Canada, taram al fagaduintei dilematice - excluderea indezirabililor  

Thrown (Ţâpat) in , , , , ,

Relative proportions of immigrants from Northwestern Europe (red) and Southeastern Europe (blue) in the decades before and after the immigration restriction legislation. M-a deranjat intotdeauna rasismul la romani si argumentele gen "hai sa-i belim pe tigani, ca si altii au facut la fel". Cand ma pronunt impotriva acestor atitudini, o fac nu pentru ca altii n-au facut la fel, ci taman d-aia. Continui deci sa descriu politicile discriminatorii din trecutul Lumii Noi.

"Je ne comprends pas grand chose aux États et aux frontières. Je sais seulement que la Terre est ronde, et contrairement aux arbres qui ont des racines, les humains ont des pieds pour marcher." - nooneisillegal

In privinta imigratiei (nu numai in Canada, ci si in Australia, NZ, Africa de Sud, USA, etc), ordinea dezirabilitatii era Europa de Nord urmata indeaproape de Europa Latina si de Sud, Centrala si abia la sfarsit Europa de Est. Restul natiunilor veneau dupa religie: crestinii au fost de obicei favorizati, dar si intre crestini, catolicii mai putin decat protestantii. Cert este ca noi romanii eram cam pe la coada, in aceeasi oala cu altii din afara Europei. La un moment dat, pe cand erau eugenics si legile de puritate rasiala in voga (in perioada interbelica), s-a-ncercat trierea imigratiei in "baze stiintifice", cu teste de IQ. Testele erau administrate in engleza si cu un puternic cultural bias, ceea ce a facut ca rusii sa iasa idioti de obicei. De-aia le-a picat americanilor falca pe jos cand rusii au trimis primul om in cosmosRaised EyebrowAt wits endSillyThinking.

Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Pirelli in Toronto, Canada. Four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, South Africa; Changchun, China; Sarajevo, Bosnia; and Sydney, Australia. Canada a adus propria inovatie in imigratia discriminatorie printr-o lege de-a lu' Mackenzie (parc-asa-l chema, nu mai tin bine minte). Acum un secol, englezii ii vrajeau pe indieni ca e mai bine sa stea in Imperiu, fiindca ei ((indienii) oricum nu stiau cum sa-si foloseasca bogatiile, si-n plus puteau calatori oriunde in Imperiu (Commonwealth) fara viza - cum ne zice si noua EU. Si evident ca multi indieni au venit in Canada, unde-aveai loc sa respiri. Si-atunci Canada a dat legea "calatoriei neintrerupte". Adica puteai sa vii in Canada cata vreme veneai pe-o nava care nu se mai oprea in alt port al Imperiului. Cand a dat legea, erau doua companii care ofereau asta si-n cateva luni le-a-nchis p-amandoua. Si-uite-asa a lansat Canada o inovatie care a ramas in uz pana azi in legislatia de refugee / asylum si mai mult, a fost adoptata cam peste tot in lume, si persista si azi, in ciuda multiculturalismului.

Continuous Journey (2004) Tensiunile cele mai mari intre imigratia asiatica si populatia autohtona au fost intotdeauna in British Columbia (BC). Nu toate au fost pe baze rasiste, majoritatea au avut de a face cu abiliatatea chinezilor de a lucra pentru salarii de 3 ori mai mici decat europenii. In ce-i priveste pe indieni, ei au avut intotdeauna o reputatie pentru docilitate si inteligenta. Intr-adevar, britanicii i-au folosit pe indieni la administrarea teritoriilor din Africa. Singurii mai putini docili, in afara musulmanilor, au fost indienii Sikh, care au format o secta separata dedicata luptei impotriva expansiunii musulmane. Cateva sute de indieni Sikh s-au suit pe o nava, Komagata Maru s-ajunga pe pamantul fagaduintei. Desi au respectat cerinta de "calatorie neintrerupta", cand au ajuns in Vancouver au fost inconjurati si nu li s-a permis sa debarce. Canadienii au incercat sa forteze nava sa plece, dar n-au reusit decat cu ajutorul unei nave de razboi. La intoarcerea in Calcutta, o parte din indieni au fost impuscati. Incidentul a facut subiectul documentarului Continuous Journey (2004) (see also) si va fi de asemenea tratat de celebra Deepa Mehta in Exclusion (2008), un film finantat de guvernul canadian, aflat inca in productie.

(Este interesant ca intr-un incident oarecum similar de prin anii '90, o nava incarcata cu imigranti ilegali romani a preferat sa-i arunce pe-acestia peste bord decat sa plateasca amenda ofiterilor de imigrare care se pregateau s-o inspecteze - Maersk Dubai.)

Urmatorul act major de discriminare s-a-ntamplat impotriva japonezilor, care au fost detinuti in lagare de concentrare pe durata razbelului, chit ca nu facusera nimic rau (tot in BC).

Dar cel mai nasol - practic, genocid - au fost tratati indienii bastinasi. Dupa ce le-a luat pamantul pe-o lada de bere, guvernul canadian a dus o politica de "educatie fortata", smulgand copiii din sanul familiei si ducandu-i in scoli boot-camp unde nu li se spunea nimic de limba sau istoria lor, expusi la tuberculoza intr-o inghesuiala infernala, in conditii insalubre, rezultand in mortalitate de 69%(!!!). Asta a continuat pana in anii '90 si este unul din motivele pentru care comunitatile lor sunt cele mai afectate de alienare, alcoolism, droguri si sinucideri. In 1969 Jean Chretien, care pe vremea aceea era Ministrul cu Problemele Indiene a scris un White Paper care recomanda respingerea tuturor cerintelor indiene privitoare la pamant si asimilarea indienilor. In 1970 s-a descoperit ca o fabrica de chimicale poluase de ani buni apele unei rezervatii din Ontario, distrugand practic comunitatea respectiva, in ceea ce s-a numit Ontario Minamata Disease. Prin anii '90, Jean Chretien, avocat, ajuns prim-ministru, isi sprijina fiul adoptiv indian intr-un proces de viol. John Ralston Saul, sotul fostei guvernatoare a Canadei, va publica in timpul alegerilor A Fair Country, Telling Truths about Canada o carte in care avanseaza ipoteza ca aici in Canada nu ne vom atinge potentialul pana nu vom face pace cu trecutul nostru Metis:

What better time than now for voters and campaigning politicians alike to address Saul's central question: What's wrong with Canada – why has it not reached its full potential, under either the Liberals or the Conservatives?

He raises several sub-questions, which he elaborated on in an interview with me:
Why is it that Canadians "imagine ourselves playing particular roles at home and abroad, yet rarely play them?"
Why do we allow more foreign ownership than any other democracy, thereby losing control of such key sectors as the steel industry?
Why do we have more trade barriers between provinces than with the U.S. and the rest of the world?
Why are more than 4 million Canadians without a family doctor, the emergency wards overwhelmed, and waiting times for essential surgery unacceptably long?
Why do we allow our school boards to sell junk food in return for a few corporate dollars, even though youth obesity will cost us all a lot more in health dollars in the long run?
Why have 5 million Canadians fallen below the poverty line and 750,000 are dependant on food banks, 40 per cent of them children, and nearly 70,000 Torontonians are waiting for affordable housing?

Saul says it took him 10 years to think through these questions and come up with one answer.

In the past, he has lambasted the Canadian bureaucratic/managerial class that, starting in the 1980s, replaced visionary political and economic leaders. Now he has combined that critique with an intriguing hypothesis:

Canada is in trouble because it has been untethered from its aboriginal moorings. It pretends to be what it is not. It is not European or American.

He writes: "In spite of the enormous role played by churches over the centuries, ours is not a civilization that emerged out of the Judeo-Christian line. Nor did we rise out of the opposite, the secular or the laic. The central inspiration of our country is aboriginal ...

"How we imagine ourselves, how we govern, how we live together, how we treat one another when we are not being stupid is deeply aboriginal ...

"We are a Métis civilization. What we are today is inspired as much by four centuries of life with the indigenous civilizations as by four centuries of immigration."

The aboriginals, with their "idea of expandable and inclusive circles of people," welcomed the French settlers. They taught the newcomers how to survive. They encouraged intermarriage, as did Champlain: "Our young men will marry your daughters, and we shall be one people."

But this mutual approach was abandoned by later settlers in favour of land grabs, broken treaty promises and an assault on the aboriginal way of life.

The Orangemen, in particular, importing their extremist Protestantism, applied their "old European prejudices in a new place," and imposed the language of a "monolithic nation-state, with its ideas of racial purity."

The First Nations were to be assimilated. "This was the underlying theory of the residential school system, with its deadly health conditions, the banning of language and culture, the sexual degradation, physical violence and the disruption of families."

All this was an "artificial Europeanization of Canada."

Along the way, Canada's old governing principle of peace, welfare and good government was replaced by the British in the 1860s with peace, order and good government. This, too, changed the nature of Canada. Gone was the sense of societal welfare, of "the public good, the public weal and the welfare of the people."

If we feel adrift today, Saul argues, it is because we refuse to accept who we were and still are.

It is the aboriginal ideas of harmony, balanced relationships, an inclusive circle, and an appropriate equilibrium between peoples and the land that explain Canada's invention of peacekeeping, the pioneering environmental efforts of Greenpeace, Maurice Strong and David Suzuki, and multiculturalism.

Yet "we have trained ourselves not to see the aboriginal nature of Canadian society ... Our single greatest failure has been our inability to normalize – that is, to internalize consciously – the First Nations as the senior founding pillar of our civilization."

If we did, we would, first, "see the native as a normal person in his or her own right," settle land claims and help stabilize aboriginal communities and, second, come to terms with our identity, develop enough self-confidence to eviscerate our "colonial mentality" and "get on with life."

This would also "give us the strength to transform our ruling elites," who remain hobbled by a colonial insecurity, an inferiority complex. They remain fixated with "the Empire" – London-Paris in the old days, Washington today. They believe that Canada is too insignificant a player in the world to decide its own fate. But it is not.

Nu zau Peace SignChatterbox...

Surse / More Info: embedded

A Fair Country (Hardcover) (.CA, .UK, .FR, .DE, .JP, .cn) What Is America?: A Short History of the New World Order (Hardcover) (.CA, .UK, .FR, .DE, .JP, .cn) The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Mass Market Paperback) (.CA, .UK, .FR, .DE, .JP, .cn)

Thank you for reading (mulţam fain pentru cetire)! Publicat Saturday, September 27, 2008 . Similar articles under the following categories (poţi găsi articole similare sub următoarele categorii): (Subscribe), (Subscribe), (Subscribe), (Subscribe), (Subscribe), (Subscribe) . Dacă ţi-a plăcut articolul, PinIt-uieste-l, ReddIt-eaza-l, stumble-uieste-l altora, trimite-l pe WhatsApp yMess şi consideră abonarea la fluxul RSS sau prin email. Ma poti de asemenea gasi pe Google. Trackback poateputea fi trimis prin URL-ul de sub Comentarii.
Aici vei găsi ştiri inedite, articole hazoase, perspective originale in politică, societate, economie şi relaţii interumane. QUESTIONS (Intrebări)? We got Answers (Răspunsuri există)!  
blog comments powered by Disqus