Many of the worlds cultures have taken thousands of yearsto develop. For example, the culture of the Eskimo took something like eight thousand years to develop (evolve), that of the "Bushman" probably in the region of five thousand years. Anyone of the other world's cultures trying to "become an Eskimo" as it were, is in for a torrid time. If we look at the development of "Western Culture" which took about ten thousand years to develop and reach an equilibrium which includes something we call democracy, a type of lifestyle that is, for other cultures, very difficult to "adopt". Examples are the countries in Africa and other places outside Europe where it has been attempted. First we need to understand what culture is all about. Culture is our interface to the environment in which we live. It helps humans to adapt the changes to that environment, provided that the change is not too fast. However, it allows faster adaptation than the more slowly adapting process of the normal evolutionary process. Take for example the change from a lion to a tiger; a process which took something like 5 million years. On the surface, it lokks as though there is very little that has changed over that period of time. However, try releasing a tiger onto the savannah, and I'm sure you'd be disappointed in the success of such a venture.
Compare this with the transition from Rhodesia inot something like Zimbabwe that we see today. People are expected to bridge the gap from essentially a hunter gatherer society into a western democracy in a matter of a few years. This is a preposterous venture and western society must take full responsibility for such a disaster. Moreover, what have they done for the unfortunate white people caught up in this fiasco. What about South Africa in 10 - 15 years time. Who takes responsibility for this, or is this done for Western entertainment?? Why does everyone ignore the literature about human development, because it's all there. Democracy is a very, very complex issue not to be undertaken lightly
To Anon: The Inuit (not Eskimo) were an isolated culture, ´Western Culture´ was not. Through ancient trade and not so ancient imperialism & colonialism, ´Western Culture´ has been regularily and constantly cross fertilized by cultures from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. More importantly many cultures from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia have been changed and their development drastically altered through Colonlism and contact with Europe. Rhodesia and South Africa are examples of this. And what of the ´unfortunate white people´ who for generations had conquered, colonized, and suppressed local populations for the benefit of themselves and European empires. Now they must come to terms with the internal contradictions of ´Western Culture´which espouses ´liberty, democracy, and liberalism´ while suppressing and enslaving indigenous populations. Often times Empire building/Nation building were just excuses used to justify outright colonialism and neo-colonialism.
My criticism of the article: Modern immigration isn´t built around a common goal of ´nation building´ (this idea is contestable in Canada, even historically, as there was ethnic conflicts between the ´native born´ First Nations and ´immigrant´ settlers), which joins all the immigrants and locales with a common purpose and shares in the future of the nation. Rather modern immigration is for cheap low skilled labour being imported to be exploited and fuel the Canadian economy, clearly a new form of neo-colonialism. First generation immigrants are naturally happy to leave the post-colonialist realities of their home countries and easily adopt to the neo-colonialist reality (being already accustomed to a colonial reality, they are happy to be presented with an improved situation under such a system) and thus are satisfied. Second generation immigrants come into full conflict with this neo-colonialist project as they try to break out of the cycle of poverty and aren´t accustomed to colonialist realities which inherently try to exploit their labor. Neo-Colonialism is the problem here not Multiculturalism. For example what is the point of a system of meritocracy when doctors come to Canada to drive taxis? There were allusions to the race riots of the U.S. but no connection made with the reason for these race riots: because of the systemic culture of political & economic oppression enforced on African Americans, the earliest diaspora of ´visible minority immigrants´ created through slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism.
As a Canadian born citizen, I find I struggle with a sense of self. I know both of my parents were born in Ontario, my dad was adopted and my mother's parents were from the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, my mother didn't get along with her mother and her father passed away when I was only months old. Because of the family tensions, I have no idea where exactly they were from, and searching archives has been unsuccessful. As none of them seem to exist on paper, and, furthermore, nobody in my family has any answers or they are just unwilling to share them. Needless to say, I don't have a culture, I don't know who I am supposed to be. The closest thing I can relate to is Aboriginal art, Molson Canadian, and paying taxes until I die. I do however have a question about the UK, is a Royal Coat of Arms granted to any family of European decent?
