Are Tamil's "Real Canadians"

[oldjones]

Are you saying that one of the "free speech areas" were anti war demonstrations were allowed would include a major highway? (with not advanced warning, I will add)

And there we have Redneck Distilled to its essence: "My right to my road excuses my racism".

someone, I realize you just happened to be the latest to express 'road rage' and haven't necessarily been tarring all Tamils with that brush, but many, many have.

And it's rather a trivial brush at that. No one was injured, not even any reported fender benders, just some people delayed who shouldn't have been. But suddenly "Tamils aren't Canadians!" because some folks, mostly Tamil snarled traffic.

If we're yanking citizenships, that view and that sort of thinking gets anyone right up to the front of the line in my book.

 

[snowleopard]

As do many countries, including yours. That stuff about "not swearing allegiance to foreign princes" was repealed some time ago.

Can OTB be a real Canadian?

If he tries.

On that note, an interesting bit of info for all the 'real' Canadians out there: When newcomers become Canadian citizens, formally we ask them to make the following pledge of citizenship: "From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada ..."

I ask you, what self-respecting Canadian would agree to repeat that load of antiquated nonsense? Based on that laughable pledge, it would be virtually impossible for any Canadian to be 100% loyal to Canada, without accepting the Queen as our symbolic ruler. Barrrrffff!

It goes on to say: "I promise to respect our county's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen."

Based on that criteria, I would suggest that there are many more that just some immigrants failing to meet the test ... including one former Prime Minister currently in the news.

 

[oldjones]

Well let's see, besides new citizens, just about every public servant and elected politician takes an oath with a similar phrase. They "agree to repeat that load of antiquated nonsense", because that nonsense of yours reflects the down-to-earth fact that the Queen is the Head of State in Canada. So of course they pledge loyalty and allegiance. Could not do otherwise, unless they just deny reality of our government. Imagine an FBI agent refusing to recognize the President. Or a state official the Governor. And your "antiquated" is just someone else's "historic".

Betcha those new-Canadians coulda told you that. Used to be worse: "…be loyal and bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, etc., etc." was the one I took.

Oh and you don't have to go too far back here to find the thread about Obama insulting some group because he couldn't attend their ceremony as Head of State due to government business. We have specialists, and split up the work. Very modern. Heads of State actually governing? How Medieval! Next they'll be locking prisoners up in secret dungeons without trial and torturing them.

 

[snowleopard]

Well let's see, besides new citizens, just about every public servant and elected politician takes an oath with a similar phrase. They "agree to repeat that load of antiquated nonsense", because that nonsense of yours reflects the down-to-earth fact that the Queen is the Head of State in Canada. So of course they pledge loyalty and allegiance. Could not do otherwise, unless they just deny reality of our government.

Not denying that anachronistic reality, rather just pointing out that most so-called real Canadians would balk at it, or, at the very least, hold their nose while saying it. Of course, if obtaining one's citizenship, or a privileged position, or even a sought-after job, depends on repeating the oath, then I suppose one must swallow the bad taste and do the deed.

Just another example of just how slippery the definitive definition of 'Canadian' truly is.

 

[someone]

I ask you, what self-respecting Canadian would agree to repeat that load of antiquated nonsense?

Only several thousands who are willing to accept the unlimited liability of being in the Canadian forces. I don’t remember anyone from my days in the Canadian forces that was not proud of their oath.

 

[snowleopard]

Only several thousands who are willing to accept the unlimited liability of being in the Canadian forces. I don’t remember anyone from my days in the Canadian forces that was not proud of their oath.

Yes Sir! And God save our gracious Queen!

 

[onthebottom]

Yes Sir! And God save our gracious Queen!

Perhaps a better question is, can you be a real Canadian and swear allegiance to a foreign monarch...... but that would be another thread entirely.

OTB

 

[someone]

Perhaps a better question is, can you be a real Canadian and swear allegiance to a foreign monarch...... but that would be another thread entirely.

OTB

Technically, being the Queen of Canada is a separate position from being the Queen of Australia, NZ or GB and Northern Ireland, etc. Each country can determine its own rules of succession but in practice they have always agreed just go along with the British rules. Thus, her role in Canada is as a domestic monarch. However, you are right about that being a separate thread.

 

[sibannac]

Perhaps a better question is, can you be a real Canadian and swear allegiance to a foreign monarch...... but that would be another thread entirely.

OTB

We didn't have a revolution to get rid of the British Monarchy. We are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations which is remnant of the British empire and we are part of long tradition that dates back to the 1689 Oath to the Monarch Act in Britain. The 1689 Act also requires an Oath from the Monarch to the State and it's Dominions which means that Queen Elizabeth 11 is not only Monarch of Great Britain but also Monarch of Canada, separate jobs, well actually symbols.

Under our constitution and settled law an Oath to the Monarch is the same as an Oath to the State since the Monarchy under British/Canadian law is a symbol of the State. So your not swearing an Oath to an individual you are swearing an oath to the State. Because of the US origins you have an Oath to the Constitution a piece a paper or an idea.

Big F'n deal on the so called differences in that both are Oaths to the State.

It would be best if you did a little research before you open your mouth and show your ignorance of Canadian traditions.

You have your traditions we have ours, try to show a little respect.

 

[Muddy]

Of COURSE, Tamils are Canadians - the ones that have chosen to become Candian citizens. The others may or may not make that choice in the future; they are Canadian residents and they are adding to our community..

I understand their position; they have made their point with dignity, and if a handful of us have been slightly inconvenienced, let's get over that!

I've lived here since the 50s, and you have NO idea what a dull, boring, white-bread, up-tight place this was! So thanks to the Hungarians and Chinese and Koreans and Jamaicans and Italians and folk from all the other countries (including Sri Lanka) for making this a WONDERFUL city to live in.

We WASPs added little, alas, but to all the "foreigners" I raise my glass, and thank them for their presence!

 

[glaeken]

I guess the question is: where do you draw the line between celebrating one's heritage, or cheering for the 'Old Country,' on the one hand, and demonstrating for the cause of supporting one's ancestral homeland, on the other? Where exactly does one's 'loyalty' begin and end? I'm not sure it's such an easy distinction to make. IMHO, it's never so 'black and white' as we would like to believe.

I would also agree it's not so black and white. I wasn't expecting to be able to cover all the shades of grey in my list. I was aiming more at the broad strokes.

 

[glaeken]

So according to you: When was Canada founded?

When I went to school we learned it evolved from the previous colonies which decided to confederate, and their governments just kept on. All that was 'founded' was one more government for the newly-invented British sovereignty called a 'dominion'. Except for the pols, it wasn't a big deal. Up until that time the word 'Canada' alone was only used by the French, as the geographic location of New France.

Once the Brits took New France they started tinkering, splitting and adding 'Upper' and 'Lower', then switching to 'Canada West' and 'East' so that in at least one of the Canadas they—as the new immigrants—would be in the majority.

If we're going to be so tough and picky about immigrants we'd better be correct ourselves.

PS: Not that it should matter a pinch of anything to anyone but us: my first family arrivals reached these parts before Confederation.

My family arrived about 70 years or two generations before the British North America Act took effect.

Is that early enough?

 

[snowleopard]

You have your traditions we have ours, try to show a little respect.

Whoa .. touchy Subject ... so to speak

Of course, it's all now mostly symbolic tradition ... in our increasingly pluralistic society, the British Commonwealth today is about as relevant as the Roman Empire.

Don't get me wrong ... I see nothing wrong with taking pride in our Canadian identity, history and traditions. I just think that that pride can take many different, and sometimes divergent, forms, other than the rather narrow, simplistic view espoused in our national anthem -- which after all was written over 100 years ago, and conveniently snubs anyone not born here, all our daughters, and anyone who doesn't believe in God. Perhaps more relevant today is that this somewhat surprising, if sometimes tenuous, success story that we call 'Canada,' this unique pluralistic, multi-cultural society wherein so many vastly different peoples live together in relative peace, freedom and harmony, is the one quality we should be most proud of.

 

[good to go]

Why is it when people immigrate to this country, they still refer to themselves as being from their home land of birth. Instead of saying " I am Canadian".

 

[oldjones]

My family arrived about 70 years or two generations before the British North America Act took effect.

Is that early enough?

Wasn't what I asked. Nice your folks were part of so much of the building of the country, but I was curious what you called the 'founding' of Canada, since—unlike our rowdier neighbours to the south—we've practised continuous evolution, rather than 'finding' a single intelligent design all at once.

How's that for conflating disparate threads?

Are we to understand that your Canada came into being July 1, 1867 then?

 

[oldjones]

Why is it when people immigrate to this country, they still refer to themselves as being from their home land of birth. Instead of saying " I am Canadian".

Why not? That is where they're from. Ask them, "Are you Canadian?" instead and I'd bet not a one says, "Nope, I'm actually English" or some such.

Of course not everyone actually becomes a citizen where they live. The Great One, Dan Ackroyd …

 

[oldjones]

Whoa .. touchy Subject ... so to speak

Of course, it's all now mostly symbolic tradition ... in our increasingly pluralistic society, the British Commonwealth today is about as relevant as the Roman Empire.

…edit stuff even further off topic about O Canada…

The Roman Empire as the linguistic progenitor of many of the languages of Europe—and therefore of the New World, and most of the words describing power relationships, and the law, never mind the very concepts of the law (see Corpus Juris Civilis Justinianis), is certainly relevant today, at least in the European-descended part of the world.

And one of the messes those brutish Crusaders visited on the Muslim end of civilization was their attempt to re-establish the Roman Empire of the East at Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. They represented both the Bishop of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. Much still-resented rapine and pillage, among Eastern Christians and Muslims. Kinda relevant today from Bali to Belarus.

When you're cavalierly tossing aside stuff that has proven socially useful in a continuous development for over two thousand years, because you say it's irrelevant, just what faddish modernism do you propose to replace it with? An American-style Presidency?

At just over two hundred years they've proven nothing to the world yet. They've only just begun discovering they have a nobility—Roosevelts, Bushes and Kennedys are only a start—and it may be years before the American people has to deal with a President who takes power like Richard III. Or has to be turfed out like Charles I. Or Caligula. Let alone one as effective as Augustus, or Victoria. When it's weathered storms like those, then maybe the Presidency will have some relevance equivalent to the Crown.

BTW until Microsoft conquered the world, most people English speakers on the planet ended their ABCs with a British-inheirited zed. Can't get more relevant than ABCs.

Irrelevant is all too often used to disparage the things themselves when attempting to account for one's disinterested lack of understanding of them. I'm sure that can't apply to you, after all you are quite consciously posting in English not Abenaki, because all those pink bits on old maps were very relevant once.

Still are.

Vaguely returning to topic: Before Ceylon—as it then was known—replaced the Queen, who was neither Sinhalese or Tamil, with a President who could only be one or another and being elected by the majority, mostly Sinhalese… .

I won't go there, but I'm sure you can see the useful possibilities in a Head of State who is above rather than emeshed in partisanship. Just one relevant attribute an American-style President will never have.

 

[snowleopard]

The Roman Empire as the linguistic progenitor of many of the languages of Europe—and therefore of the New World, and most of the words describing power relationships, and the law, never mind the very concepts of the law (see Corpus Juris Civilis Justinianis), is certainly relevant today, at least in the European-descended part of the world.

Thanks for making my point OJ. That one sentence only excludes about a mere 5 billion people ... but who's counting

What I actually meant was that it is irrelevant only in the context of our pluralistic, multi-cultural society, which the last time I looked was made up of more than just European descendants. For what it's worth, maybe the Canadian model is the 'faddsih moderism" that will replace the old world Euro-centric model.

 

[oldjones]

Nice volley.

And as we demand the representatives of that 5 bil learn what made us and the society they're joining, we owe ourselves the equivalent effort to figure out what moves them.

How else will we understand that cricket in the schools our kids go to is not an insect infestation?

Now how did the Empire sneak in again?

 

[sibannac]

Whoa .. touchy Subject ... so to speak

Of course, it's all now mostly symbolic tradition ... in our increasingly pluralistic society, the British Commonwealth today is about as relevant as the Roman Empire.

Don't get me wrong ... I see nothing wrong with taking pride in our Canadian identity, history and traditions. I just think that that pride can take many different, and sometimes divergent, forms, other than the rather narrow, simplistic view espoused in our national anthem -- which after all was written over 100 years ago, and conveniently snubs anyone not born here, all our daughters, and anyone who doesn't believe in God. Perhaps more relevant today is that this somewhat surprising, if sometimes tenuous, success story that we call 'Canada,' this unique pluralistic, multi-cultural society wherein so many vastly different peoples live together in relative peace, freedom and harmony, is the one quality we should be most proud of.

Yeah that subject is touchy with me when Yanks throw that out in a superior way and suggesting our Democracy is not as legitimate as theirs. What really gals me is how many Americans feel that theirs is the only legitimate Democracy when in fact their model when tried to be duplicated fails miserably and in fact it almost failed once for them. That's why Parliamentary Democracy's seem to work best for new Democracies.

I especially like your comment about multi-cultural society. Not many Countries in the world live with the kind of diversity we have in relative peace freedom and harmony while maintaining for the most part good Government. It is something, no matter what the background is, for Canadians to be proud of.