Tag Archives: Ricardo Duchesne

Eurocanadians: Pioneers, Settlers, or Immigrants?

Posted on by

Eurocanadians: Pioneers, Settlers, or Immigrants?

by Ricardo Duchesne

White Settlers clearing the land to prepare for planting

Leftist Newspeak

Leftists have been winning the war of words and setting the terms of political discourse for decades. Their discursive power was quite evident three years ago in the decision of the Associated Press to drop the term “illegal immigrant” from its style guide as an “offensive” term that did not accurately describe migrants who enter the United States without documentation. “Islamophobia” is another term used regularly to close down the claim that Islam is an inflexible faith that cannot adapt to Western values.

Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924) instructed his fellow Bolsheviks: “We can and must write in language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Today, the most frequently used epithets to smear opponents are “racist”, “sexist”, and “homophobic”. The Left has been so successful in projecting insidious motives on anyone disagreeing with their idiotic views that conservatives now devote considerable time playing up their “good intentions” or singing the same tune by targeting “two-faced liberals” caught making sexist or racist remarks.

Lenin also commanded his comrades: “The communists must be prepared to…resort to all sorts of cunning schemes and stratagems…to evade and conceal the truth.” Current leftists are consummate deceivers, Orwellian double-speakers and fabricators of bellyfeel words that carry a blind yet enthusiastic acceptance of an idea. They are quite apt at distorting the older meanings of words, even to the point of turning them upside down. “Discoverer” and “explorer of Canada” were once terms used in admiration; now they are used in quotation marks as untrue and laughable terms.

I will write about the replacement of the words “pioneer” and “settler” with the word “immigrant”.

Dictionary Definition

The replacement of the words “pioneers” and “settlers” to describe the founders of Canada with the word “immigrant” happened gradually without barely anyone noticing it. In the series of articles written on Canadian immigration these past weeks I have used the term “immigrants” in reference to the French, British, European men and women who arrived in Canada from the 1600s to 1914/21. I did so to show that even on its own terms the established interpretation that Canada is “a nation of diverse immigrants” is false, since most Canadians were either native born with strong ancestries in Canada or and internal migrants from within the British world of North America and the British Isles.

But it is time to question the way the word “immigrant” has been deceptively extended to include what were in truth pioneers and settlers. Almost all the men and women who came to Canada from the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe, and, if you like, from British America, before 1914, were pioneers, notimmigrants.

Immigrants started to arrive in Canada mostly after WWII. I am saying this in accordance with all the dictionary definitions I have examined. The New Oxford English Dictionary is very clear. Immigrant is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”. Settler, however, is “a person who settles in an area, typically with no or few previous inhabitants”. Pioneer describes “a person who is among the first inhabitants to explore or settle a new country or area”. “Pioneering” means “to be the first to use or apply a new method, area of knowledge, or activity, open up a terrain as a pioneer”.

Huntington: Settlers before Immigrants

The one academic I know who has addressed this distinction is Samuel Huntington in his book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004). He writes:

Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group in order to create a new community…Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society (p. 39).

What Huntington says about American settlers applies to the Canadians who came to Canada more or less before 1914/21. Huntington says that America’s “core culture” was created by the settlers who came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This core culture consisted of the:

Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, the British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy and music (p. 40).

While the early settlers were responsible for this core culture, future settlers were responsible for the extension of this core culture into the “American frontier” or the “Great West”. These men and women who opened the West were not immigrants. Immigrants only began to arrive in large numbers after the 1820s into the already created towns and cities.

In Canada, it can be said that the “core culture” was created by the time of Confederation in 1867, with French and English as the major languages, Catholic and Protestant values, French civil law and British parliamentary institutions and law. The “non-French and non-British” men and women who arrived in the 1800s and early 1900s were also settlers, insomuch as many of them settled in the new prairie provinces and British Columbia, or in new areas in Upper Canada and the Maritimes.

This distinction between settlers/pioneers and immigrants, which was recognized (at least implicitly) by past historians, has been explicitly obfuscated by current historians. The two standard history textbooks I have referenced often in my series on Canadian immigration, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (2000), and A History of the Canadian Peoples (2011), avoid the use of the words “settler” and “pioneer”, but always use the words “immigrants” or “diverse immigrants”. Consider this: “immigration” enjoys the longest entry in the index of J.M. Bumsted’s A History of the Canadian Peoples, after the words “Canada” and “Aboriginal Peoples”.

It is not that historians did not use the word “immigrants” or “immigration” in the past. George Bryce’s book, A Short History of Canada, published in 1914, a solid book of 600 pages, uses immigrants often, but he also regularly uses “settlers” and “colonizers” (without the negative connotation this term currently carries). The same is true of Donald Creighton’s Dominion of the North: A History of Canada, first published in 1944, revised in 1957, which I greatly enjoyed reading in a tiny room at summer residence, University of Toronto, this past May. Both these books portray Canada as a nation fundamentally shaped by the French in Quebec and the English, not as a “nation of immigrants”. J.M.S. Careless’s book, Canada: A Story of Challenge (1959), subtitles the first period of large scale immigration to Canada as “Immigration, Development and the Pioneer Age, 1815-1850″.

Canada’s Pioneers

If I may disagree a bit with Huntington, it is more accurate to identify the settlers who created the core culture as “pioneers”, in contrast to those who extended this culture into new areas in the West, who should be identified as “settlers” proper. The word pioneer carries two key meanings; one is very close to the meaning of settler, that is, a person who is among those who first enter or settle a region. But another meaning is uniquely about pioneering in the sense of being the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or cultural development. The French and the English were the earliest settlers and originators of Canada’s core culture and therefore the true pioneers, while the Europeans, including English, who settled the West from about 1867 to 1914/21, were setters both in the sense of extending farming to the prairies, as well as extending Canada’s political culture to this barely settled area of Canada.

The earliest settlers, say, up until Confederation, were the ones who pioneered Canada’s institutions, churches, legal system, curriculum, and basic infrastructure. Clearly, they brought with them the customs, values, and know-how of Europe, and in this sense they were not originators of what we have come to identify as British representative government, Protestant values, French civil law and Catholic doctrine. But there is no question that they adapted these values and institutions to Canadian conditions. This is most evident in the rural and urban landscapes that pioneers created in Canada. R. Cole Harris and John Warkentin explain well what was uniquely new about Canadian pioneers (and settlers) notwithstanding their European ancestries. Writing about the period from 1800 until about the 1860s, they note:

In only three generations the whole peninsula of Southern Ontario was occupied by people of European [British] descent. During this time the forest was cut; the geometry of roads, fence lines and fields was stamped across the land; and the prosperity achieved by many was reflected in ample brick farmhouses and in bustling towns. Everywhere the human landscape was new. In the most recent frontier regions settlers still lived in tiny cabins on patches of cleared land; in the older areas there were still some stumpy fields and many people alive who had known the first pioneers. Whereas the human landscape of Western Europe often reflected centuries of human toil, this landscape reflected the recent arrival, the energy, and the apparent wastefulness of its creators. That Europeans had created the landscape there could be no doubt — the architectural forms, for example, were entirely of European origin. But although components of it existed in the British Isles, the human landscape of Southern Ontario could not be found anywhere in Europe (Canada Before Confederation: A Study in Historical Geography, 1974, p. 164).

Edwin Guillet’s Pioneer Days in Upper Canada (first published in 1933, with new editions in 1963, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1973, and 1975, but now discarded), is quite good in bringing to light how the first settlers pioneered the very meaning of “Canadian living”, starting with the immediacy of clearing up heavily forested lands, lumbering against huge oaks, umbrageous elms and stately pines, to open up lands for settlement. Indeed, the clearing of land involved a new co-operative principle of work known as “bees” in which neighbours would gather together to help each other; as no one family could do the work alone in many instances. These bees were also organized for house building, barn raising, and making quilts. The log and sod houses pioneered by these settlers were adapted to local materials in order to withstand long harsh winters.

White Pioneer school, teacher and students, Muskoka Lakes, Ontario, 1887

The first settlers pioneered many types of home-made foods using local products, including buckwheat cakes, rich batter puddings, berry pies, molasses, gelatin, ciders. The diet of the settlers — wild asparagus and berries, chestnuts, ducks, partridges, cucumbers, celery and turnips, roasted pig, boiled mutton, rice pudding, fishes of several kinds — was far superior to the current overrated food of dirty Chinese restaurants with their artificial sticky sauces and rootless globalist menus. They also pioneered city halls, fire-fighter’s organisations, theatres, Temperance Societies, sports and inter club games (curling, bandyball, lacrosse, softball, hockey, horse racing), public libraries, debating societies, mechanics’ institutes, agricultural associations, literary societies, private schools and colleges, circuses, brass bands.

Conclusion

The goal of the globalist left and corporate right is to destroy the national identities and heritages of European peoples. They want to equate the Canadians who pioneered and settled Canada with the immigrants who came to a ready-made nation after 1921/1945. The fact is that, as we will see in a future article, the immigrants who came between 1921/45 and 1971 were mostly Europeans who came to be part of an already created Canada, worked hard and assimilated without any ulterior motives. The immigrants who have been coming since multiculturalism was announced in 1971 are very different from these European immigrants, and the reason for this is not only that they are from Third World cultures; it is that they are arriving into a Canada that is under the tutelage of an ideology that celebrates their non-European traditions and encourages them to affirm their group rights in ways that will eventually undermine the Canada created by the White pioneers, settlers and hardworking immigrants who came before.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Posted on by

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Nottingham miners in 1948
Nottingham miners in 1948
Current liberals with socialist leanings have deceptively extended the concept of “social rights” to foreign immigrants in direct opposition to the original ethno-nationalistic meaning of this concept intended by the early European proponents of welfarism.

UN Covenant on Social Rights

The beginnings of this extension may be traced back to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966. Articles 6-15 of this “international covenant” include rights to work, to form and join trade unions, social insurance, paid parental leave, adequate standard of living, health care, free primary education and generally available secondary and higher education.

These social and economic rights, however, were first formulated within the context of the nation states of Europe intended for the native population. The key rationale in their formulation, by socialistic liberals in the late 19th century to early 20th century, was that civil rights on their own (equal rights to freedom of expression, equal treatment under the law, religious freedom) were inadequate since many members of the nation were too poor to make full use of these civil rights, and only government assistance would it be possible for all citizens to enjoy a level playing field in “the full development” of their “human personality”.

But in the aftermath of WWII, Western liberals began to argue for the extension of these rights to humans across the world, leading to the formulation of this treaty in 1966. Although this was an international covenant, the proponents of these rights were Westerners. Non-European nations, to this day, have generally ignored these rights. And those nations like Japan, which developed the wealth necessary to afford them, could not care less whether other nations live up to these rights. Only Western liberals have made it a matter of principle and conscience to work for the successful application of these rights around the world.

The New Ideology of the Equality of Races after WWII

Social rights are consistent with liberalism and Western ethnic nativism. The problem is that the enactment and application of these principles came in tandem with the spread of a new ideology of the equality of races.

This new ideology, which is not intrinsic to the concept of social rights, found full expression after WWII in three major political movements:

  1. “the struggle for decolonization” in the period from about 1948 to 1965, that is, the demand by colonies of the West to be granted national self-determination;
  2. the struggle against racial segregation in the United States, or the civil rights movement for equality under the law between Whites and Blacks from about 1955 to 1965;
  3. the struggle for the elimination of White-only immigration policies in the settler states of Canada, America, and Australia during the 60s and 70s.

All these movements were driven by the new ideology of the equality of races. This is not to say that the right of all peoples to national or ethnic self-termination, the movement against the division of the world into colonized and colonizer nations, can’t be supported without acceptance of the ideology of the equality of the races. Just as the concept of social rights is conceptually independent from the notion of racial equality, so is the principle of national self-determination conceptually independent from both social rights and the equality of races. One can agree that all peoples have a right to self-determination on the grounds that the racial and ethnic differences of peoples is a good thing. One can accept, on liberal principles, the notion of civil rights and economic rights within a nation, and argue for separate territories for different races. One can also argue that there is nothing in the principle of civic and social rights that calls for racial integration.

Likewise, there is nothing in the concepts of civic and social rights that precludes nations from excluding foreigners from enjoying these rights. It was only with the spread of the idea of the equality of the races that Westerners came to think that to be a true liberal believer in civic and social rights requires one to extend these rights to all humans across the world. The notion of the equality of races would transform the meaning of civic and social rights into human rights to be enjoyed by all humans regardless of nationality. Misusing Kant’s concept of “cosmopolitanism”, Western liberals in the last decades have brought about this conceptual change without any nationalist opposition.

One of a number of liberals involved in this conceptual transformation is the Turk Seyla Benhabib, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University. In The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (2004), she redefines the notion of civic rights to mean human rights, from which point she then argues that insofar as everyone on the planet has human rights, it is “impermissible from a moral standpoint” to deny incorporating aliens and strangers, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers into the existing liberal polities of Europe. Europeans, if they are to live up to the principles of civic and social rights, must extend these rights as human rights to immigrants wishing to come to Europe. The Europeans who reject this extension are fascists.

This is what socialists are arguing today. Socialists used to be for the protection of nationals against the importation of cheap labour; but now they have accepted the notion that all humans have human rights as equal members of the same human race, and that insofar as they have human rights, they have a right to migrate to Western nations and enjoy the same social rights as the natives.

This evident in David Abraham’s article, Immigration, Majority Rights, and Welfare State Solidarity, which is an assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”. Abraham, Professor of Law at Miami University, has an extensive publication record dedicated to the promotion of economic rights for immigrants, against “neo-liberal globalization”, as the best way of integrating diverse ethnic groups within Western nations. Abraham wants his readers and students to believe that this extension of social rights to immigrants is what the liberal tradition calls for.

In what follows, which is a continuation of my assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”, I will counter Abraham’s claim by relying on the “Anglocentric” socialist ideas of T.H. Marshall (1893-1981), a first formulator of the concept of social rights. The principle of social rights was never intended, and does not in principle entail, social rights for humans across the world and for immigrants. The latter is a cultural Marxist idea that was infiltrated into Western socialism by hostile elites.

The Flaw in Orgad’s Theory — Again

Orgad’s thesis is that the peoples of Europe have a legitimate right to restrict immigration in order to protect their majority culture. Orgad is correct that in the face of mass immigration, and the ever demographic growth of minorities, and the projected reduction of European majorities into “majority-minority” status, it would be absurd to keep pressing for the rights of minorities.

But Orgad’s theory amounts to no more than a call for the assimilation of immigrants to those cultural attributes of the majority culture that bespeak currently of tolerance, diversity, and constitutionalism.

Not long ago, roughly before WWII, one would be hard put finding calls for diversification in the Western liberal tradition. But liberalism has now been thoroughly colonized by hostile concepts; and so what Orgad, associated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is defending is a cultural Marxist version of liberalism. His theory of majority cultural rights basically says that Western nations can continue to be immigrant nations as long as they protect the majority liberal culture, and that this is the best way to fight off “extreme nationalism”.

We believe at CEC, to the contrary, that civic rights were postulated in the context of highly homogeneous European states, and that these rights are being threatened by diversification and extension into peoples lacking a history and a disposition for these rights. Civic rights presuppose European ethnic self-determination, which is not inconsistent with the acknowledgement of the rights of historically rooted minorities to the degree that these minorities have shown a natural predilection to live up to the principle of civic rights. By the same token, liberal rights are consistent with the separation of peoples into different territories within which they may find their own national means of ethnic self-determination.

David Abraham’s Multicultural Social Rights

David Abraham’s objection to Orgad is simply that it is preferable to emphasize additional socialist spending as a way of integrating everyone within the nation’s multicultural setting, rather than promoting the cultural rights of majorities. A more open, broader, and tolerant sense of “we”, he argues, can be nurtured more effectively through “social equality” measures than through “normative principles, values, and institutions”. The best medicine, which would encourage the majority culture to feel at home, in their increasingly diversifying nations, is to fight neoliberal economic policies, which weaken immigrant integration.

In other words, what the majority tax-paying culture needs to do is fork out more money for the growing immigrant populations. The massive welfare states of Europe should forego whatever “neoliberal” economic policies they adopted in recent decades and expand welfare spending. Orgad’s call for greater majority protections, Abraham warns, is “very slippery” and can quickly create a climate in which illiberal views, such as those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, become acceptable. The way to overcome the illiberal immigrants is to support them economically, educate them, given them pride in their heritage, and make them feel a home in Europe.

Many may think that Abraham is arguing in a consistently socialist manner; a social liberal who believes that welfare rights are essential to the integration of previously excluded groups into a common national culture, a patriot calling for national integration and loyalty. The truth is that all the welfare states of Europe were created for the sake of making the native White working classes feel that they were part of the national culture, by integrating them into the national economy and the educational system, in order to nurture a sense of ethnocentric identity with the heritage of their nation.

T.H. Marshall’s Anglocentric Social Rights

 

T.H. Marshall

One of the theoretical strategies early socialists used in justifying the creation of welfare programs was to argue that liberalism was consistent with the inclusion of “social rights” into the concept of civic citizenship. The best known proponent of social rights in England was T.H. Marshall; an idea he first espoused in his 1949 essay Citizenship and the Social Class. Marshall observed that the British working classes lacked a sense of identity, national in scope, because they were existing on the margins. He further argued that the best way to nurture a British national identity was to afford workers with social rights, by which he meant a modicum of health care and educational facilities. Civic rights were not enough for workers since they lacked the means to participate fully as co-creators of the national culture beyond their localities.

It should be noted, if we are to keep Marshall’s ideas in historical perspective, that state spending on education started in Europe after the 1850s, on compulsory and free education for children, and on public health and sanitation, focusing mainly on the lower to middle classes, but then growing and benefiting the less skilled working classes through the first half of the twentieth century, though it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that Western countries saw full fledged programs, guaranteed income supplements, pensions, child welfare, disabled person’s benefits, etc, to establish an “adequate” living standard beyond bare subsistence.

Marshall was advocating ideas that would rationalize this expansion in the 1950s and 1960s. But he was not original in this respect; socialists had been arguing for these policies for decades. What was new about Marshall was his effort to argue that civil rights were not enough to integrate the working classes into the nation’s culture. Liberal theory needed to be expanded to include social rights as a matter of principle to give workers a sense of identification with the nation’s culture by giving them a fairer chance to develop themselves as individual members within the nation.

Marshall did not frame this argument in economic terms, in trade-union or Keynesian terms, but insisted that social rights would work to integrate the working classes into the national liberal culture of Britain. Moreover, when he spoke of the working class in Britain he meant the native-born English, by ethnicity, religion, and culture generally. Not surprisingly, as liberalism was taken over by cultural Marxists in the 1960s, and a new breed of feminist/anti-White liberals was born, Marshall’s conception of social rights was “criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man”. Members of the hostile elite, in full control of academia in the 1970s, announced that Marshall was too “Anglocentric” (PDF) and no longer a “true” liberal.

This is a subject requiring further study; suffice it to say that major conceptual alterations and additions transpired within liberal theory after WWII, from the time of Marshall to the time of Abraham.

One can certainly find reasonable objections to Marshall’s concept of social rights on economic grounds and on libertarian grounds. The point at hand is that the concept of social rights is not inconsistent with a nation that believes in civic rights, freedom of expression, separation of church and state, representative institutions, and at the same time opposes open borders and encourages ethnic pride in their citizens. What is inconsistent is the notion that social rights presuppose the creation of nations dedicated to the integration of foreigners as immigrants with social rights. The historical and theoretical evidence does not support this extension.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

Posted on by

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

by Ricardo Duchesne

Canadian Soldiers in WW I
Canadian Soldiers in WW I

One of the most powerful memes in Canada is that “Canada is a nation of immigrants”. Millions of individuals have indeed migrated to Canada since John Cabot first claimed either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island for England in 1497. But the intended meaning of this phrase goes well beyond this simple fact.

This phrase, continuously repeated by the media, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting students from primary to higher education, is intended to fashion an image of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds, in order to portray the Third World immigration patterns we have been witnessing since the 1970s as if they were a natural continuation — continuation naturelle — of past migration patterns, rather than as what they are: a radical departure aimed at the termination of Canada’s deep-seated European ethnic character.

What follows is a statistical refutation of this deceptive meme. The historical record, the facts we have about the people who came to Canada, the racial makeup of the immigrants, the proportion of Whites to non-Whites, the birth rate of Eurocanadians, the rates of immigration versus the domestic fertility rates, demonstrate, to the contrary, that Canada was a nation created from top to bottom by immigrants from Europe and by Eurocanadians born in Canada, with next to zero contributions by non-Europeans.

The Facts

Facts
Facts to lean on
  • In 1871, according to the first census after Confederation, of the total population of 3.2 million, 32 percent were of French ancestry, 24 percent Irish, 20 percent English, 16 percent Scottish, and 6 percent German. Notice, therefore, that we should acknowledge the immense importance of the Irish and Scots in the first centuries of “English Canada”. There were only 21,500 blacks and 23,000 natives in 1871; by contrast, there were 202,991 persons of German origin.
  • Canada cannot “accurately be portrayed at Confederation as a nation of immigrants”. In 1867, 79 percent had been born in Canada. Over the 400 years before Confederation, there were only “two quite limited periods” of substantial arrivals of immigrants: from 1783 to 1812, and from 1830 to 1850. In these two periods, the immigrants were “overwhelmingly of British origin”. Immigration was not a major factor in population growth from 1850 to the end of the nineteenth century. From 1871 to 1891, “a high rate of naturalincrease allowed the population of Canada to grow from 3.7 million to 4.8 million”.
Ukrainian Farming Family, Saskatchewan
    • From 1608 to 1760, immigration to New France consisted of only 10,000 settlers, and thereafter it was “almost non-existent”. The French-speaking population numbered about 90,000 by 1770s, and thereafter, until the late 1800s, the population expanded rapidly with women having 5.6 surviving children on average. The increase in population in Lower Canada from 330,000 in 1815 to 890,000 in 1851 “was mainly attributable to the continuing high birth rate within the French-speaking community”. By 1950, the Quebec population was almost 4 million. This increase was not a result of immigration, but primarily of the still continuing high fertility rates. It was only in the 1970s that Montreal saw an increasing inflow of non-European immigrants.
    • Between 1896 and 1914, Canada experienced high immigration levels with more than 3 million arriving within this period. However, the ethnic composition of the nation remained 84 percent of British and French origin, while the European component rose to 9 percent. Between 1900 and 1915, the high mark in “Asian immigration” before the 1960s, 50,000 immigrants of Japanese, East Indian and Chinese descent arrived, but this number comprised less than 2 percent of the total immigration flow. In contrast, in 1914, there were nearly 400,000 Germans in Canada, the largest ethnic group apart from the British (which includes the Irish and Scots) and French.
English Immigrants
English Immigrants
  • The total intake of immigrants between 1946 and 1962 was 2,151,505. At the same time however, between 1941 and 1962, the population of Canada increased from 11.5 million to 18.5 million, “largely accounted” by Canada’s “extremely high domestic birth rates”, the so-called baby boom generation. Ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain.
  • It was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia at large started to arrive in large numbers. During the 1970s, the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, whereas the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa.
  • In the period 1991-2001, immigrants of European origin fell below 20 percent at the same time that Asian immigration soared to nearly 60 percent. From 1991 to 2000, 2.2 million immigrants were accepted, the “highest ever for any decade”. In recent years, Canada’s visible minority population has been growing much faster than its total population: 22 percent growth from 1996 to 2001 versus 4 percent growth in the general population. Today, roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority.

Fight Against Multicultural Revisionism!

George Orwell 1984 on control of the past
George Orwell (1984) on the totalitarian method of manipulating history

Don’t let them deceive you! Copy these facts and use them against the deceivers occupying our educational establishments. Don’t believe the globalist claim that your nation was a creation of diverse races and that “White racists” were supposedly hiding away the equal contribution of non-European immigrants. This is a historical falsehood of major proportions. Canada was created by people of British and French descent, and other European ancestries. All the institutions, legal system, educational curriculum, transformation of wilderness into productive farms, all the cities, the parliamentary traditions, the churches, the entire infrastructure of railways, ports, shipping industries, and highways, were created by hardworking Eurocanadians.

Sources

It should be noted that the following authors try to portray Canada as a nation that was from its beginning created by diverse immigrants leading to the official enactment of multiculturalism by P.E. Trudeau in 1971. Nevertheless the facts they bring out, which are the ones contained in the documents, show that Canada was a nation homogeneously White from its very beginnings.

  • J. M. Bumstead, Canada’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook, 2003
  • J. M. Bumstead, The People’s of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History, 2003 and The People’s of Canada: A Post-Confederation History, 2004
  • Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, 1998
  • Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada, 2007
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I

Posted on by

www.ImmigrationWatchCanada.org

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I
by Ricardo Duchesne

Inline image 1


Kerry Starchuk

Afew days ago the Canadian Race Relations Foundation sent an invitation to Kerry Starchuk to “two very important events” being hosted by this organization in the Greater Vancouver Area. The first event, “The Urban Agenda Vancouver. Creating a Great City of Communities”, is taking place at UBC Robson Square on January 19, 2016. The second one, “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, is taking place in Richmond, on January 21.

These two events, and other similar ones, have been occasioned by a need to reinforce among Vancouver residents the blessings of diversity in response to the dissenting actions of Kerry Starchuk, a fourth-generation resident of Richmond, which is sometimes identified as a city itself, or as part of “greater” Vancouver, against the usage of Chinese-only signs in businesses.

Starchuk has drawn local, national, and even international media attention. She is not a designated speaker at any of these events, but is expected to sit and listen to officially approved diversity ideologues. I will be writing about these two “very important events” in Part II.

I have spoken to Kerry a few times, and she is extremely upset and psychologically depressed about the way Asian immigration has ransacked the Anglo identity of Richmond. Her questioning of Chinese-only business signs poses no threat, and yet it has frightened the establishment for fear that her objections may open the door to a groundswell of discontent against the impending marginalization of Anglo-Europeans in Vancouver.

She has been an keen eye witness to an extreme demographic shift in Richmond, from a congenial and harmonious British city to a crass immigrant land-lot plastered with ugly Chinese commercial signs in just a matter of three decades. The Chinese proportion of the population has grown from 34% in 1996, 40% in 2001 and 45% in 2006, to 47% in 2011, and still rising. Overall, more than 70 per cent of Richmond’s population is currently categorized as a “visible minority”. The 30 percent White residents are still categorized as the “majority” and in need of learning to cope with diversity. 

 
Inline image 1

Journalists have flown in from places such as South Korea, Germany and Japan to spend days with Kerry Starchuk, to talk about the dramatic demographic changes occurring in Richmond, B.C.

Community Engagement: Language on Commercial Signs

What she, along with other and Richmond residents, has been pursuing in the last few years is a simple bylaw requiring English-only signage. But a few months ago, May 2015, Richmond Mayor Malcolm said there would be no language by-law. Instead there would be “education programs” “to facilitate community harmony”. The “two very important events” are a continuation of this effort. A preceding first effort, “Community Engagement: Language on Signage”, took place on March 2015, organized directly by the City of Richmond, described in the official website as “a multi-pronged outreach and education campaign to explore the issue of language on signs in the context of community harmony”. 

This workshop is worth examining in some detail. Innocuous a gathering as it may appear, a mere local affair, it is actually a salient embodiment of the ruling ideology of our times across the West. 

The workshop “presentation” is totally committed to further diversification, with the signage issue turned into an opportunity to “enhance intercultural harmony and co-operation in Richmond”. In order to make Richmond “the most appealing, liveable and well-managed community in Canada”, the presentation states that Richmond citizens need “to better incorporate a value for and understanding of diversity into all its planning and services.” Never mind that every other town and city in Canada has exactly the same mandate, celebrating each city as “unique in its diversity,” while making everyone feel that this is what all Canadians are doing, what is normal everywhere else. Every inhabitant ofevery city in Canada is being told that diversification is a unique component of their city’s vitality; making it the “most appealing and liveable” city. Not just in Canada, but in every country in the Western world. 

Richmond residents will be educated to have “pride in and respect for diverse heritages and traditions”. Be assured that this is primarily directed at White residents; the whole workshop, after all, was occasioned by the Anglo residents in Richmond who objected to Chinese-only signs. Richmond is already 50 percent homogeneously Chinese, and over 70 percent Asian, and the objective is to encourage the remaining White minority to accept the further expansion of Asian residents in Richmond. This is why the mandate looks to the future and speaks in terms of making Richmond “the most welcoming, inclusive and harmonious community in Canada”. 

There is stuff about “inter-faith dialogue” and, of course, about natives, with a brilliant new idea to hold “the first National Aboriginal Day Celebration at City Hall”. Natives are now regularly exploited as mascots by diversity promoters. 

There are two videos; in the first one we see the participants, mostly Whites and Chinese, with a few other Asians. They are all adults. Everyone gives pre-packaged answers, everyone is an agreeable participant in the diversity project; they are all “accepting” people; it is all about making diversity “work.” No one in the audience actually debates the merits of immigration or diversity itself. Whites are expected to be “accepting” about this “intercultural” state of affairs. This is why the new lingo of these promoters is “dialogue”, not “debate”, as we will see in more detail in Part II. 

Debating, a singularly Western trait, the spirit of inquiry, questioning, not accepting the claims of powerful elites, is now deemed by academics and leftist bureaucrats as too disruptive and not conducive to “community harmony”. These are the same arguments elites made in Communist and Nazi controlled societies. 

The second video consists of pro-diversity answers about Richmond and the signage issue. Most of the respondents are non-White, and they all love diversity; some say it might be a good idea to add English in the Chinese-only signs, but the fact that Richmond originally an Anglo community and is undergoing a radical demographic transformation with no end in sight, is not even an issue. Everyone interviewed was a conformist or a minority enjoying multicultural welfare. Diversity is great, and it does not matter if it means less Whites, that is the objective. One Asian in the video is sympathetic to the presence of Chinese-only signs, for, after all, she noticed that this “community” is mostly Chinese; so why should non-Chinese immigrants expects the Chinese majority not to use only their language? 

This is the “ideas board”: 

 
Inline image 3

This is what politics among adults in Canada has been reduced to; child like images and child like slogans interpreted as “ideas” — all amounting to the acceptance of mass immigration and the displacement of Whites from their homelands.

Artistic Rendition of Canadian/Western Values

There is an “artistic rendition of workshop discussion,” which is even more revealing in capturing all the central tenets, feelings, and cliches of the diversity regimen. This work of “art” is the front image for this article, which can be foundhere. According to this artist, “community harmony” was agreed upon by the participants, and by this they meant “multiple sounds”, “empathy”, “inclusive”, “capacity for difference”, “understanding before judgment”, “addressing racism”, “multiculturalism”. These values are inherently inclusive and everyone agrees that they are good; capacity for difference does mean a capacity to think whether diversity may be entailing the radical dissolution of Eurocanadian communities, whether Richmond was already harmonious and democratic before the Asian invasion. 

No, it means a capacity to accept the dissolution of Canadian communities, to accept on your knees millions of immigrants, their different customs, languages, even if this brings an Asian ethnic majority in many cities in Canada. One of the values stressed in this workshop is “good conversation” and “shared vision”; sharing, that is, the diversity vision, and talking about issues in a way that is not disruptive, through amicable dialogue, amicable acceptance of the goals. 

There is “rendition” of questions about assimilation: should new immigrants assimilate the same way Eurocanadians did, learning the English language? I am sure there were participants in this harmonious workshop with queries, comments about what exactly multiculturalism entails; does it mean retaining one’s culture, or do new immigrants assimilate to “Canadian values”? But in reality this question is deservedly on the margins of the artistic rendition, since “Canadians values” have already been predefined by the harmonizers as “multiculturalism”, “respect” for “difference”, for the Chinese language. 

“How do we learn from other ethnic leaders?” It is a done deal: Diversity = Canada, and it means accepting it, and those who want to debate the principles will not be tolerated, accepted, included in the workshop, but instead will be labelled as beyond the pale of acceptable dialogue, ostracized in the most damaging ways, with labels intended to avoid any discussion with them. 

This artistic rendition sums up the entire philosophical outlook dominating the West today. It is the same view Justin Trudeau continually voices when he says that Canada is not really a nation but a place in which humans from multiple cultures around the world hold the same common values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness. It is the view every leader of the West, be they socialist, liberal, or conservative, expresses whenever they make a general statement about their most deeply held beliefs as leaders of their countries.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

Multiculturalism and Marxist Bias in Academia – SWC Interviews Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Posted on by

 

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,
← Newer Entries