Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haaar! Try reading some stories of union organizers going into the hillbilly areas to drum up membership and being met with those same shotguns and being ordered "git yer commie azz off my porch". That still happens in place like Rural Kentucky to this very day.
That is what many parts of Latin America are like.
Haaar! Try reading some stories of union organizers going into the hillbilly areas to drum up membership and being met with those same shotguns and being ordered "git yer commie azz off my porch". That still happens in place like Rural Kentucky to this very day.
I don't condone that of course, but that's a bit different.
Those union people are going on the rednecks' property. Not the other way around.
The most number of Coptic Christian churches found is now in Texas.
Oh and for those that say they are "too traditional" I met a Coptic Christian gal at a nude beach, she seemed to blend into the "culture" of the US just fine (she was nude just like me). I always wear my cross and she asked about it as she realized we had some commonalities (Coptic Church is very similar to Roman Catholic Church). They realize the US is the only place they can be "safe".
The EU isn't a safe space for any religion anymore as secularism is the word of the day. I bet France wishes it would've kept being a Roman Catholic country, it definitely wouldn't have issues with Muslims nowadays.
Like I said, the whole environment in the South is more conducive to "melting pot" type of mixing vs. the salad bowl up north or in Canada.
The EU isn't a safe space for any religion anymore as secularism is the word of the day. I bet France wishes it would've kept being a Roman Catholic country, it definitely wouldn't have issues with Muslims nowadays.
Like I said, the whole environment in the South is more conducive to "melting pot" type of mixing vs. the salad bowl up north or in Canada.
How dare you.....Islam is 100% compatible with secular liberal values. If there is any issues in Europe its because they are racist. Catholicism is the oppresor.
The most number of Coptic Christian churches found is now in Texas.
Oh and for those that say they are "too traditional" I met a Coptic Christian gal at a nude beach, she seemed to blend into the "culture" of the US just fine (she was nude just like me). I always wear my cross and she asked about it as she realized we had some commonalities (Coptic Church is very similar to Roman Catholic Church). They realize the US is the only place they can be "safe".
The EU isn't a safe space for any religion anymore as secularism is the word of the day. I bet France wishes it would've kept being a Roman Catholic country, it definitely wouldn't have issues with Muslims nowadays.
Like I said, the whole environment in the South is more conducive to "melting pot" type of mixing vs. the salad bowl up north or in Canada.
First of all, I love Cajun food. I thought Louisiana had the best food I had ever eaten, anywhere. The Vietnamese-Cajun fusion shrimp boil has its equivalent here in Manitoba in farmer sausage pizzas and burgers, and poutine, etc. I don't think people understand the history of food. You find equivalents of so-called national dishes across Europe, irrespective of borders. Mennonites blend into nude beaches just fine here as well as into the Provincial legistlature or the arts scene or as professors or policemen - or we don't blend - according to the individual.
Before immigrating to Canada Mennonites signed an agreement with the Canadian government guaranteeing they would have their own German schools, and never have to serve in the armed forces etc. Assimilation was never part of the concept of settling Canada so the idea that non-assimilation is some sort of strange new thing that popped up with the Muslims is simply untrue. Canada wasn't founded on that idea. I'm making a distinction between assimilating and adapting.
American Mennonites ended up in jail for their pacifism. But this country fortunately turned its official back on the melting pot theory in the seventies. It's interesting that the idea that tolerance equates to levelling every other culture to something we are familiar with is considered tolerance. It seems to me that tolerance is the ability for very different people to live together and to be themselves. It's what allowed Mennonites, among others, in the New World to live cheek by jowl with those religions or peoples who had previously been trying to kill them, like the Roman Catholics, as an example.
If I have time I'll see if I can post a link later to a Mennonite church sponsoring Muslim families and taking them to the mosque in the city. Tolerance, eh.
We all adapt to new things.
We all complain about the neighbour's loud music, no matter what ethnic background that neighbour is from. Ethnic background would not be the first thing on my mind when complaining about loud music.
Not sure what you mean by France wishing it had stayed a Roman Catholic country and how that would change things - non-democratic, you mean, like the Inquisition chasing down anyone who isn't a Roman Catholic?
Before immigrating to Canada Mennonites signed an agreement with the Canadian government guaranteeing they would have their own German schools, and never have to serve in the armed forces etc. Assimilation was never part of the concept of settling Canada so the idea that non-assimilation is some sort of strange new thing that popped up with the Muslims is simply untrue. Canada wasn't founded on that idea. I'm making a distinction between assimilating and adapting.
American Mennonites ended up in jail for their pacifism. But this country fortunately turned its official back on the melting pot theory in the seventies. It's interesting that the idea that tolerance equates to levelling every other culture to something we are familiar with is considered tolerance. It seems to me that tolerance is the ability for very different people to live together and to be themselves. It's what allowed Mennonites, among others, in the New World to live cheek by jowl with those religions or peoples who had previously been trying to kill them, like the Roman Catholics, as an example.
Oh that's great. Lets give everyone else the right to do what they want. but shhhhh lets be very selective on who gets to keep their culture, make sure they have the right skin cooler or fits out political agenda. Shhhhh.
Before immigrating to Canada Mennonites signed an agreement with the Canadian government guaranteeing they would have their own German schools, and never have to serve in the armed forces etc. Assimilation was never part of the concept of settling Canada so the idea that non-assimilation is some sort of strange new thing that popped up with the Muslims is simply untrue. Canada wasn't founded on that idea. I'm making a distinction between assimilating and adapting.
But you yourself have said many times that Canada betrayed this "covenant" it had with the Mennonnites. And maybe the Ukrainians too.
So this would point to Canada being assimilationist in actual fact, in spite of sometimes humming a different tune for strategic reasons.
My own view is that Canada pretty much always was assimilationist, and only stopped being that way (or became less so) when it became an unsustainable situation as with the francophones (especially in Quebec obviously) or vis-Ã -vis the larger diverse group of immigrant origin people in the 1970s, for reasons of political expediency.
So you're right that it didn't begin with the implantation of a large number of Muslims fairly recently, but certainly the nature of that belief system and the practices that go along with it are testing the principles of multiculturalism more than most any other group ever has.
But you yourself have said many times that Canada betrayed this "covenant" it had with the Mennonnites. And maybe the Ukrainians too.
So this would point to Canada being assimilationist in actual fact, in spite of sometimes humming a different tune for strategic reasons.
My own view is that Canada pretty much always was assimilationist, and only stopped being that way (or became less so) when it became an unsustainable situation as with the francophones (especially in Quebec obviously) or vis-Ã -vis the larger diverse group of immigrant origin people in the 1970s, for reasons of political expediency.
So you're right that it didn't begin with the implantation of a large number of Muslims fairly recently, but certainly the nature of that belief system and the practices that go along with it are testing the principles of multiculturalism more than most any other group ever has.
Absolutely. As I'm sure you know from your own history, there are stories behind stories. My point was not that Canada betrayed its agreement but rather that assimilating was never intended to begin with. I'm sure they figured the ultimate goal would be to keep "lesser" people in their proper places, behind the English. Basically there was no intent on the part of the ruling classes to allow for equality.
But Trudeau senior's statement about Canada being a multicultural society and the subsequent statements about melting pot versus mosaic were statements of fact. It wasn't a French-English country any more, whether people liked it or not. And even if you (generic you) completely want to ignore what happened in Canada's very early years, there is still no denying that the policy from Trudeau's time on was multiculturalism, not erasing everyone's heritage, whether that is good or bad or indifferent. The idea that equality means everyone is supposed to look, dress, act and believe like some stereotypical idea of a white Canadian is a new idea.
Your view from the east is a different experience than the experience of the west, which may be smaller population-wise but not in terms of territory. And if you were going to have a country, you made do with what the actual facts on the ground were. The Mennonite east and west reserves were large territories. They in turn were surrounded by tightly knit Ukrainians among others. The government of the time did not do this out of the goodness of their heart, but to have a front line against American encroachment.
But assimilating - no. I'm sure people would have settled the prairies eventually, but it wouldn't have been Mennonites, Hutterites, Doukobours and others. One may argue whether that would have been better or worse. For a land in need of people tillers of land, familiar with harsh conditions, I'd argue it was to Canada's betterment.
So the whole notion that there was a Canada where there was an expectation that everyone would be the same is just not true and the government was well aware of that when it invited people like the Mennonites to settle.
Absolutely. As I'm sure you know from your own history, there are stories behind stories. My point was not that Canada betrayed its agreement but rather that assimilating was never intended to begin with. I'm sure they figured the ultimate goal would be to keep "lesser" people in their proper places, behind the English. Basically there was no intent on the part of the ruling classes to allow for equality.
But Trudeau senior's statement about Canada being a multicultural society and the subsequent statements about melting pot versus mosaic were statements of fact. It wasn't a French-English country any more, whether people liked it or not. And even if you (generic you) completely want to ignore what happened in Canada's very early years, there is still no denying that the policy from Trudeau's time on was multiculturalism, not erasing everyone's heritage, whether that is good or bad or indifferent. The idea that equality means everyone is supposed to look, dress, act and believe like some stereotypical idea of a white Canadian is a new idea.
Your view from the east is a different experience than the experience of the west, which may be smaller population-wise but not in terms of territory. And if you were going to have a country, you made do with what the actual facts on the ground were. The Mennonite east and west reserves were large territories. They in turn were surrounded by tightly knit Ukrainians among others. The government of the time did not do this out of the goodness of their heart, but to have a front line against American encroachment.
But assimilating - no. I'm sure people would have settled the prairies eventually, but it wouldn't have been Mennonites, Hutterites, Doukobours and others. One may argue whether that would have been better or worse. For a land in need of people tillers of land, familiar with harsh conditions, I'd argue it was to Canada's betterment.
So the whole notion that there was a Canada where there was an expectation that everyone would be the same is just not true and the government was well aware of that when it invited people like the Mennonites to settle.
British Colonialism 101 was always about keeping the impure separate from the pure, and also leaving the impure to their own devices as long as the pure didn't get contaminated. With the expectation that those of the impure who knew what was good for them would see the light and adopt British ways eventually (e.g. assimilate). That ended up being a smart calculation most of the time which is why they assimilated so many people on non-British origins.
Stuff like segregation and white flight in the U.S. also has its origins in this mindset.
No but we are treating them with respect and dignity while they await their day in court, we also arent taking their children away to be locked up in cages.
You mean like Clinton and Obama did for 16 years ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
