Dion’s current troubles re Jamie Carroll appear to highlight the intrinsic conflict between the Two Founding Peoples conception of Canada and the view that Canada is a multicultural sponge meant to soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here, a view recently expressed by commenters on this site. Trouble is, the French founding people aren’t going to be equated with mere recent immigrant communities without putting up a fight:
After it was suggested to Jamie Carroll that Stephane Dion needs a few more Quebecers in his entourage to better understand Quebec, Carroll said that in that case, they better get some Chinese people in Dion’s entourage as well.
Carroll implied that French Canadians are just another minority in Canada. In Quebec, saying anything of the sort is tantamount to political suicide.
Dalton wrote:
“Between the Two Founding Peoples conception of Canada and the view that Canada is a multicultural sponge meant to soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here, a view recently expressed by commenters on this site.”
Greg recently closed down a thread because of exchange between writers had become pointlessly acrimonious.
May I suggest that when a post starts with an absurdly hyperbolic assertion like this, it really has nowhere to go at all?
Posted on 28-Sep-07 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Where is the absurdly hyperbolic assertion?
Posted on 28-Sep-07 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
In your first sentence.
Posted on 28-Sep-07 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Could you possibly clarify? I know that being haughtily dismissive is fun, but it’s not very informative.
Posted on 29-Sep-07 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Aaron…I’m sure you’re a nice and smart person, but your havit of starting threads with no intent other than primitive provocation is a bore.
There are a whole bunch of questions waiting for your input in Marsilio’s thread. If you want to engage in real discussion, join in over there.
Posted on 29-Sep-07 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“Aaron…I’m sure you’re a nice and smart person, but your havit of starting threads with no intent other than primitive provocation is a bore.”
I would hate to be accused of boring you. Apparently you don’t feel the same about me, given these comments.
I’ll start you off. A two founding nations conception of Canada, based on bilingualism and bi-culturalism, is perfectly consistent with a conception of Canada that mixes hundreds of other immigrant languages and cultures into our little “stew.” Take it away, Dalt!
Posted on 29-Sep-07 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Sorry. Too much “irony” for unsophisticated li’l me.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 6:12 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Yeah, thought so. Bye bye.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 10:54 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Bye bye. See you in a real thread.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 11:23 am | Permalink
Greg Farries wrote:
Dalton, I’ve read Aaron’s original post, and I fail to see the “absurdly hyperbolic assertion.”
Perhaps you should take your own advice:
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Greg, you’re one of the folks here who seems interested in real discussion, and I commend your loyalty to your blogmates. But it can’t have escaped your attention that Aaron has a bad case of Talk Radio Syndrome, and adds very little to this site beyond cheap provocation. That’s okay, if that’s what you want. It just doesn’t interest me.
Here’s what STE said: “immigrants and expected to do their part to fit in (i.e. learn one of the two official languages, upgrade their skills to find jobs, participate in the political process once they become citizens), but at the same time, Canadians are also expected to adapt to the arrival of new people…As Canadian faces change, so will this country’s political ideas, and ultimately what it means to be Canadian.”
Here’s how Aaron summarized that fairly innocuous observation: “…the view that Canada is a multicultural sponge meant to soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here.”
You don’t see that as a ridiculous exaggeration of STE’s point? Oh, okay. As I said, I commend your loyalty to your blogmates.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
Marsilio Facino wrote:
Aaron’s point seems quite clear to me, and his use of the phrase “multicultural sponge” is a concrete image that fixes the point in one’s mind. STE makes a utilitarian argument as if citizenship is a mere economic exchange without ever contemplating that someone choosing to live here and become a citizen is voluntarily incurring certain obligations that come along with those rights.
Quebec has a different legal and political inheritance (French civil and criminal law) than does English Canada (the English common law tradition). Despite the HLA Hart inspired modifications in Canada that began under Pierre Trudeau, its certainly telling that Quebec has never gone along willingly, whatever you may think of the rest of their separatist leanings.
Your free to challenge that of course, but nitpicking over his choice of metaphor seems to defeat the purpose of your complaint. How many responses are there now to this thread?
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
Marsilio Facino wrote:
Oops. That should read “you’re” not “your”.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“Your free to challenge that of course, but nitpicking over his choice of metaphor seems to defeat the purpose of your complaint. How many responses are there now to this thread?”
(Humour) Ah. Marsilio, that was a very interesting exchange yesterday, but it pains me to see you too falling victim to Talk Radio Syndrome, no doubt contracted from Aaron. (It’s famously contagious). One of the symptoms is indifference to the substance of a discussion, and the sad belief that value is a function of the number of responses in a thread. (Humour ends.)
“Multicultural sponge” is a fine image. But STE did not suggest that should “soak up EVERY aspect of EVERY immigrant that arrives here.” (My emphases). And therein lies the silly hyperbole.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Well that was certainly a productive trip ’round the mulberry bush.
For someone who cares so passionately about “real discussion,” Dalton, you seem to be more interested here in nit-picking over my interpretation of BTE’s comment than in the broader issues raised. Of course, BTE’s comment had nothing to do with the post, other than providing a rough approximation of the multicultural view described in the post. If I had wanted to insult or misrepresented his views, there are better ways to do so.
So, in the interest of being constructive (your silly insults notwithstanding), if I were to delete the reference to the BTE comment, would that satisfy your deep yearning for “real discussion” free of “hyperbolic assertion”?
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Aaron, I learned a few years ago that when a stranger sits down across from you in the legion, glares at you balefully, and says…”So waddya think about them fuckin’ Frenchmen, eh?” - well, you’re not going to be having a productive discussion about Canada’s two solitudes, the impact of the early fur trade on Canada’s political reality, or the efficacy of language retention legislation. In fact, at that point, you generally excuse yourself, go for a piss, and find another table.
I’m VERY interested in Canada’s cultural evolution and its attendant growning pains. But you know, when I read a phrase like “soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here”, then I’m right back in the legion. I KNOW whoever frames the issue that way isn’t really interested in talking about it.
So excuse, me, I think I have to piss, and I see some friends over there at that other table.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
So the problem wasn’t my account of BTE’s comment. It was how I framed the issue. I see, I see. Your list of requirements for “real discussion” grow lengthier with each new comment.
“Aaron, I learned a few years ago that when a stranger sits down across from you in the legion, glares at you balefully, and says…”So waddya think about them fuckin’ Frenchmen, eh?”"
Fuckin’ Frenchmen? Speaking of hyperbolic assertions. That’s a little funny, since I’m generally a defender of the French Fact in Canada. I guess that you wouldn’t know that, having arrived here all of two whole days ago. Of course, that hasn’t stopped you from waxing eloquent on how we should be running this site, now has it?
Unfortunately, we’ve had more than enough ill-informed yet nevertheless pompous commenters here in the past. There really isn’t a need for one more.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
(Note to self.., NEVER use metaphor on folks like Aaron. They just don’t get it.)
I hope everyone else actually got the point of the anecdote? That it wasn’t about Aaron and the French? Good. I thought most of you would.
As for how you run the site…good heavens, run it any way you please. I’m just a commenter, it’s your blog. It would be a more interesting place if you weren’t so addicted to shallow, drive-by provocation, but each blogger establishes his own tone, and that’s your chosen voice. If you ever want to see how real dialogue can be fostered, pay a bit of attention to Greg and Marsilio. But until then, please yourself.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
And what a metaphor!, involving an anti-French bigot in a post discussing the preservation of the French fact in Canada. What a wordsmith our little anony-tut tutter is.
“But until then, please yourself.”
I will, thanks. I guess that this means I won’t be seeing you comment on any of my future posts? Rest assured, I’ll cry myself to sleep tonight.
Posted on 30-Sep-07 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“I guess that this means I won’t be seeing you comment on any of my future posts?”
Not the ones whose only point is to pick a fight, no. Which means most of them, I suppose.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 4:33 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Okay. Thanks again for all these productive comments.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
No problem, and I’m glad you appreciate the suggestions. You’ve got a lot of promise, and with a bit of effort you’ll be posting stuff worth reading in no time.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate it. I always appreciate the authoritative comments of anonymous nobodies without blogs of their own.
You appear to be the only person who thinks that this post constitutes provocation, or hyperbolic assertion or whatever. Despite this, you’ve gone on and on and ruined the post with your personal, insulting, off-topic comments. Unfortunately, our site seems to be plagued with adolescent graffiti artists like yourself. So what do you think I should do about your disruptive behavior in future posts?
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“You appear to be the only person who thinks that this post constitutes provocation, or hyperbolic assertion or whatever.”
Yes, there really isn’t much discussion on a lot of your threads, is there? I’ve noticed that. Well, try taking my advice, and setting out an argument in terms that don’t sound like a drunk trying to pick a fight. That might work.
“So what do you think I should do about your disruptive behavior in future posts?”
Gosh, just follow my advice. Act like your interested in a discussion instead of a brawl. That way you’ll get more folks discussing, and fewer folks pointing out…well, you get my drift, I’m sure.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Hey dude, where’s the link to your blog?
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
I’m sure there’s some cryptic meaning lurking in that query, but it escapes me.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
I’m sure it does. Please tell me more about how to blog properly, Mr. Anonymous Nobody with no Blog.
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Well, I’ve given you some useful tips above. Was there anything specific you wanted more help on?
Posted on 01-Oct-07 at 1:35 pm | Permalink