Re: [OT] What the hell is up with France?

Darren Grey wrote:
"Josh K. Singh" <jGoOsh.AsWiAnYgh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:GZKdnQ0cRO5y1eTeRVn-qA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I started writing a reply here last night. Then I had to get my ass to campus and I didn't get to finish it. But after some thought, much more discussion with my best pal, and listening to my Sociology prof's oddly biased ramblings, I've just decided to go for something short(er?) and sweet. Not necessarily important, depending on your perspective, but it's a point of interest (and possibly one people won't like, so brace yourselves).

<rearrange>

>>Not that I'm saying Canadians are morally superior, but... we are.
>
>
> Heh, try looking up the history of racism in Canada and you might find a few
> things that don't quite go along with that view...

Indeed. But Canada has been through it and has learned from its past.

And I note that the attitudes of the past bear no relevance whatsoever to the issue of the prevailing attitudes today. Just because Canada was very racist once doesn't mean it's very racist now.

I'd been thinking lately that, even though it's nowhere near perfect, Canada has to be the best place in the world to live, and, frankly, at the moment I'm certain I'm right.


It's pretty good from everything I've heard, especially compared with America, but personally I'm more in favour of Britain at the mo - got a bit more history and culture ;)

And this, I think, exemplifies Europe's problem with racial/ethnic discrimination: "got a bit more history and culture". I know you weren't saying it in all seriousness, if any, but this tight hugging of tradition to the chest is why there is so much trouble integrating immigrants into European societies.

And further, in saying "It's pretty good from everything I've heard, especially compared with America" I detect a tinge of contempt toward Canada. It's not overly evident, and I'm sure you weren't even aware you let it out, but it's there. "Pretty good" bears the weight of "good, but not great"; since you favour Britain, I can assume Britain is the "great". "Especially compared with America" says not only that you have a low opinion of the U.S. but that it wouldn't take much to top them. For Canada to be "especially" better than the U.S. in this light would not be very positive; if anything, it's more like a euphemistic bitchslap.

And this after saying that I shouldn't judge. ;)

Anyway, bear with me as I judge incessantly some more. And allow me to generalize incessantly as well, starting with this: Europeans look down upon North Americans. Not that I ordinarily care; often I look down upon North Americans myself. We're very flawed people (as a society). In fact, we often look /up/ to Europeans. But this doesn't mean that Europeans have it all figured out. Take ethnic integration. Europe doesn't have a freaking clue, while Canada and the U.S. are obviously doing something right. People can criticize the U.S. all they want, but I say that what remains of the pre-Bush United States (throughout this post assume this is the U.S. I'm talking about unless I say otherwise) is as fine as they come (aside from Canada). If I were exiled from Canada, welcome to live anywhere but here, I would almost certainly settle in the States (one of the Democrat states, but that goes without saying). Why? Because the U.S. is the most culturally similar country to Canada, especially where immigration is concerned. People always blast the U.S. for being a melting pot, but they might just be more diverse than Canada; the difference is that they merely accept diversity, while Canada embraces it. Nothing wrong with mere acceptance, though.

Yes, the U.S. has a horribly hate-filled, assimilationistic past, but my point is that today, in Canada or the States, people of different races *get along*. I needn't say that the situation is not always ideal; in general they get along. Both countries have shown that people from all parts of the world can come together and live in harmony; in fact, both have shown that such an arrangement can even be socially and economically fruitful.

How did they do it? A progressive attitude. Tradition is defintely not ignored, but where it gets in the way of progress the tendency is to let it fall away. For example, religious (namely Christian) influence, a traditional element of North American society, has been declining. Agrarianism is declining; this is an unfortunate but realistic consequence of progressiveness. And traditionally racist, particularly segregationist, attitudes have declined. The natural reality for a continent settled by people from all around the world over a span of at least a century is that people from different ethnic groups have to live with one another. By and large it's working quite well.

Europe is older and more set in its ways. It would be understandable that it would resent invasion by outsiders if it were not the colonizing force that caused that to eventually happen. Those imperialists of the past didn't have hindsight, of course, but the fact is this is the reality now. I'm sure Aboriginals didn't like it when the British/French/Dutch/Spanish/Portuguese stormed the shores of the Americas and began slaughtering everyone. Not that I'm placing any blame on anyone alive today, since it clearly was none of your doing, and were it not done there might not even be the North America now that I call home. This is just a fact of life now; as I chant like a mantra, "*** happens". People are migrating to your country. You can't cling to a tradition of homogeneity while this happens. Europe has to accept that things have to change. Refusing to do so is only shooting everyone involved in the foot.

Now the nub of my frustration: Europe could learn a lot from North America as far as ethnic integration goes. And I mean *a lot*. But Europe is too proud to accept that we "lowly" North Americans might have something on them. It's proud of it's history, proud of its culture. Culture is not static. It changes. Look back upon the long history of Europe and see how much the culture has changed. You can protect the traditions as much as you want, but that won't stop the eventual change.

So Europe can do this the hard way, going through all the trials and tribulations that North America has already gone through, or try an easier route by learning from North America /now/. However, if haughty attitudes like Darren's prevail, then the likely path will sadly be the former.

<rearrange>

> Some lucky school you went to. Not all primary schools are such havens of
> peace and fun.

You make it sound like I'm living in a fantasy world. The fact is that this is a Canadian reality. We are /living/ it. If Europeans think this is a pipe dream, then I have to feel sorry for them. If Europe wants to live this fantasy, all it has to do is look to Canada.

Are Canada or the U.S. superior to Europe? Depends. Is Europe superior? Again, depends. In the instance of ethnic integration, it seems that Canada and the U.S. crush Europe hands-down. But why do we care about who is superior to who, especially when the competition puts racial unity at risk? North America is a fine model for multicultural harmony. Learn from us, and don't make the same mistakes we did.

As a postscript to the general public: don't expect me to be politically correct or nice or anything peachy like that. Nothing would ever get accomplished in this world if everybody sugarcoated everything. If you're afraid to face the issues of the real world then go live on the sun. Also, when I say I'm generalizing, I /mean/ I'm generalizing. And when I don't say it, you can assume it.

--
Curry Bucket's Controversial Web Presence:
The Pandora's Box of the Internet
http://chat.carleton.ca/~jsingh3/
or http://www.currybucket.cjb.net/
.

Loading