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

[brilligtove]

The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.

While I wait on a response to the other questions, I wanted to mention that I largely agree with you on this statement. For example, America has found ways to incorporate many cultures into itself in a small number of generations and with significantly less rapine violence that conquering empires have historically used to 'mix up the cultures' so to speak. Ghengis Khan created a multicultural society by some standards, but there was a lot more violent death involved. That's something your country and others can learn from. At the same time, America's failures at integration - horrible systemic segregation and racism baked into its bones for instance - are also something to learn from.

This statement kind of ignores the tens of millions of Native Americans who had to be killed off for the melting pot to become open for business. And there was still a lot of voilence, as about 50 different conflicts were fought in North Ameica since 1776, including the Civil War, which remains the bloodiest war in American history (if you don't count the European Invasion). There were wars of conquest (the Mexican-American War), mass racist/nativist violence (the Lynching Era, Mountain Meadows, the War on Drugs, etc.) and many smaller conflicts.

I wasn't trying to minimize any of that, but was not clear. You are right: I should have noted 'since the initial colonization' of North America - which to be fair was still happening in the early 20th century (the Wild West).

[brilligtove]

Your link didn't lead to anything I posted.

Apologies. I linked to the wrong post (correct link below). The question is, "How do you explain the current differences in racial/cultural tension and violence if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?"

(click to show/hide)

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.

Is American society ("racially") segregated today? Yes, I know of the segregation policies in the south in the 1960s, but today?

Yes, it is. As one example, the entire justice system is biased at all levels to harm and remove rights from non-white people - primarily blacks, but not exclusively - more than white people.

As another,

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.

[daniel1948]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

Speaking for myself, I do feel that people have social responsibilities. But these responsibilities are to society, not to any nation-state. My own choice, once I had successfully dodged the draft, was to remain in the country of my birth and try to make it a better place (until, eventually, I became cynical and said "screw it!") And I applaud those who choose to remain and work for the good of others. But I don't feel that anyone has a reaponsibility to any given country. Which means that everyone, IMO, has a moral right to leave if they so choose.

Note that I also think that running away seldom results in a better life. Exceptions are refugees and draft dodgers (which in any case are a category or refugee). People who leave a country because the president is a baboon and a pustule are not likely to be any happier somewhere else. But they have the right to do so. And such people probably weren't making their home country any better anyway. Because activists usually are committed people who stay and fight. Runners are seldom people who were working to better their country.

Which makes the whole question a bit moot: If you're the kind of person who puts time and energy into bettering your country, you probably don't really want to leave, and if you're the kind of person to run away because a baboon and a pustule got elected to office, you probably weren't doing anything to make the place any better.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Your link didn't lead to anything I posted.

Apologies. I linked to the wrong post (correct link below). The question is, "How do you explain the current differences in racial/cultural tension and violence if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?"

(click to show/hide)

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.

Is American society ("racially") segregated today? Yes, I know of the segregation policies in the south in the 1960s, but today?

Yes, it is. As one example, the entire justice system is biased at all levels to harm and remove rights from non-white people - primarily blacks, but not exclusively - more than white people.

As another,

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 that the US has no issues. I said that both the US and Canada are much better than European countries (or at least Sweden) at integration, and that from the outside they seem pretty similar in their approaches.

Bias in courts isn't really what I'm referring to. By "integration" in this case is usually meant the ability to become part of society by having a job and so on. And we (Sweden) are crappy at it. Do you know what the average time for an immigrant that arrives to Sweden to get a job is? 8 years. What is the comparable number in Canada or the US? A quick googling gives lots of articles about how the US has succeeded at integration where we have failed.

[John Albert]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50948.msg9603066.html#msg9603066

All this tells me is that you're trying to be deliberately obtuse.

[John Albert]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

Speaking for myself, I do feel that people have social responsibilities. But these responsibilities are to society, not to any nation-state. My own choice, once I had successfully dodged the draft, was to remain in the country of my birth and try to make it a better place (until, eventually, I became cynical and said "screw it!") And I applaud those who choose to remain and work for the good of others. But I don't feel that anyone has a reaponsibility to any given country. Which means that everyone, IMO, has a moral right to leave if they so choose.

Of course I acknowledge the right to leave. The option to travel is open to all Americans who can afford it, provided they're not under some legal restriction.

I don't feel any obligation to the government, per se, except to speak out against policies that hinder or threaten the lives of others. Because we live under a elective representative government, the authority to change that government rests with the people of this country. And as a US citizen, I can't help but feel that carries some social responsibility. 

Note that I also think that running away seldom results in a better life. Exceptions are refugees and draft dodgers (which in any case are a category or refugee). People who leave a country because the president is a baboon and a pustule are not likely to be any happier somewhere else. But they have the right to do so. And such people probably weren't making their home country any better anyway. Because activists usually are committed people who stay and fight. Runners are seldom people who were working to better their country.

Which makes the whole question a bit moot: If you're the kind of person who puts time and energy into bettering your country, you probably don't really want to leave, and if you're the kind of person to run away because a baboon and a pustule got elected to office, you probably weren't doing anything to make the place any better.

This is a very good approximation of my feelings on the subject.

[brilligtove]

Your link didn't lead to anything I posted.

Apologies. I linked to the wrong post (correct link below). The question is, "How do you explain the current differences in racial/cultural tension and violence if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?"

(click to show/hide)

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.

Is American society ("racially") segregated today? Yes, I know of the segregation policies in the south in the 1960s, but today?

Yes, it is. As one example, the entire justice system is biased at all levels to harm and remove rights from non-white people - primarily blacks, but not exclusively - more than white people.

As another,

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 that the US has no issues. I said that both the US and Canada are much better than European countries (or at least Sweden) at integration, and that from the outside they seem pretty similar in their approaches.

Bias in courts isn't really what I'm referring to. By "integration" in this case is usually meant the ability to become part of society by having a job and so on. And we (Sweden) are crappy at it. Do you know what the average time for an immigrant that arrives to Sweden to get a job is? 8 years. What is the comparable number in Canada or the US? A quick googling gives lots of articles about how the US has succeeded at integration where we have failed.

Let's finish dealing with whether Canada and the US have systems that are actually as similar as you claim before we deal with how different our systems are from your systems.

There are many ways that the US is segregated. Gerrymandering and the biases in the legal system from policing to sentencing are among the most obvious. The legacy of slavery and segregation in the US has direct causal connections to these current problems.

If Canadian and American systems are so similar, how do you explain the rather different immigration policies, cultural violence, and other issues that I have raised?

[jt512]

Are you trying to imply that citizens of a country have no civic or social responsibility, short of running for public office or performing some act of extraordinary heroism?

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50948.msg9603066.html#msg9603066

All this tells me is that you're trying to be deliberately obtuse.

All that tells is that you have a reading comprehension problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Quetzalcoatl]

Your link didn't lead to anything I posted.

Apologies. I linked to the wrong post (correct link below). The question is, "How do you explain the current differences in racial/cultural tension and violence if both countries are equally integrated across cultural boundaries?"

(click to show/hide)

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.

Is American society ("racially") segregated today? Yes, I know of the segregation policies in the south in the 1960s, but today?

Yes, it is. As one example, the entire justice system is biased at all levels to harm and remove rights from non-white people - primarily blacks, but not exclusively - more than white people.

As another,

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 that the US has no issues. I said that both the US and Canada are much better than European countries (or at least Sweden) at integration, and that from the outside they seem pretty similar in their approaches.

Bias in courts isn't really what I'm referring to. By "integration" in this case is usually meant the ability to become part of society by having a job and so on. And we (Sweden) are crappy at it. Do you know what the average time for an immigrant that arrives to Sweden to get a job is? 8 years. What is the comparable number in Canada or the US? A quick googling gives lots of articles about how the US has succeeded at integration where we have failed.

Let's finish dealing with whether Canada and the US have systems that are actually as similar as you claim before we deal with how different our systems are from your systems.

There are many ways that the US is segregated. Gerrymandering and the biases in the legal system from policing to sentencing are among the most obvious. The legacy of slavery and segregation in the US has direct causal connections to these current problems.

If Canadian and American systems are so similar, how do you explain the rather different immigration policies, cultural violence, and other issues that I have raised?

I am not talking about segregation like that. I am talking about how successful the integration of immigrants to their new country is. And the US is arguably successful at that. The segregation of the 1960s or gerrymandering doesn't change that.

Let's look at our statistics. If you can understand Norwegian, you should be able to read through these data in Swedish:

Arbetslöshet - utrikes födda: In recent years, of immigrants born outside of Europe, close to 50% are registered as unemployed.

Sysselsättningsgap - internationellt: Sweden has the second largest gap in employment rate in Europe among native born and foreign born.

(Data is provided by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and uses official domestic data as well as international data.)

Let's face it, we suck at integration when measured in this way, which is what it usually emphasized, rather than what the American south in the 1960s looked like. What does the comparable data for the US look like? Not like here, that's for sure. See image below.

(click to show/hide)

[Morvis13]

Well the US was #6 on immigration so not too bad. Too bad that is only one aspect in "Quality of Life."

[brilligtove]

Quetzalcoatl, are you claiming there is no meaningful connection between the immigrant experience and the segregationist policies I've been talking about? I'm drawing a line from those aspects of US culture and little things like what's happening to people who trusted the US to honour DACA. Or those children in cages separated from their parents - and maybe never to find them again.

Again, you are discounting and minimizing things that are important and amplifying things that are not.

While you come up with an answer to that, consider that in this part of the world integration can be a perverse joke. In Toronto a huge number of cabbies have advanced degrees, often in medicine. We have a shortage of doctors. We actively recruit doctors as immigrants. Then we make it almost impossible for them to certify here and they end up doing unskilled labour. It's a shitshow. They have 'jobs' I suppose. Jobs that are a colossal waste of talent and skill. But hey, we rank high on that integration scale thing.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I don't even know what "DACA" is.

Integration is not unimportant. I don't understand how can you think I am "amplifying things that are not [important]". The things I am "amplifying" are hugely important, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

Yes, the US has certain issues past and present, but it succeeds well at integration (at least compared to us). Inhumane treatment of arriving prospective immigrants from Mexico, and I am no endorsing that (in case someone here would think that), does not invalidate that the immigrants who settle down there often do well in society. They are employed to about the same extent as people born in the country, and some groups even have higher average earnings. How is that not successful?

What does segregation in the 1960s in the American south have to do with our failures? Nothing. If the Americans have succeeded better than us at something, we should be willing to learn from that. That doesn't make it necessary to repeat their failings.

[brilligtove]

I'm not even sure how to carry on this discussion.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Me neither. It has drifted so far from the OP.

[Morvis13]