"Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life"

[Quetzalcoatl]

So I ask again: What is the radical difference? If Canada does not take measures (and I assume it does not) to prevent mixing between groups, or between "races", which seems to be the local obsession around here, then those groups will over time mix with each other, they won't remain unaffected. Which sounds like the American melting pot, to my ears.

Canadian government and society are rarely involved in active segregation.

American governments and society are frequently involved in active segregation.

Is that clear?

Am I misinterpreting?  Did we find common ground? What is your response?

You are referring to past American policies. By decree of the American supreme court, segregation became illegal in the 1960s. The Canadian policy of multiculturalism was established in the 1970s. In other words, both countries have become more tolerant in recent decades, as have all Western countries, really. It does not seem fair to me to compare Canada today with the US in the 1960s and before. Canada may not have the US's history of slavery and segregation, but I'd be surprised if it deviated from the Western norm before the 1970s. The general "argument" in the thread still seems to be that Canadians are tolerant and enlightened and Americans are narrow-minded and intolerant. The US makes immigrants Americans, while Canada... doesn't make immigrants Canadians?

What we should look at is what those countries are like today.

From here:

In practice, as Daniel noted, the dominant white culture expects the immigrants and browns to conform to their ideals

This obsession with skin color is perplexing. I have argued (online) with (Swedish) right-wing populists, and even many of them are much less interested in skin color compared to what lots of people on this forum apparently are.

And no matter what skin color you have, if you move to another country, you will often have to adapt to some of the customs, practices and ways of doing things there. Hardly unique for the US, and I could bet you a lot of money that it is also true for Canada.

while simultaneously appropriating major elements of those cultures

This nonsensical concept again. The melting pot means that various cultural elements become part of the greater whole, the pot, so to speak. Like hamburgers and pizzas, like we discussed earlier. Cultures evolve by adopting foreign influences. This is only a problem if you consider intermixing to be a problem.

Over here, potatoes are an important part of our food. Yet it is by no means native to this part of the world. It came originally from South America, and was introduced here in the 17th century, probably by returning soldiers from the 30 Years War. It has become an important part of our cuisine by cultural evolution over the centuries.

I'd say that pretty much every decently sized city with people from all sorts of backgrounds are kind of melting pots today. Different cultures meet, influence each other, and evolve as a response. Again, only a problem if you consider intermixing to be a problem.

segregating 'foreigners' from the 'real america', and making it damn hard to actually melt into the pot.

Compared to here, it doesn't seem the case. The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

[brilligtove]

Let's start at the top.

Here is a short list of Post-Civil Rights era race riots in the US:

• 1974-1976: Boston busing crisis
• 1976-1977: Racial violence in Marquette Park, Chicago
• 1977: New York City Blackout riot
• 1978: Moody Park riots; Houston, Texas
• 1980: Miami riot
• 1991: Crown Heights riot
• 1991: Overtown, Miami
• 1992: Los Angeles riots – April 29 to May 5
• 1996: St. Petersburg, Florida riot
• 2001: Cincinnati riots – April
• 2009: Oakland, CA Riots
• 2012: Anaheim, California Riot
• 2014: Ferguson, MO riots
• 2015: Baltimore riots
• 2015: Ferguson unrest
• 2016: Milwaukee riots
• 2016: Charlotte riot, September 20–21

For much more visit Wikipedia.

Here is a list of Post-Civil Rights era race riots in Canada:

If you want to be generous and include the civil rights era we can expand Canada's list to this:

• 1968: Sir George Williams affair in Montreal.

To be fair we'd need to add US rioting from the same time, of course. Let's start with the Long Hot Summer of 1967. There were 159 race riots that year alone.

How do you explain this difference if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?

[John Albert]

Why do you feel you have a responsibility to your homeland?

Maybe it's because I was brought up to believe that politics is a personal responsibility and I'm capable of making a difference if I try.

Or, to put it another way, maybe it's because you were "brought up to believe" (ie, indoctrinated) that you have a special responsibility to the tribe into which you were born through no choice of your own.

I don't see it so simple as that.

Is civic responsibility nothing more than indoctrination into a "tribe"?

[jt512]

Why do you feel you have a responsibility to your homeland?

Maybe it's because I was brought up to believe that politics is a personal responsibility and I'm capable of making a difference if I try.

Or, to put it another way, maybe it's because you were "brought up to believe" (ie, indoctrinated) that you have a special responsibility to the tribe into which you were born through no choice of your own.

I don't see it so simple as that.

Is civic responsibility nothing more than indoctrination into a "tribe"?

It is not obvious to me why one would automatically feel a responsibility to his "homeland."

[daniel1948]

Just speaking for myself, I regard the nation-state as a bad thing. I'm on record as advocating open borders. And I like H.L. Menken's aphorism that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I certainly do not regard anyone as a scoundrel for feeling the need to remain in their country of birth with a view toward making it a more just and tolerant place. But I feel strongly that everyone has a right to live where they choose. If I had not managed to dodge the draft in 1967, I'd have gone to Canada, without the slightest feeling that I had any obligation to the USA.

[brilligtove]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

I have been pointing out a lot of shitty things that happen or happened in the US in this thread. I'm not anti-American. Overall I like the country, enjoy their culture, use their tech, and like visiting. Some of my in-laws are republicans, even.

I love Canada, but it is no utopia either. We have a lot of stains on our history too, and some of them are still hurting people. The legacy of slavery and white supremacy is vast, however, and institutionalized in all sorts of ways.

You are referring to past American policies.

You're right, of course. Now that it is illegal to discriminate against people with non-white-person hair, at least in NYC, there are no racist policies, laws, or systemic practices. Canada and the US are the same.

[Quetzalcoatl]

You are referring to past American policies.

You're right, of course. Now that it is illegal to discriminate against people with non-white-person hair, at least in NYC, there are no racist policies, laws, or systemic practices. Canada and the US are the same.

I did not say the countries are completely alike. I said that when it comes to integration, both countries are (here) cited as successful at it, and in practice they seem to do it rather similarly. Might be because neither of them are nation-states.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that today they appear to do integration similarly. I did not keep 1962 or 1838 or any other year in mind, and it is not reasonable to expect me to account for every single year if we are speaking about today.

I don't think there have been any responses to the claim that the integrations in the US and Canada look rather similar except that Canada is good and the US is bad (and variants thereof), and references to various events that took place in the US decades or even centuries ago, that are not really strictly about integration in many cases in the first place.

[brilligtove]

You are referring to past American policies.

You're right, of course. Now that it is illegal to discriminate against people with non-white-person hair, at least in NYC, there are no racist policies, laws, or systemic practices. Canada and the US are the same.

I did not say the countries are completely alike. I said that when it comes to integration, both countries are (here) cited as successful at it, and in practice they seem to do it rather similarly. Might be because neither of them are nation-states.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that today they appear to do integration similarly. I did not keep 1962 or 1838 or any other year in mind, and it is not reasonable to expect me to account for every single year if we are speaking about today.

I don't think there have been any responses to the claim that the integrations in the US and Canada look rather similar except that Canada is good and the US is bad (and variants thereof), and references to various events that took place in the US decades or even centuries ago, that are not really strictly about integration in many cases in the first place.

I don't expect you to know much about the history I'm citing. I'm learning too.

I do want your take on this question: How do you explain the current differences in racial/cultural tension and violence if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?

The immigrant experience is directly connected to this question.

[jt512]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

[brilligtove]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors, however, which is why I think "indoctrination" is too strong a word. If you don't fit into a group like a country, you may be able to leave it voluntarily¹ or you may be involuntarily ejected or killed.² Similarly, you may not be able to voluntarily join a country³ or you may be forced to.⁴

I do agree with you that your country of birth is not special in any way, any more than you are special in any way. (Neither am I.)

====
^[1]Emmigration, fleeing war.
^[2]Killed by the State for being gay.
^[3]No green card for you!
^[4]Internment camps at the border instead of being allowed into the country.

[jt512]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

[brilligtove]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

You are correct about eventually being an adult and making informed choices. You seem to think that we have some sort of existential radical free will in those choices though. We don't. You also seem to be arguing that humans do not have a powerful inborn drive to be part of a group. I mean, you may have some choices about what group you belong to in some cases, sure. Humans don't really have much choice about being part of groups though. I mean there are are hermits, but even they are part of groups.

[jt512]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

I think your argument confuses cause and effect with respect to 'owing' loyalty or allegiance. Humans often feel loyalty to the groups they are part of. Membership in any group is a combination of voluntary and involuntary factors...

You wouldn't even know you were a citizen of a country unless someone told you, nor a "member" of a particular religion.  We are told practically from infancy that we are "American" or "Jewish" or whatever.  We have no inborn nationalistic or religious ties.  We are taught them.  At some point one becomes a grown-up and ought to be able to see this for him or herself.

You are correct about eventually being an adult and making informed choices.

Yes.  Period.

[daniel1948]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

100% agree with the above.

[jt512]

John, Daniel, jt512: Loving your family, wanting good for your group, caring about what your culture values... these are all part of being human. It doesn't matter that the specific targets of these feelings are largely an accident of birth: the feelings are real.

Your family, yes.  Your "group" is too ambiguous to comment on.  What I'm arguing about is your country.  Uncountable numbers of people leave their homelands exactly because they oppose the "values" of those countries and favor the values elsewhere.  To believe that you owe an allegiance to a country just because you were born there or a religion just because you were born into it is just indoctrination.  The sooner one realizes this the freer one is.

100% agree with the above.

Well, that's a comment I don't often get!