As I have said before, as someone who has a mixed racial background (white and black) I don't really care about race, and I wish the race grifters would just stop. I think you have a good point here in this article about the Overton Window having shifted to the point (as a backlash to Leftist race grifting) where we CAN discus immigration in a more rational manner. What has always really angered me is how the Left always co-opted an rational discussion by throwing around accusations of 'racism' etc. Finally normies have had enough. Immigration always has pros and cons and you need to do it rationally.
Also, the so-called Canadian 'consensus' on immigration NEVER existed, it was a decades long propaganda talking point from the Laurentian Elite Bien Pensants. Whatever 'consensus' existed was always a consensus between the political and media elite, nothing more.
And as a concrete example of the disconnect, the entire city council of Ottawa was recently surprised and 'disappointed' by the reaction of residents of areas of the city that have been designated as temporary refugee centers (using Sprung tents) because the residents WERE NOT CONSULTED - these decisions are being made by bureaucrats and politicians who are trying to slip one past residents and not being transparent. Its really outrageous.
And it terms of the idea now that the 'consensus' is broken, its the same issue and the same Bien-Pensant parties who are saying it, because THEY themselves see all the problems they have caused and are reeling from it, especially the rabid anti-semitism and simmering violence. Ordinary people are also incredibly pissed, but they still aren't consulted and in Canada have not yet had the chance to express their views via the voting booth. But because of what happened in the US election, these Bien-Pensants have inferred (correctly I think) that the Canadian population might be just as upset as the American. But its still THEIR consensus, or lack thereof.
Good. I think that the people who claim (always media types) there was such a thing as a 'Canadian Consensus' on immigration would claim that 'opinion polling' backs up the claim, but opinion polling is inconsistent, easily gamed, and in any case is never presented in any concrete way to citizens that they actually all agree to certain levels of immigration. In reality ordinary people are not part of the immigration decision making process, have zero say on it. So average Canadians are never formally consulted (say via a referendum) on immigration levels or matters, so the entire 'consensus' concept is a total fiction.
My family has German/American roots dating back to 1850 or so. My partners family is English/American back to 1634. Also over multiple generations, Russian, Italian, French, Finnish, Native Indian, East Indian, Japanese, Chinese. All cultures are celebrated mainly through food and holidays.
Christmas and Easter though are no question the main celebrations as well as Thanksgiving (x2 lol).
Christianity is the glue, regardless of where your from historically.
By this time, after 10's of generations, our kids and their cousins are Indigenous, period, full stop.
I don’t know why you stick with the “white”, “Anglo” thing. It is out of date and mostly incoherent. You seem to agree, at least in part: “In the case of Canada, immigrants can be absorbed into the Anglo ethno-traditional core even though they may not be white, Christian, or speak English.”
Have you considered that the “core” you refer to (in Canada) is not now, and not quite ever what you persist in stating.
The earliest demographics in this land were obviously indigenous (descendants of migrants from across the Bering Strait). In Canada, (leaving out the Baltic migrants who were very few) the first dominant group was French, not English at least until after the Plains of Abraham.
Even by 1871, the largest demographic was French at 31%, then Irish at 34%, English at 20%, Scottish at 16%. You can combine these different (sometimes warring) groups and call them “white” but is it meaningful?
And you conflate the European settlement into “Anglo white ethnic”, as if this was some kind of monolithic amalgam. Most had white skin, many spoke English, but that was an older time than now. Did the English and French see themselves as one group? How about the Irish and English?
About 22% of Canadians today were not born here. And this is how we describe ourselves, either linguistically or ethnically:
Canadian 15.6%, English 14.7%, Scottish 12.1%, French 11%, Irish 12.1%, German 8.1%, Chinese 4.7%, Italian 4.3%, First Nations 1.7%, Indian 3.7%, Ukrainian 3.5%, Metis 1.5% (2021 est.)
The major panethnic origin groups in Canada are: European (52.5%), North American (22.9%), Asian (19.3%), North American Indigenous (6.1%), African (3.8%), Latin, Central and South American (2.5%), Caribbean (2.1%), Oceanian (0.3%), and Other (6%).
Most of us don’t see ourselves by skin colour, nor as Anglos.
"white" or "Anglo" can never be "out of date." If you understand how history works, and you care about truth and accuracy. All of the founders were white. The majority population today are white.
I will get to the French in a future essay -- in a nutshell, there is a Franco ethno-cultural core that exists in one region of Canada only. This makes Canada a dual compact. It complicates the conversation, so for simplicity I have left it out of the discussion for now. What I am saying applies to the majority of provinces in Canada.
For similar reasons I left out the indigenous as well for now. It is the indigenous who are pulled to assimilate into the Anglo core, not the other way around. If you reject the idea of ethnic archetype (which is little more than a description of the ethno-cultural features taken up by a nations founders), simply becuase it is not constructed by a single-raced monolithic group is short sighted. I understand the ethic variety that existed at Canada's founding, I'm suggesting the Anglo strain took precedent and became the reference point by which all other past and future immigrants assimilated. The ethnic archetype is what the founders generally agreed it was. Many early statesmen were Scottish, like John A. MacDonald, and many were known to both revere and act like the English. The British were the largest group who had the most attractive ethno-cultural traditions, the majority of which were transplanted to Canada (some, but less Scottish and Irish traditions were). Don't airbrush the central importance of the British out of Canadian history, they brought the core culture everyone else gravitated to and absorbed into.
I don't disagree with any of your stats -- non-Anglo white people like Scottish and Irish absorbed into the Anglo ethnic core. This is not a difficult concept. Canada does have a core ethnic archetype, it has an Anglo British nucleus. All other groups historically, and groups to this day, use this ethnic archetype as the reference point when comparing and contrasting what is more or less prototypically Canadian. This is how it works with all nations and all ethnicities.
Marxists, and other leftist people, DO NOT feel ethno-cultural attachments the same way the rest of us do. Your confusion is not becuase you don't understand me -- there is nothing incoherent. At time things appear complex, but that is mostly due to the confusion people have around where national identity ends, and where ethnic identity begins, and if or where they converge.
As I have said before, as someone who has a mixed racial background (white and black) I don't really care about race, and I wish the race grifters would just stop. I think you have a good point here in this article about the Overton Window having shifted to the point (as a backlash to Leftist race grifting) where we CAN discus immigration in a more rational manner. What has always really angered me is how the Left always co-opted an rational discussion by throwing around accusations of 'racism' etc. Finally normies have had enough. Immigration always has pros and cons and you need to do it rationally.
Also, the so-called Canadian 'consensus' on immigration NEVER existed, it was a decades long propaganda talking point from the Laurentian Elite Bien Pensants. Whatever 'consensus' existed was always a consensus between the political and media elite, nothing more.
I agree with this Steven. I'm going to use this and comment on it in the next essay! Stay tuned.
And as a concrete example of the disconnect, the entire city council of Ottawa was recently surprised and 'disappointed' by the reaction of residents of areas of the city that have been designated as temporary refugee centers (using Sprung tents) because the residents WERE NOT CONSULTED - these decisions are being made by bureaucrats and politicians who are trying to slip one past residents and not being transparent. Its really outrageous.
And it terms of the idea now that the 'consensus' is broken, its the same issue and the same Bien-Pensant parties who are saying it, because THEY themselves see all the problems they have caused and are reeling from it, especially the rabid anti-semitism and simmering violence. Ordinary people are also incredibly pissed, but they still aren't consulted and in Canada have not yet had the chance to express their views via the voting booth. But because of what happened in the US election, these Bien-Pensants have inferred (correctly I think) that the Canadian population might be just as upset as the American. But its still THEIR consensus, or lack thereof.
Good. I think that the people who claim (always media types) there was such a thing as a 'Canadian Consensus' on immigration would claim that 'opinion polling' backs up the claim, but opinion polling is inconsistent, easily gamed, and in any case is never presented in any concrete way to citizens that they actually all agree to certain levels of immigration. In reality ordinary people are not part of the immigration decision making process, have zero say on it. So average Canadians are never formally consulted (say via a referendum) on immigration levels or matters, so the entire 'consensus' concept is a total fiction.
My family has German/American roots dating back to 1850 or so. My partners family is English/American back to 1634. Also over multiple generations, Russian, Italian, French, Finnish, Native Indian, East Indian, Japanese, Chinese. All cultures are celebrated mainly through food and holidays.
Christmas and Easter though are no question the main celebrations as well as Thanksgiving (x2 lol).
Christianity is the glue, regardless of where your from historically.
By this time, after 10's of generations, our kids and their cousins are Indigenous, period, full stop.
Great essays!!
I don’t know why you stick with the “white”, “Anglo” thing. It is out of date and mostly incoherent. You seem to agree, at least in part: “In the case of Canada, immigrants can be absorbed into the Anglo ethno-traditional core even though they may not be white, Christian, or speak English.”
Have you considered that the “core” you refer to (in Canada) is not now, and not quite ever what you persist in stating.
The earliest demographics in this land were obviously indigenous (descendants of migrants from across the Bering Strait). In Canada, (leaving out the Baltic migrants who were very few) the first dominant group was French, not English at least until after the Plains of Abraham.
Even by 1871, the largest demographic was French at 31%, then Irish at 34%, English at 20%, Scottish at 16%. You can combine these different (sometimes warring) groups and call them “white” but is it meaningful?
And you conflate the European settlement into “Anglo white ethnic”, as if this was some kind of monolithic amalgam. Most had white skin, many spoke English, but that was an older time than now. Did the English and French see themselves as one group? How about the Irish and English?
About 22% of Canadians today were not born here. And this is how we describe ourselves, either linguistically or ethnically:
Canadian 15.6%, English 14.7%, Scottish 12.1%, French 11%, Irish 12.1%, German 8.1%, Chinese 4.7%, Italian 4.3%, First Nations 1.7%, Indian 3.7%, Ukrainian 3.5%, Metis 1.5% (2021 est.)
The major panethnic origin groups in Canada are: European (52.5%), North American (22.9%), Asian (19.3%), North American Indigenous (6.1%), African (3.8%), Latin, Central and South American (2.5%), Caribbean (2.1%), Oceanian (0.3%), and Other (6%).
Most of us don’t see ourselves by skin colour, nor as Anglos.
Robin
"white" or "Anglo" can never be "out of date." If you understand how history works, and you care about truth and accuracy. All of the founders were white. The majority population today are white.
I will get to the French in a future essay -- in a nutshell, there is a Franco ethno-cultural core that exists in one region of Canada only. This makes Canada a dual compact. It complicates the conversation, so for simplicity I have left it out of the discussion for now. What I am saying applies to the majority of provinces in Canada.
For similar reasons I left out the indigenous as well for now. It is the indigenous who are pulled to assimilate into the Anglo core, not the other way around. If you reject the idea of ethnic archetype (which is little more than a description of the ethno-cultural features taken up by a nations founders), simply becuase it is not constructed by a single-raced monolithic group is short sighted. I understand the ethic variety that existed at Canada's founding, I'm suggesting the Anglo strain took precedent and became the reference point by which all other past and future immigrants assimilated. The ethnic archetype is what the founders generally agreed it was. Many early statesmen were Scottish, like John A. MacDonald, and many were known to both revere and act like the English. The British were the largest group who had the most attractive ethno-cultural traditions, the majority of which were transplanted to Canada (some, but less Scottish and Irish traditions were). Don't airbrush the central importance of the British out of Canadian history, they brought the core culture everyone else gravitated to and absorbed into.
I don't disagree with any of your stats -- non-Anglo white people like Scottish and Irish absorbed into the Anglo ethnic core. This is not a difficult concept. Canada does have a core ethnic archetype, it has an Anglo British nucleus. All other groups historically, and groups to this day, use this ethnic archetype as the reference point when comparing and contrasting what is more or less prototypically Canadian. This is how it works with all nations and all ethnicities.
Marxists, and other leftist people, DO NOT feel ethno-cultural attachments the same way the rest of us do. Your confusion is not becuase you don't understand me -- there is nothing incoherent. At time things appear complex, but that is mostly due to the confusion people have around where national identity ends, and where ethnic identity begins, and if or where they converge.