with examples of displacement migration—for example, Europeans displacing Native Americans, Jews displacing Palestinians in Israel, Albanians displacing Serbs from Kosovo.
All of the losers in these struggles would have been better off genetically and every other way, if they had prevented the immigration of the group that eventually came to dominate the area.”
by Desmond Jones on March 16 2007, 1:27 pm #
Who are you quoting there, Desmond? Is that Darwin again, or something more recent? Again, I should like to think that we’ve evolved during the past hundred years – or hell, even the past fifty – as far as our attitudes toward ethnic groups are concerned.
At any rate, we might have to agree to disagree. I think it’s just too broad and unfounded to say that Canada’s anglo population would be “better off genetically and every other way” if we prevented non-white immigration, especially since their eventual domination of Canada is in question. At this point, it just seems like a lot of fearmongering to me.
by Matt on March 16 2007, 2:47 pm #
At what point is it not fearmongering? At what point do you, Matt, as a European, place value on the survival of your people and the preservation of a homeland? At what point should the Aboriginals, for example, have said stop.
At Jamestown or the Little Big Horn?
by Desmond Jones on March 16 2007, 3:58 pm #
The point at which our views differ is that I don’t see the immigration issue as a threat to the survival of “my people.” Truth be told, I wonder why you do.
At any rate, I think you’ve gone apples and oranges in comparing today’s non-white immigrants to Canada’s early European settlers. I’m pretty sure Western culture still has a lock on colonialism these days.
by Matt on March 16 2007, 5:00 pm #
Ram, I hope you don’t mind me plugging my own weblog, but this post is relevant to the aboriginal issue, and why I think it doesn’t hold up. Desmond, please don’t take the shots against Pat Buchanan as anything personal. That guy has always given me the creeps.
http://www.mattblair.ca/blog/2006/09/this_guy_ran_for_president_thr.php
By the way, I am genuinely curious about that quote. Was it Darwin, or something more contemporary?
by Matt on March 16 2007, 5:12 pm #
Michael actually addressed some of the questions posed earlier in this thread on his web site.
Scarborough is full of Brown people and Chinese people. And as far as I can tell, the net result of all that is you can get good Chinese and Sri Lankan food in Scarborough, and you get groceries every single day of the year. The Horror!
Matt, you can plug your web site all you like. It was an interesting post. Arguing with Desmond is like arguing with a brick wall.
by ramanan on March 16 2007, 5:54 pm #