[Eug]

Race was first brought into play in this thread by Big Mac, in the 2nd post (1st reply) in the thread.

---

Originally Posted by Athens 

*Caugh* Vancouver has over 65% of the population that is born out side of Canada

Don't go making Toronto the center of the universe

I don't think that's correct, unless things have completely changed in the last 5 years.

Immigration / Canadians in Context / Indicators of Well-being in Canada

In 2006, 45.7% of Toronto's population was foreign born, but Vancouver's was 39.6%.
In 2010, 49.9% of Toronto's population was foreign born. I don't know Vancouver's proportion now, but I'm pretty sure it isn't 65%. You might be thinking about about a specific Vancouver neighbourhood. Richmond?

[turtle777]

tldr;

-t

[Wiskedjak]

According to the World Fact Book:

Canada: 67% European
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ca.html

US: 79.96% White
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Race was first brought into play in this thread by Big Mac, in the 2nd post (1st reply) in the thread.

---


I don't think that's correct, unless things have completely changed in the last 5 years.

Immigration / Canadians in Context / Indicators of Well-being in Canada

In 2006, 45.7% of Toronto's population was foreign born, but Vancouver's was 39.6%.
In 2010, 49.9% of Toronto's population was foreign born. I don't know Vancouver's proportion now, but I'm pretty sure it isn't 65%. You might be thinking about about a specific Vancouver neighbourhood. Richmond?

Are you looking at Vancouver Proper or Metro Vancouver as a whole. Vancouver Proper with a population of 550 000 had 65% visible ethnic minority arr majority. Metro Vancouver which includes the cities of Richmond, Coquitlam, Poco, Pomo, Surrey, Maple Ridge, Burnaby and several other cities is where that 39% comes in from which in 2006 was 900 000 ethnic minorities for a region of 2 million people. Richmond is 65% Asian and South Asian alone all on its own before you toss in the mix of other ethnic groups.

BUT to keep this on topic well semi topic about left, right and happy people and how lefties are generally happy, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are also the most left wing cities in Canada. The 3 Cities represents almost a entire 3rd of the Canadian population, and probably over half of the immigrant population. For any non Liberal government it was the biggest battle zones.

Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News

You will have to zoom in over Vancouver and Toronto to see how in side of all the blue, the highest immigration areas are the ones in orange and red. Blue represents right wing victory while the orange and red represent left.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Are you looking at Vancouver Proper or Metro Vancouver as a whole. Vancouver Proper with a population of 550 000 had 65% visible ethnic minority arr majority. Metro Vancouver which includes the cities of Richmond, Coquitlam, Poco, Pomo, Surrey, Maple Ridge, Burnaby and several other cities is where that 39% comes in from which in 2006 was 900 000 ethnic minorities for a region of 2 million people. Richmond is 65% Asian and South Asian alone all on its own before you toss in the mix of other ethnic groups.

Yeah, I believe it is GTA vs GVA.

BUT to keep this on topic well semi topic about left, right and happy people and how lefties are generally happy, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are also the most left wing cities in Canada. The 3 Cities represents almost a entire 3rd of the Canadian population, and probably over half of the immigrant population. For any non Liberal government it was the biggest battle zones.

Same goes in the US, for the most part. New York is more left than the midwest for example.

[Athens]

Same with California and Washington.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Race was first brought into play in this thread by Big Mac, in the 2nd post (1st reply) in the thread.

Actually it was lpkmckenna, calling things he doesn't understand 'racist'. Notice even OAW didn't jump in with the race card before that.

I can only conclude some people can't read if they really think Big Mac or Shaddam's first posts in this thread were only about race, and were in any way playing the race card. Yelling 'racism' at things that aren't *ahem, lpkmckenna's post* is playing the race-card.

[lpkmckenna]

There's nothing to understand. Big Mac and Shaddim said the US can't have a strong welfare state because of "diversity" and "homogeneity." Anyone who's not an idiot can hear the dog-whistle politics being played here. If a national-level US politician dared to utter these words in public, his career would be over.

If Shaddim and Big Mac don't want to talk about race, they shouldn't bring it up, especially when the subject is the welfare state.

Shaddim then clarified his statement by saying by diversity he meant the urban/rural split, which is laughable since rural communities require just as much social support as urban communities. No, there is no public transit, but there are miles and miles of roads, all paid by the taxpayer, and busing kids to school is a lot more expensive when they live many, many miles apart.

And you can still hear the racial dog-whistle in the imagined urban/rural divide. After all, the salt-of-the-earth white people don't want to pay taxes to support those urban ethnic gangs, right? Then they cash their federal farming subsidies while braying about rugged individualism.

[Athens]

Im actually with Shaddim with the Rural / Urban split comment. Social programs and support are much more of a urban community thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Shaddim then clarified his statement by saying by diversity he meant the urban/rural split, which is laughable since rural communities require just as much social support as urban communities. No, there is no public transit, but there are miles and miles of roads, all paid by the taxpayer, and busing kids to school is a lot more expensive when they live many, many miles apart.

Never mind the natural disaster funding that they're all too willing to receive after floods/droughts/tornadoes/hurricanes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There's nothing to understand.

Which ALWAYS seems to be your problem. You understand NOTHING.

If Shaddim and Big Mac don't want to talk about race, they shouldn't bring it up, especially when the subject is the welfare state.

You're such a shameless liar. The first mention of race in this thread is YOU, claiming something was racist. Anyone can look it up.

Shaddim then clarified his statement by saying by diversity he meant the urban/rural split

Which you didn't then, and still don't understand.

Big Mac also claified for you, which of course you ignored:

They're more close knit because they share common language, common culture, common sensibilities, shared history (and yes shared ethnicity but that's only one part). And because they're very similar, if they're into having large Social Welfare states, they likely rationalize that the high taxes help support not only themselves but their very similar, like-minded, like-type neighbors.

And you're still going on about 'white people' and how everything sounds like a dog whistle to your pea brain that then compels you to yell racism. You of course wouldn't comprehend that the more you point out that the problem with too many people in the US being willing to sit on their asses while someone else works to provide 'bennies' for them, and that people are often extreme hypocrites about this (regardless of race or otherwise), only strengthens the point of why Denmark style socialism would never fly in the US: The US ain't Denmark.

This extends across rural/urban and ethnic divides. YOU'RE the one focused on race, and not the real problem- the attitudes of all people.

Now continue with your frothing at the mouth diatribes about 'white people' and then call everyone else racist.

[Athens]

lpkmckenna is the most reverse racist on these boards. Hes so anti racist he's become the biggest racist here. He pulled the same crap in one of my threads where I complained mostly about cultural differences with immigrants, to him it was all about race.

The reason Big Mac and Shaddim's points are valid is because of the massive culture difference between City life and Urban life. Most of the major cities in North America are very similar. From Vancouver to San Francisco, from Toronto to New York, city life is the same. When you leave the city you have a wide range of cultural differences from one region to another even in the same state or the same province. Small rural locations have a proud unique history and that culture makes them different from other rural communities. But I don't think that in itself is a major issue in socialistic ideas working. Its a challenge but not a show stopper as its been proved in Canada. The biggest problem for the US has to do with learning to be against socialistic ideas. Its no different then how 100 years ago it was ok to treat blacks like garbage because that was the social norm. It was something learned that had to be unlearned. Its no different with a socialized standard of living. Its a idea that has to be unlearned that its bad. If you spend your entire life being brought up that socialism is bad then its going to be part of your thinking for the rest of your life. Its why corporate america, the profit seekers drilled into every ones head that socialism was bad and equated it to Soviet Russia and Communist China using real extreme and poor examples to scare into the fabric of American society that socialism is bad.

The funny thing is many services are already socialized and taken for granted and forgotten about already. And some things that had been socialized that got turned into private for profit systems resulted in people getting screwed. And those people now wake up wishing they had it the old way.

[Doofy]

--- Suicides per 100,000 people ---

Denmark: 10.6
Portugal: 7.9
Spain: 7.3
Italy: 5.2
Greece: 3.0

So of course they're happy - all the unhappy peeps there promptly off themselves leaving only happy people.

[Athens]

ROFL I like that, leaving only happy people

Still lower then the US at 11.6 and Japan at a whooping 25 per 100 000

[ebuddy]

I would say any country that enjoys 80+% membership in a singular, State-funded Church religion likely lacks diversity. Folks are welcome to haggle over culture vs demographics vs race, but some things are simply irrefutable. Out of the gate you'd have no such system in the US.

The only thing the "happiness index / Denmark" does for me is affirm the argument for state's rights. Administering governance is apparently more effective at a smaller scale.

[Athens]

That's a very good point about the state rights and governance.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So of course they're happy - all the unhappy peeps there promptly off themselves leaving only happy people.

You might be on to something.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would say any country that enjoys 80+% membership in a singular, State-funded Church religion likely lacks diversity.

I don't deny that Denmark isn't very diverse. I just don't think it's relevant to discussions of social programs.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

--- Suicides per 100,000 people ---

Denmark: 10.6
Portugal: 7.9
Spain: 7.3
Italy: 5.2
Greece: 3.0

So of course they're happy - all the unhappy peeps there promptly off themselves leaving only happy people.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada: 11.6
United States: 11.1
United Kingdom: 11.3

They still outshine us, barely.
(I'm guessing religion may be the factor in those countries Doofy cited. Perhaps location as well.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada: 11.6
United States: 11.1
United Kingdom: 11.3

They still outshine us, barely.
(I'm guessing religion may be the factor in those countries Doofy cited. Perhaps location as well.)

Religion is a factor, for sure. More religiosity = lower suicide rates.

I was merely pointing out that the studies upon which the OP is based are usually complete crap. Follow the money*.

(* Which in this case is probably something like "hey, look at that, being taxed more makes you happier, so we're going to raise the tax rate to make you all happier" rather than "lets all get naked together")

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

If Shaddim and Big Mac don't want to talk about race, they shouldn't bring it up, especially when the subject is the welfare state.

You're such a shameless liar. The first mention of race in this thread is YOU, claiming something was racist. Anyone can look it up.

I'm going to leave Shaddim out of this for reasons I've already outlined. Though I can certainly understand why LPK presumed "dog-whistle politics" when support levels for social welfare spending was discussed in the context of "small, homogenous population" and "diversity" by some of our resident conservatives. The fact of the matter is that conservative politicians ... and note I did not say Democrats or Republicans ... have a long and well-documented history of exploiting the racial fears and resentments of white voters over this issue for electoral gain. That is a statement of fact. Conservative political strategists and party officials have publicly acknowledged employing this strategy and apologized for it. So only the most obtuse of individuals would dispute this historical context. Now having said that ...

I will grant you that when Big Mac first said "small, homogenous population" here .... and "larger, heterogeneous countries" there ... he said nothing explicitly about race. So let's say for the sake of discussion that his meaning was "ambiguous" or perhaps "subject to interpretation" at that point. Now LPK chimes in and says "Stop for a moment and think about how racist that sounds." And this is what you have your panties all up in wad about. The so-called "race card" was played let you tell it. This was "the first mention of race" in your estimation. You cite Big Mac's "clarification" in your criticism of LPK ... but you conveniently left out this highly relevant little tidbit:

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It's not racist, lpk. Damn you're really fond of jumping to wrongheaded conclusions lately. It's just a fact that smaller, mostly homogeneous countries have different socio-political and economic dynamics than larger, more ethnically diverse countries.

Now in that post his meaning behind "small, homogenous population" and "larger, heterogeneous countries" had become considerably less "ambiguous" because he's made a clear contrast between those terms and "ethnic diversity" right there in black and white. This is not a matter of opinion ... this is a matter of fact.

It also lent credence to LPK's presumption that Big Mac was talking about race. But one could argue that there was still a certain level of "ambiguity" in the mix at that point because in his pushback regarding LPK's criticism, Big Mac then tries to "clarify" his meaning behind "small, homogenous population":

Originally Posted by Big Mac

They're more close knit because they share common language, common culture, common sensibilities, shared history (and yes shared ethnicity but that's only one part)

Now what's important to note about these two statements is that he's just changed his tune. Because in the first quote he's clearly juxtaposed "smaller, mostly homogeneous countries" against "larger, more ethnically diverse countries" ... whereas in the second quote (just one sentence later I might add) he's relegated "shared ethnicity" to the level of a parenthetical aside. Perhaps trying to downplay the whole ethnicity angle? Ok ... fine. Let's roll with that because one could argue that there was still a certain level of "ambiguity" going on.

Eug then chimes in with this ....

Originally Posted by Eug

That argument doesn't hold up. Canada and US are likely comparably diverse, but taxation to generate revenues to be spent on social programs and health care are much higher in Canada than the US.

Now one could argue that "comparably diverse" is fairly generic terminology because diversity ... or the lack thereof .... could be in terms of all kinds of things. That is to say a "small, homogenous population" might exhibit characteristics of a "common language, common culture, common sensibilities, shared history". It might also exhibit characteristics of "shared ethnicity" ... but per some people that's just an aside. Something that's incidental at best. Right? So what then was the response?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Uh, I don't think so, Eug. Your country is 96% Caucasian according to Wikipedia (although I do recognize the French Canadian divide), and I've heard it's hard to immigrate and gain citizenship there. The US is considerably more ethnically diverse.

It is at this point that all "ambiguity" with regard to Big Mac's meaning behind his initial statement of "small, homogenous population" has been eliminated. Not only does he make it clear that he means it in terms of "ethnic diversity". He also makes it clear that he means "ethnic diversity" in terms of race when he EXPLICITLY JUXTAPOSES "96% Caucasian" in Canada against "The US is considerably more ethnically diverse." As I said earlier, he did not say a single, solitary word about "ethnic diversity" in terms of "English", "French", or "Irish". In terms of things like "national origin", "common language", "common culture", or "common history". On the contrary ... he EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY made his argument to Eug in terms of race. And the last time I checked ... "Caucasian" was synonymous with "White".

My point here is not to make the claim that Big Mac's comments were "racist". As I've said earlier that's not my position at all. I'm also not trying to speak for Eug, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is why he contends ....

Originally Posted by Eug

Race was first brought into play in this thread by Big Mac, in the 2nd post (1st reply) in the thread.

So while he said nothing directly about race in his initial statement .... it's not about that singular post! It's about the totality of his statements which make it abundantly clear that he was talking about "homogeneity" and "ethnic diversity" in terms of race all along. And one would simply have to have a staggering capacity for denial to claim otherwise. But to call someone a "shameless liar" because they can read plain English and are willing to acknowledge the obvious is a new low. Even for you.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Two pages and no Oisín. Maybe he thinks he's too good for us, that happy bastard.