Multiculturalism

[william.scherk]

We Canadians could probably do a better job of describing multiculturalism -- especially why public opinion in Canada tends to support official multicultural policy and practice. It must be puzzling to an American on OL that a majority of Canuckistanis are happy with multiculturalism.

The first thing Americans might understand to tease this out is Quebec and official language policy, in historical context. Almost as boring as Canadian politics, but I think necessary.

Another key to understanding the Canadian experience is sectarian/ethnic conflict and violence.

Another angle on understanding is the level of segregation in Canada. Does official and unofficial multiculturalism actually promote civic integration or ethnic isolation? Are there actual ethnic ghettos in Canada -- ghettos that in reality seclude and prevent participation?

As Bob Mac (another Canuckistani) pointed out, the British Empire was faced with the challenge of a defeated remnant of the French Empire -- a large number of the 'defeated' folk who had been ruled by the French monarchy became subjects of the British Crown. The 'Canadiens' in Quebec simply could not be forced to become English . . .

When Michael asserts that 'multiculturalists' "usually think only in terms of this collective against that collective," he is on the right track. I would suggest he think about how an American polity would have dealt with the situation in Canada post 1763. How would a dominant 'collectivity' deal with the 'other' collectivity if America had contained not only a former New England, but a former New France?

Studiodekadent also offers an angle to understanding, when he writes, "different groups will naturally come into conflict with each other; cultures will clash."

The result of the violent conflict between France and England was, for better or worse a Canada of English-speakers and French-speakers. If the Americans had at some point overthrown the English Crown in French-speaking Canada . . . what would America have done with Quebec and the French Fact?

Peter Taylor writes, humourously of 'the 51st state.' How would have a French-speaking state have been integrated into the United States of America?

[Selene]

The result of the violent conflict between France and England was, for better or worse a Canada of English-speakers and French-speakers. If the Americans had at some point overthrown the English Crown in French-speaking Canada . . . what would America have done with Quebec and the French Fact?

Peter Taylor writes, humourously of 'the 51st state.' How would have a French-speaking state have been integrated into the United States of America?

Yep, Peter sure knows his history of the United States and former French colonial states.

Except of course that we have that sticky issue of Louisiana to somehow blot out of American history.

Their Parish legal and political system which exist to this day and meshes quite well with the American legal system.

"French civil code enacted by Napoleon in 1804. It clarified and made uniform the private law of France and followed Roman law in being divided into three books: the law of persons, things, and modes of acquiring ownership of things. In Louisiana, the only civil-law state in the U.S., the civil code of 1825 (revised in 1870 and still in force) is closely connected to the Napoleonic Code. See also law code.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/code-civil-popularly-code-napoleon-or-napoleonic-code#ixzz1IreNdpsO"

"Among the most important post revolutionary reforms in France was the unification and simplification of the French laws, prepared under Napoleon Bonaparte's direction and promulgated in 1804 as the French civil code, commonly called the Code Napoléon. It served as the model for the digest of the civil laws of Orleans Territory, promulgated in 1808 and commonly called the Old Louisiana Code, which, revised and amended in 1825, 1870, and 1974 as the civil code of Louisiana, remains today the basic law of the state of Louisiana. Louisiana is unique among the states in that its legal system is based on Roman civil law, not common law."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/code-civil-popularly-code-napoleon-or-napoleonic-code#ixzz1Irei9HqW

Napoléon applied the code to the territories he governed—namely, some of the German states, the low countries, and northern Italy. It was extremely influential in Spain and, eventually, in Latin America as well as in all other European nations except England, where the common law prevailed. It was the harbinger, in France and abroad, of codifications of other areas of law, such as criminal law, civil procedure, and commercial law. The Napoleonic Code served as the prototype for subsequent codes during the nineteenth century in twenty-four countries; the province of Québec and the state of Louisiana have derived a substantial portion of their laws from it. Napoléon also promulgated four other codes: the Code of Civil Procedure (1807), the Commercial Code (1808), the Code of Criminal Procedure (1811), and the Penal Code (1811).

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/code-civil-popularly-code-napoleon-or-napoleonic-code#ixzz1Irf5k663

[caroljane]

Adam, of course Louisiana's law system meshes quite well with federal one, because it has to. All the states' systems mesh, because they have to, at whatever beauraucratic expense and attorney enrichment, because states' rights are sacrosanct in America. Historical context again.

Canadian provinces mainly have responsibilities, of grudgingly coughing up the taxes and receiving their portion of the national wealth, and of administering the national health and education systems. We have no concept of "Provinces' rights".They are weak and the central government is strong, though the national political leader is essentially weak while the party system is strong. Your states and regions are strong and your national leader has great powers.

Your orientation is individualistic, ours is nationalistic. We do not have the wide differentiation of regional history that you do, except for the oldest regions, Quebec and the Maritimes. I could go to Prince Albert, Sask., or Kootenay, BC, where I have never been, and meet people who speak with much the same accent as me and have most of the same cultural referents. This is because of our small numbers and our shorter history, and geographical clustering.

Multiculturalism can never mean the same thing to our two countries because the central experience of dealing with other races has been yours of defeating slavery, and, as appears to you, overcompensating for the effects of past slavery. We have always had to deal with other races more or less as equals, and we have always needed them, as immigrants. We are underpopulated and a whole generation of ornery young women just refuse to have enough babies.

Maybe forgetting history means that we are condemned to repeat it, but it repeats itself whether we forget or remember. The worst happens, over and over, and it is always in our nature just to try and do better.

[Selene]

Carol:

I understand how multiculturalism works in Canada. As I read Tocqueville, I got a good sense of the older section of Canada and how different they are from your Wild Western provinces.

My post was mainly directed to Peter.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

My point was to show that the word "vile" as applied to slave-trader is a value judgment we hold now, not one the people of the times would have held.

And one of these days, I'm sure you'll explain just why that makes any difference.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

my post disappeare

..along with that "d". It was a very long post too.I am discourage

Avoid using the Google spell checker until after the initial posting--then go back with the "edit" function.

--Brant

Brant, I never use the spellcheck. I know more than it does.

Modestly,

Carol

My spelling is pretty bad, especially with typos. I do have a bigger vocabulary than the spell checkers. You're one of the best writers I've read on the Internet. Want to hurt me? Tell me English isn't your first language.

--Brant

arrrgh!!!

[Brant Gaede]

My point was to show that the word "vile" as applied to slave-trader is a value judgment we hold now, not one the people of the times would have held.

And one of these days, I'm sure you'll explain just why that makes any difference.

JR

I think the appellation was quite common in the 19th C.

--Brant

[Peter]

Jonathon wrote:

quote

I asked her if we were to translate the question "What is the area of a circle with a radius of 13.582 inches?" to street lingo, was she saying that non-white kids would then be able to answer correctly, or was she suggesting that teaching non-white kids concepts such as "multiplication" and "supplementary angle" was forcing "whiteness" on them, and that they should only be expected to learn about prostitution, cars and illegal drugs?"

end quote

Wow. I see we have a rising, young genius amongst us. Well said!

Peter

[caroljane]

my post disappeare

..along with that "d". It was a very long post too.I am discourage

Avoid using the Google spell checker until after the initial posting--then go back with the "edit" function.

--Brant

Brant, I never use the spellcheck. I know more than it does.

Modestly,

Carol

My spelling is pretty bad, especially with typos. I do have a bigger vocabulary than the spell checkers. You're one of the best writers I've read on the Internet. Want to hurt me? Tell me English isn't your first language.

--Brant

arrrgh!!!

Brant,

Your compliment astonishes me and will make me so vain I will be unfit to live with. I have not read much internet except Osites and royal wedding and hockey news, the writing there is short and to the point and the spelling is bad, the use of its and it's in a hopeless state.. English spelling is ridiculous and being good at it is just a tic, like writing backwards or being able to do impressions. F. Scott Fitzgerald was famously bad at it. English is my mother and father tongue, my second language is French which I speak at about Grade 7 level, and spell fairly well only because French spelling is phonetic unlike our native kettle of ghoti.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My point was to show that the word "vile" as applied to slave-trader is a value judgment we hold now, not one the people of the times would have held.

And one of these days, I'm sure you'll explain just why that makes any difference.

Jeff,

Correct identification of the facts.

Nothing more.

Do you object to trying to be correct?

Michael

[jriggenbach]

My point was to show that the word "vile" as applied to slave-trader is a value judgment we hold now, not one the people of the times would have held.

And one of these days, I'm sure you'll explain just why that makes any difference.

Jeff,

Correct identification of the facts.

Nothing more.

Do you object to trying to be correct?

Michael

It is correct identification of the facts to say that Columbus was a vile slave trader. The fact that the people around him didn't look at it that way is irrelevant. We're not writing the history of popular attitudes here - the history of how people looked at things in different periods; we're writing the history of one man's specific deeds and how they ought to be regarded (irrespective of how any particular individuals of any particular time or place did regard them).

Do you object to keeping separate questions separate? Or do you prefer to ball them up together so you can use the resulting mess as an excuse to reject a perfectly defensible historical judgment? After all, we both know that the real problem with that judgment is that it was offered by a "leftist" and is therefore wrong by definition.

JR

Edited April 7, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Brant Gaede]

my post disappeare

..along with that "d". It was a very long post too.I am discourage

Avoid using the Google spell checker until after the initial posting--then go back with the "edit" function.

--Brant

Brant, I never use the spellcheck. I know more than it does.

Modestly,

Carol

My spelling is pretty bad, especially with typos. I do have a bigger vocabulary than the spell checkers. You're one of the best writers I've read on the Internet. Want to hurt me? Tell me English isn't your first language.

--Brant

arrrgh!!!

Brant,

Your compliment astonishes me and will make me so vain I will be unfit to live with. I have not read much internet except Osites and royal wedding and hockey news, the writing there is short and to the point and the spelling is bad, the use of its and it's in a hopeless state.. English spelling is ridiculous and being good at it is just a tic, like writing backwards or being able to do impressions. F. Scott Fitzgerald was famously bad at it. English is my mother and father tongue, my second language is French which I speak at about Grade 7 level, and spell fairly well only because French spelling is phonetic unlike our native kettle of ghoti.

To really evaluate writing ability would require essays or story telling. It's not just words nicely strung together but the substance too. Having something to say is the key; it has to be important to the author or the reader won't care. This doesn't mean it can't be light-hearted. Light-heartedness has a substance all its own.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is correct identification of the facts to say that Columbus was a vile slave trader. The fact that the people around him didn't look at it that way is irrelevant. We're not writing the history of popular attitudes here - the history of how people looked at things in different periods; we're writing the history of one man's specific deeds and how they ought to be regarded (irrespective of how any particular individuals of any particular time or place did regard them).

Do you object to keeping separate questions separate? Or do you prefer to ball them up together so you can use the resulting mess as an excuse to reject a perfectly defensible historical judgment? After all, we both know that the real problem with that judgment is that it was offered by a "leftist" and is therefore wrong by definition.

Jeff,

I use a different epistemology.

I try to look at what is before I look at what ought to be. In my simple uneducated understanding, I have come to the conclusion that I need to correctly identify what something is before I evaluate it and make my projections on what it ought to be.

As to your neocon versus left insinuation, that's nowhere near the ball park in the way I view the world. You gotta take that game to some other field to play. I ain't playing by us versus them. Not when I don't fit either team.

But I can say why. I don't mind truth coming from a leftist--or even from a Muslim. (I don't know if you have noticed that around here. )

I do mind when presentism is used as a form of propaganda to denigrate a larger target, especially the culture I live in. I don't like historical rewriting. And that is what I believe the narrative of presenting Columbus as a scumbag does. In essence, the message is, "You are nothing special. Your heroes sucked and your historians were propagandists. So change. Become a decent human being and become a communist (or whatever)."

To condemn Columbus as a scumbag, I have to condemn the entire society he lived in that way. In fact, I would have to condemn almost the entire human history.

(And don't you dare try to spin this as saying I don't think slavery is vile. I do.)

So yes.

I do object to that kind of presentism as propaganda.

What do I do about it? I start by not taking it as a serious attempt at history. "Judge and preach, then try to identify" just doesn't meet my standards of cognition. I prefer "identify correctly, then judge."

After that, I speak my mind. Just like anyone who thinks for himself.

Here, let's do it this way. I don't mind calling Columbus a vile slave-trader in the following context:

Among the worms and maggots that constitute all of humanity throughout all history up to now,

Columbus,

regarding slave-trade, was just one more vile person--no better and no worse than the human scum we all come from.

Does that work for you?

(Heh. Propaganda... where did thy sting go? )

Michael

[Peter]

William Scherk wrote:

Peter Taylor writes, humorously of 'the 51st state.' How would have a French-speaking state have been integrated into the United States of America?

End quote

Reservations. We would put Canucks in reservations where they would run casinos, and talk their code talk to each other. And the reservations would all be in Alaska because you are so much like Alaskans.

I appreciate your good humor. I think self-confident people can handle mild kidding quite well. If I needed to move in would be to an English speaking country, other than India. Canada would be my first choice, then Australia, New Zealand and England in that order.

Was there actually a serious movement in British Columbia to become part of the United States or was that just their private joke?

Peter Taylor

[jriggenbach]

It is correct identification of the facts to say that Columbus was a vile slave trader. The fact that the people around him didn't look at it that way is irrelevant. We're not writing the history of popular attitudes here - the history of how people looked at things in different periods; we're writing the history of one man's specific deeds and how they ought to be regarded (irrespective of how any particular individuals of any particular time or place did regard them).

Do you object to keeping separate questions separate? Or do you prefer to ball them up together so you can use the resulting mess as an excuse to reject a perfectly defensible historical judgment? After all, we both know that the real problem with that judgment is that it was offered by a "leftist" and is therefore wrong by definition.

Jeff,

I use a different epistemology.

I try to look at what is before I look at what ought to be. In my simple uneducated understanding, I have come to the conclusion that I need to correctly identify what something is before I evaluate it and make my projections on what it ought to be.

As to your neocon versus left insinuation, that's nowhere near the ball park in the way I view the world. You gotta take that game to some other field to play. I ain't playing by us versus them. Not when I don't fit either team.

But I can say why. I don't mind truth coming from a leftist--or even from a Muslim. (I don't know if you have noticed that around here. )

I do mind when presentism is used as a form of propaganda to denigrate a larger target, especially the culture I live in. I don't like historical rewriting. And that is what I believe the narrative of presenting Columbus as a scumbag does. In essence, the message is, "You are nothing special. Your heroes sucked and your historians were propagandists. So change. Become a decent human being and become a communist (or whatever)."

To condemn Columbus as a scumbag, I have to condemn the entire society he lived in that way. In fact, I would have to condemn almost the entire human history.

(And don't you dare try to spin this as saying I don't think slavery is vile. I do.)

So yes.

I do object to that kind of presentism as propaganda.

What do I do about it? I start by not taking it as a serious attempt at history. "Judge and preach, then try to identify" just doesn't meet my standards of cognition. I prefer "identify correctly, then judge."

After that, I speak my mind. Just like anyone who thinks for himself.

Here, let's do it this way. I don't mind calling Columbus a vile slave-trader in the following context:

Among the worms and maggots that constitute all of humanity throughout all history up to now,

Columbus,

regarding slave-trade, was just one more vile person--no better and no worse than the human scum we all come from.

Does that work for you?

(Heh. Propaganda... where did thy sting go? )

Michael

What Columbus did is not under dispute by anybody I know of. It's been "identified" long since. He bought and sold human beings, whom he also routinely brutalized. The fact that many other people of his time did the same (it was far from all Europeans, by the way) is irrelevant. It doesn't make what he did any different. Nor does it justify deciding that the modern way of looking at such things is in some fashion incorrect or inapplicable. As for denigrating your "heroes," why in Galt's name would anybody regard Christopher Columbus as a "hero"?

JR

[william.scherk]

If I needed to move in would be to an English speaking country, other than India. Canada would be my first choice, then Australia, New Zealand and England in that order.

Was there actually a serious movement in British Columbia to become part of the United States or was that just their private joke?

Neither. We have the Western Canada Concept Party of BC and a few other provincial blocs who wish to be separate entities of some kind (not attached to the mighty USA). The WCC was serious enough to gain some 0.86% of the vote in a 1983 provincial election, but it has since declined and hasn't run any candidates since 2005.

I am sure the WCCBC leader, Doug Christie, didn't find it funny, but the idea is pretty much a non-starter. Currently the favoured route to mergizing with America is via a green card and U-haul.

There is of course the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois, who celebrate their eighteenth year in the federal parliament. The best-known and most successful secessionist party is the old Parti Québécois, who might one day get its shit together and win a referendum . . .

For funny, you have to read what our current prime minister said when the federal parliament voted on a solemn motion that designated Quebec a nation within Canada back in 2006:

"Quebecers have always played a historic role in advancing Canada with solidarity, courage, and vision, and to build a confident Quebec, an independent Quebec that's proud and has solidarity within a strong and united Canada, an independent and free Canada. Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes. Do Quebecers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no, and it will always be no."

He said with a straight face what had been said by a Quebec humourist: "Quebecers want a free and independent Quebec within a strong and united Canada."

I imagine, Peter, you can figure out similar tropes for the US citizens of Puerto Rico!

Edited April 8, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The fact that many other people of his time did the same (it was far from all Europeans, by the way) is irrelevant.

Jeff,

Relevancy implies a standard.

If you ignore the standard I am using, it is irrelevant to you.

But it is relevant according to the standard I am using.

We have to be careful in these discussions to not fall into a bait-and-switch trap on standards. This is one of the favorite games of propagandists. (I'm not referring to you here.)

btw - Did you like my reframe?

It's a little exaggerated, but no more so than ignoring the social customs of the times.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

The fact that many other people of his time did the same (it was far from all Europeans, by the way) is irrelevant.

Jeff,

Relevancy implies a standard.

If you ignore the standard I am using, it is irrelevant to you.

But it is relevant according to the standard I am using.

We have to be careful in these discussions to not fall into a bait-and-switch trap on standards. This is one of the favorite games of propagandists. (I'm not referring to you here.)

btw - Did you like my reframe?

It's a little exaggerated, but no more so than ignoring the social customs of the times.

Michael

Your reframe is too exaggerated for my taste - as Zinn's is for yours.

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Dayaamm!

If your going to play all fair and stuff, then let me say that I believe that people like Zinn play an important part in our culture--and I mean important in a good way.

Zinn thinks outside the box and people who do that often pick up a lot that the normal narrative misses. And they help keep the monkey-shines on the other side honest.

On a personal note, every time I have seen a picture of Zinn, I kept getting the weirdest feeling of déjà vu. I finally looked at his bio and saw that he taught at Boston University at the time I studied music there. I knew I had seen this guy somewhere.

That's not much of a big deal, though, because I can't remember a damn thing about him. He probably came to concerts I performed in or something and I saw him milling around afterwards. Whatever.

I remember another famous non-music-related author, Isaac Asimov, much better since I went to a lecture by him. That was something I rarely did back then, what with all the music and dope taking up all my time.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

As Studiodekadent defined the term I can see why there would be a problem, such thinking does lead down the road of extreme racism. One point I would make is generally people, particularly first generation immigrants, are happier connected to their own culture. Look at many American Jews, they maintain their language, history and religion for a reason. Its easy for us to say there is no difference, being English in English countries but clearly, in Canada at least, it does make a difference for many.

It often depends on what you mean by "culture."

I'm a goth. I'm more happy with music of my preferred genre than with, say, Irish, English or Scottish folk music. I like Industrial which is produced by many different cultural and national groups... Hocico, for instance, is a Mexican group.

I'm not an immigrant but if I moved to, say, Hong Kong, I doubt I'd suddenly want to listen to Scottish and Irish and English folk music.

Certainly some people feel more comfortable sticking to their own culture and that's OK. But that's why I'm in favor of Cosmopolitanism; people should be able to pick and choose thier own cultural preferences. I don't want to force people to choose a specific set of cultural tastes.

[studiodekadent]

Studiodekadent also offers an angle to understanding, when he writes, "different groups will naturally come into conflict with each other; cultures will clash."

The result of the violent conflict between France and England was, for better or worse a Canada of English-speakers and French-speakers. If the Americans had at some point overthrown the English Crown in French-speaking Canada . . . what would America have done with Quebec and the French Fact?

I think that Multiculturalism makes stronger claims than "there will be practical difficulties with integrating groups that speak different languages."

What Multiculturalism tends to argue is that irreconciliable cultural differences will inevitably cause extremely heated and often violent conflict. There is, to the multiculturalist, no way around these other than State 'assistance' (from Balkanization to sensitivity training etc).

The Cosmopolitan position is that people of different cultures will naturally find some way to accomodate each other over time and thus no State management is necessary.

In my experience, Cosmopolitanism is correct, in part because of the West's curiosity about non-Western cultures. Many Westerners LIKE to find out stuff about different places etc.

I should add, I'm an Australian and I live in an "officially" multicultural society. My definition of "Multiculturalism" is not controversial in academic circles. Its only controversial to people who package-deal "multicultural" with "cosmopolitan."

Edited April 8, 2011 by studiodekadent

[caroljane]

Re Cosmopolitanism/Multiculturalism and the Melting Pot

Studio's definition of cosmolopolitanism sounds closer to my own understanding of multiculturalism, than does his definition of multiculturalism itself. Perhaps here we have a kind of national cosmopolitanism. Certainly there is a thriving goth subculture and nobody tries to make them start listening to the Barenaked Ladies and Leonard Cohen.

Being forced, or subtly pressured, to join the dominant culture is the hallmark of the melting pot concept, which has been dominant in America until now, but the most extreme Western example of this is France.They are the strongest voice in Europe to demand that Muslims conform outwardly to the norms of the secular country in which they are living. Yet the culture to which they demand conformity is a fairly exclusionist one.

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission. The racism in France is not solely a response of bewilderment and fear of waves of strange Muslim immigrants, either. As the former colonial masters of Algeria, which they only relinquished in the 1950s, the French had become accustomed to thinking of the Arabs as "the Other", the subjugated people, the natives, in parallel to their partner in Liberty's experience with their slaves.

Strange bedfellows. It is interesting that in the heyday of American racial prejudice, the 1920s to 1960s, it was France who celebrated Josephine Baker and Paul Robeson and James Baldwin.

And it was America who romanticized the Arab, in Valentino's Sheik and Lawrence of Arabia's noble desert friends.

Edited April 9, 2011 by daunce lynam

[studiodekadent]

Re Cosmopolitanism/Multiculturalism and the Melting Pot

Studio's definition of cosmolopolitanism sounds closer to my own understanding of multiculturalism, than does his definition of multiculturalism itself. Perhaps here we have a kind of national cosmopolitanism. Certainly there is a thriving goth subculture and nobody tries to make them start listening to the Barenaked Ladies and Leonard Cohen.

You're quite correct; most people are cosmopolitans rather than multiculturalists per se, however the multiculturalists deliberately package-deal the two and say if you're against multiculturalism you can't be a cosmopolitan. Basically, its an attempt to say "believe in my doctrine of racial collectivism, social constructivism et. al. OR YOU'RE RACIST!

On a totally irrelevant topic, many of the best Industrial bands are Canadian (Front Line Assembly (although it was started by an Austrian immigrant), Skinny Puppy, and Decoded Feedback (one member Canadian, one member Italian) for examples), so if the Canadian government started trying to 'acculturate' the goth community they wouldn't need to work too hard lol.

Being forced, or subtly pressured, to join the dominant culture is the hallmark of the melting pot concept, which has been dominant in America until now, but the most extreme Western example of this is France.They are the strongest voice in Europe to demand that Muslims conform outwardly to the norms of the secular country in which they are living. Yet the culture to which they demand conformity is a fairly exclusionist one.

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission.

It makes you think a lot when so-called leftists go on about 'enlightened social democracies' they always gloss over the rampant racism, nationalist collectivism and the like you find in those same 'enlightened social democracies.'

[caroljane]

Re Cosmopolitanism/Multiculturalism and the Melting Pot

Studio's definition of cosmolopolitanism sounds closer to my own understanding of multiculturalism, than does his definition of multiculturalism itself. Perhaps here we have a kind of national cosmopolitanism. Certainly there is a thriving goth subculture and nobody tries to make them start listening to the Barenaked Ladies and Leonard Cohen.

You're quite correct; most people are cosmopolitans rather than multiculturalists per se, however the multiculturalists deliberately package-deal the two and say if you're against multiculturalism you can't be a cosmopolitan. Basically, its an attempt to say "believe in my doctrine of racial collectivism, social constructivism et. al. OR YOU'RE RACIST!

On a totally irrelevant topic, many of the best Industrial bands are Canadian (Front Line Assembly (although it was started by an Austrian immigrant), Skinny Puppy, and Decoded Feedback (one member Canadian, one member Italian) for examples), so if the Canadian government started trying to 'acculturate' the goth community they wouldn't need to work too hard lol.

Being forced, or subtly pressured, to join the dominant culture is the hallmark of the melting pot concept, which has been dominant in America until now, but the most extreme Western example of this is France.They are the strongest voice in Europe to demand that Muslims conform outwardly to the norms of the secular country in which they are living. Yet the culture to which they demand conformity is a fairly exclusionist one.

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission.

It makes you think a lot when so-called leftists go on about 'enlightened social democracies' they always gloss over the rampant racism, nationalist collectivism and the like you find in those same 'enlightened social democracies.'

Studio, wayer offtopic. You're an Aussie - do you like to read black-comical books at all? Robert Barnard wrote a brilliant murder mystery titled Death of an Old Goat, set in an Australian university, which absolutely skewers academia,Australian racism, Australian culture, Oxford dons and just about anything else you can think of. It's an old novel but a true classic of the genre.

[studiodekadent]

Studio, wayer offtopic. You're an Aussie - do you like to read black-comical books at all? Robert Barnard wrote a brilliant murder mystery titled Death of an Old Goat, set in an Australian university, which absolutely skewers academia,Australian racism, Australian culture, Oxford dons and just about anything else you can think of. It's an old novel but a true classic of the genre.

I haven't heard of that book, sorry to say. I admit Im not the most well-read in terms of fiction.