Draginol Draginol

Racial diversity is all in the eye of the beholder

▼

Racial diversity is all in the eye of the beholder

Everyone thinks THEY are multi-cultural

from JoeUser Forums

In a comment to an article about racism, someone from Australia made the absurd claim that Australia is the most multi-cultural country in the world.  Not to be outdone, someone from Canada claimed the mantle for Canada.  What's next? Someone from Japan making that claim?

Here are some statistics on the racial make up of a few selected countries:

Australia: Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%

Canada: Canada has diversity if you count various types of white people as diversity. http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/feb17/eo1can.htm

United States: It's about 62% white, 14% Hispanic (white can be counted as white if you want), 13% African American, 4% Asian. 

Getting into a debate about what is the most multi-cultural country in the world is futile because the definition can be played with until it becomes meaningless.

I tend to view the US as pretty multicultural because it has multiple racial groups (defined as people who physically look significantly different) that represent significant percentages of the population.  African Americans, Latinos, Whites (various European ancestory), and Asians all make up significant percentages of the population as well as having high enough populations to reach a critical mass.

4% of Americans being Asian represents arouns 12 million people (to put it in perspective, the entire population of Australia is 19 million).  13% of Americans being black means nearly 40 million people (Canada's population is around 30 million total).

When you have those kinds of raw numbers representing a pretty significant percentage of the population, it means each group has to deal with the other in a very real and practical way.

Australia, for instance, being 92% white, claiming to be multicultural is akin to some all white high school claiming to be multicultural because there are 3 Asians and an African in one of their classes.

Europeans who smugly talk about American racism have no idea what they're talking about.  Besides the fact that Europeans only recently tried to wipe out one of their own racial minorities in death camps for apparently not being white enough (I tend to think one of the reasons why there's relatively little anti-semitism in the US is that we jsut don't understand it. When you have neighbors and coworkers whos ancestory is from India and Japan and China or African, it's hard to really notice the differences between some guy whose ancestors are from Poland who happened to choose a slightly different religion).

But given how much under observation Americans are, when you have 300 million with minority groups that would be the majority population in most other countries you are bound to have incidents where one group doesn't like another.

Koreans and African Americans in LA notoriously don't get along.  I have no idea why. But it's widely reported. African Americans and Jewish people don't get along in New York for some reason. No idea why. And African Americans and some White southerners don't get along. I do have an idea what caused that at least!

But when you mix around so many different cultures and races so much, you're always going to (statistically) have cases where there is conflict.

In Europe (or apparently Australia) cultural diversity means being a slightly different type of European. But in the US, the threshold is much higher. If you're from Europe you're white. Italian, Pole, English, French, whatever, doesn't matter.  And if those Europeans who complain about that when they arrive are bound to be eventually rebuked by the Korean or Mandorian Chinese or other type of Asian who says "Hey, welcome to the club, our cultures have been lumped together for centuries by you Europeans!" ;)

 

misc
28,909 views 63 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Me: Please, please tell me how you guys ended up being more diverse than us.
Dave: The world's highest immigration rate, for starters. "


From 1921 to 2000, 31 million people moved to the US. That is about equal to the total population of Canada now, and that is only 80 years out of the 181 we have detailed records for. If your (patently false) idea that immigration rate was an indicator of diversity, then the US would still be exponentially more diverse than Canada.

The only way you can use current immigration as a indicator of overall diversity is if you assume that current citizens have no ethnicity. You've already stated that you aren't saying that. You've also see that Canada has had far less immigration historically, thus we have 10 times your population. You would also agree that the original "Canadians" were no more ethnically diverse than the founding "Americans".

So, where does that leave us? You are saying because you have 10% more people not born in your nation in a given year, your nation is more diverse than the US. Is that what you would call proof? Unless you can prove that the millions and millions of people who migrated to the US over the last 200 years were vastly less diverse than those that migrated to Canada, I don't see how you could make your point. Unless, of course, you are saying that US citizenship strips people of their diversity.

So, again.

  1. Americans have ethnicity, whether they were born here or not.

  2. America has had much, much more immigration historically than Canada.

  3. America's immigration is no less diverse than Canada's.

  4. America's population is almost ten times that of Canada.



I'm still waiting for proof that Canada is somehow more "multi-cultural" than the US...

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Way too many errors and irrelevant stuff in your latest attempt (immigration as indicator of diversity is 'patently false', Canada was founded by the Pilgrims and not the French, etc.) to even bother correcting.

I'm still waiting for proof that Canada is somehow more "multi-cultural" than the US...
I've given plenty. You have shown you don't even know the meaning of the word multiculturalism, so I will waste no more time trying to explain it to you.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is pretty straighforward. The more diverse cultures represented in a population, the more cultural diversity. It's kind of common sense.

In the last 80 years, America has had as many immigrants as Canada's total population now. It seems odd to say, then, that a nation with a fraction of our historical immigration would have somehow chanced to round up enough immigrants from enough cultures to surpass us in cultural diversity in the last couple of years...

If anyone else would like to point out my errors then, feel free. Mr. St. Hubbins seems to have retreated...

( Not that I'd give a rat's ass either way. The issue to me is some guy blathering on about the superiority of Canada on article after article... )


P.S. with regards to

"Canada was founded by the Pilgrims and not the French, etc."


I never said Canada was founded by the Pilgrims. What I said was

"You would also agree that the original "Canadians" were no more ethnically diverse than the founding "Americans".

I don't think the founders of Canada were any more culturally diverse than the fouders of America. I'm thinking I'm not the one losing track of the meaning of the word "diverse". I didn't say we had the same founders, I said that Canada's was no more multi-cultural than ours.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
The term "multiculturalism" originates from Canada during the 1960s because of the rising aboriginal and Chinese cultures that were developing. At that time (and most notably in 1971 under Trudeau) the government tried to implement diverse programs aimed to preserved the culture of the immigrants instead of assimilating them. Australia fallowed to example later. And that is why those nations (often along with Great Britain) are considered multicultural.

Traditionally, the United States have been seen as a "melting pot" of all cultures that encourages the integration of the culture of the immigrants within. However, it is true that in the recent years, the United States have tried to introduce a policy of "multiculturalism". But, countries like the United States and France are still usually seen as too nationalistic too be considered "multiculturalist". The term is related to the government policies, not the percentage of immigrants.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
The term "multiculturalism" originates from Canada during the 1960s
And one might plausibly argue and even earlier date, namely the Quebec Act of 1774, guaranteeing religious and language rights to the newly conquered inhabitants of New France. This was a first in the British Empire. The "Two Nations" doctrine has been around since at least 1867, so Canada's claim to multiculturalism would seem to be based in history.

The term is related to the government policies, not the percentage of immigrants.
I've already provided a dictionary definition explaining this to the Brown Face Counters, but I don't think they get it yet. When BakerStreet points me to a link for the American Department of Multculturalism, The Secretary of Multiculturalism, or The Multiculturalism Act passed by congress, then I will buy the assertion that America is as multicultural as Canada.

This whole thread started because someone didn't know the definition of the word 'multiculturalism'.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sounds a bit like "My dad can beat up your dad"....


My dad kicks total a$$!!!
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean, you don't think we have the same sub-catagories of caucasian here? You don't think we have all the same flavors of "white" that Australia and Canada has?


Another point to be made is, if that's your definition of diversity, a large nation such as Canada or Australia is automatically diverse, as values, opinions, politics, and food choices often differ from one region to the next.

Examples: compare the culture of the American south to the west coast. They are vastly different (Likewise, compare regions in Mexico such as Chihuahua and Oaxaca and you will find similar differences).
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just letting you know oh Exhaulted one (Brad)

I caught the train home from work yesterday evening and I was the only white person!!! there were roughly 35 people on my carraige... and I was the only western anglo saxon.

I dont know if that will change your opinion on Australia's cultural diversity, but it is FACT!

BAM!!!
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did Brad ever doubt that Australia was diverse? I think he just differed with the idea that it was the MOST diverse... ...
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad said I had never seen a black person...

BAM!!!
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
... musta missed that. nm...
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, I never said he had never seen a black person.  Find the quote, Muggaz. I believe I asked if you had ever seen a black person.  I am quite careful to qualify my statements if I don't know the answer.

I don't think Australia is relatively diverse. 

Muggaz: Your anedotal evidence is interesting but not relevant.  You should complain to your government that your census data claims to be 92% Caucasian and 7% Asian leaving the other 1% for EVERYTHING else.  And in a land of only 19 million people, 1% isn't very many people (190,000).

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz: Your anedotal evidence is interesting but not relevant. You should complain to your government that your census data claims to be 92% Caucasian and 7% Asian leaving the other 1% for EVERYTHING else. And in a land of only 19 million people, 1% isn't very many people (190,000).


- according to the census, Australia has 50,000 Jedi knights... but our government wouldn't allow it to stand...

Fat lot of good getting that data changed will do!!! I can tell you though, that data does not paint a very accurate picture of Australia at all... I dont know why... but there sure are more than 190,000 others in Australia...

BAM!!!