[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eric

I've no idea why people are getting upset ... just as I have no real clear idea of what "multi-culturism" actually is ... other than a buzz word, casually thrown around, with the assumption that it is somehow "good", and that to question it is to identify oneself as somehow reactionary at best, and bigotted at worst.

There is a good argument to make that Great Britain has always been multi-cultural. Unless someone wants to argue that the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, and all the regions (north, south, midlands, Yorkshire, Lancashire, the north east etc. etc.) don't have distinct cultures. Perhaps we should not be using this almost meaningless term, and be talking about how an already diverse society should adjust to immigrants. Should immigrants from, say Poland, come to England and continue to be uniquely Polish? Should they be allowed to take all that England (or Britain) has to offer without making any adjustments to conform to what is already established, and has been for centuries?

In Canada, we don't really have that problem ... we are all immigrants (or, according to my First Nations' friends, settlers) ... our culture is multi-culture. Our Govenor General is an Haitian immigrant ... the latest Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan was a Lebanese immigrant; his family arrived in Canada only nine years ago. Quebec is officially a "distinct society" within Canada. We need immigrants in order to grow ... you guys don't. There has always been a lot of talk here about a "Canadian identity": in other words, there is an on-going struggle to define ourselves as a nation. Brits don't have that problem, or shouldn't have, they already have a national identity, one which has developed over the centuries.

I agree, multi-culturalism is a meaningless term when used in this context.

You could have two old dears of the same genetic background. One an opera attending Dowager, and the other a bingo playing char lady. They aren't going to share much of a cultural identity.