Oh, Canada! Oh, America!

Oh, Canada! Oh, America!

The Dilemma of Cultural Pluralism

By

Darryl Hurly

Completely Revised and Updated, Winter 2019

Published by Darryl Hurly at Smashwords

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be resold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this eBook with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this eBook and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your enjoyment only, then please return to Smashwords.com or your favorite retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work put into this eBook by the author.

Author’s Copyright

The contents of this eBook are the sole property of the author. This eBook may not be reproduced, republished or redistributed in whole or in part by any means whatsoever without the author’s written permission. All rights reserved.

A Note on Revisions and Updates to this eBook

Due to the nature of this eBook, which deals with the ongoing evolution of cultural pluralism, Third World migration and related topics, the writer frequently modifies its contents to reflect new developments and events that affect the issues under discussion. Already, there have been numerous updates since this eBook was first published on October 08, 2017.

Once you, the reader, download this eBook, you’ll automatically have access to the latest version that comes after the one you downloaded. In order to keep current you shouldn’t save your first download for future reading sessions until you check for the most recent, updated version. Always trash your existing version and download the latest one to replace it. No extra cost is involved.

You needn’t start over from the beginning each time you download the most recent version; continuity is carefully maintained throughout all updates of this eBook. Simply browse through the parts you’ve already read to pick up any new information added to those parts, but only if you wish to do so; otherwise, continue reading the latest contents from where you left off.

With one exception! The Preface contains the definitions of several, oft-used, ethnocultural catch-all terms, such as white supremacist. You should briefly review these definitions and make sure you understand how they’re used in this eBook before you proceed to read the text where you left off.

Otherwise, enjoy the facts, observations and opinions presented herein, and learn things about controversial subjects that you won’t find in the politically correct journalism you encounter on the Internet!

Table of Contents

Question: Why are ‘Whites’ Racists and No One Else?

Preface

Chapter I: WASP/European/Eurasian Migration Spawns Flawed Intercultural Societies

Chapter II: Further Exclusion and Ghettoization in North American Intercultural Society

Chapter III: Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from North American Intercultural Society

Chapter IV: A Friendly but Fretful Cultural Incursion by Our Neighbour to the South

Chapter V: Third World Immigration – the Primary Factor behind Cultural Pluralism

Chapter VI: Cultural Pluralism and Ethnocultural Mosaics – a Flawed Panacea?

Chapter VII: Cultural Pluralism’s Dilemma – Divisive Diversity

Chapter VIII: ‘Ethnoburbs’ versus Integration/Assimilation – the Sikh and Hebrew Ways

Chapter IX: Islam – Girded for Action under Multiculturalism

Chapter X: Political Islam in Action – Canadian Style

Chapter XI: Islamophilia and Islamophobia in Canadian Politics

Chapter XII: Mutual Racism – Islamophobia versus Infidelphobia

Chapter XIII: Look Around You!

Chapter XIV: A New Canada – Olive Branch or Scimitar?

Chapter XV: Women under Shari’ah Law

Chapter XVI: Islamism – Radical Islam in Canada

Chapter XVII: Protecting the Homeland

Chapter XVIII: The Campaign against Global Terrorism

Chapter XIX: Untangling Fact from Propaganda

Chapter XX: Trying to make Sense of Canada’s Multicultural Dilemma

Chapter XXI: Resolving the Dilemma of Cultural Pluralism – Is It Possible?

References

Question: Why Are ‘Whites’ Racists and No One Else?

The town of Chipman NB publically flew a multicolour ‘Gay Pride’ flag during the week of June 24, 2018 in recognition of the community’s LGBTQ community. According to the town council, this gesture was intended to symbolize an acceptance of all personal persuasions, political or religious views, or country of origin . . . . Then, in this same Multicultural spirit, it subsequently tried to fly a ‘Straight Pride’ banner for one week.

But local LGBTQs and other narrow-minded citizens howled in protest, reviling this as a display of hatred toward a minority, discrimination toward Gays, and a lack of understanding of their struggle to come out, be recognized and accepted. The mayor’s response clarified that no harm or hate was intended and that it was important to celebrate everyone in Chipman. Disregarding his candid reasoning, and ensnared by their over-reactive persecution paranoia, Gays not only called for an apology on the part of the town council, but thoughtlessly demanded its resignation.

If councillors had apologized or resigned, that would have constituted a false admission of guilt; an affirmation that the flag-raising had been purposely malicious, which it certainly wasn’t. Just because the LGBTQ community interpreted the town’s action negatively didn’t make it so!

This incident shows that Gays and other minorities badly need to rise above their overly sensitive tunnel vision and start thinking with their intellects, not with their emotions. Surely, there should be no objection if Chipman or any other community were to fly both flags side by side for a week in recognition of democratic Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This example also demonstrates there’s more than one side to any perceived injustice, whether sexual, racial, religious, cultural, social, economic or political. By refusing Straights a right to be proud of who they are by flying a flag of their own, Gays are dabbling in reverse discrimination, pure and simple, no matter what the alleged reason.

So, what if Straights are a majority who didn’t have to struggle to be recognized as belonging to a particular sexual persuasion? So, what if many of their forefathers discriminated against the LGBTQ community in the past? So, what if a minority of them still discriminates against Gays today?

For the most part, the current reality is a growing mutual acceptance that permits Straights and Gays to live together in democratic Canadian and American societies, notwithstanding the Ontario Conservative government’s resolution to remove the teaching and promotion of ‘gender identity theory’ from the province’s school curriculums.

While discussing the subject of multiple sexual persuasions may make some people uncomfortable (including this writer who, as a youngster, was on one occasion lured and briefly molested by a middle-age Gay pedophile; and who, as a married adult, was hit on by Gay men on three other occasions), the existence of the LGBTQ community shouldn’t be ignored. Rather, it should be acknowledged and explained within the context of an objective, unbiased educational environment; but such a delicate exercise must only be presented to sufficiently mature students, and any academic discussion must be undertaken with very great care!

At any rate, isn’t it time to stop dredging up the unsavory aspects of the past – whether real or perceived by today’s moral standards – and move on? Sure, by all means! Yet we just can’t seem to surmount certain issues that divide Canadian and American societies from within. Why do minorities keep going overboard with such hyperbolic reactionism? Where’s that level playing field of the Centre that we need so badly between the Left and the Right?

Those Canadian and American citizens who are descended from Third World antecedents can call their peers who are of British/French/European/Eurasian descent: cracker, dago, DP (Displaced Person), Frenchie, frog, froggy, gringo, hunky, pea souper, polak, round eyes, spic, whitey, white boy, white trash. That’s okay because even Caucasians call one another by some of those same derogative racist euphemisms – right? But what if ‘white’ Canadians and Americans dare to call those people who come from the Third World niggers, darkies, coons, jungle bunnies, jigaboos and spear chuckers; or towel heads, rug riders and wogs; or gooks, chinks and slant eyes? Well, that’s racism. Equally racist is calling Native North Americans redskins, savages, noble savages or even Indians.

In Canada minorities are openly encouraged to celebrate Chinese New Year, Ramadan and Al-Quds Day, Yom Kippur, Hanukah, the Passover and Jewish Heritage Month, Black History Month, National Indigenous Peoples Day and National Truth and Reconciliation Day, and so on. All of that’s okay. But when Canadians who are non-Native, non-Hebrew, non-Third World celebrate Christmas, Easter, St. George’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, the Feast of St. Jean Baptiste, and so on, these occasions are often construed as Christian expressions of supremacy, and are little more than begrudgingly tolerated nowadays by other religious sects who perceive they’re being subjected to discrimination – right?

The cherished Merry Christmas! of Canada’s and America’s Christian heritage is now a sterile Happy Holidays! or an equally sterile Season’s Greetings! That’s okay. But no one objects to the longstanding Jewish religious salutation Happy Hanukkah! Or, for that matter, to any salutations relating to the religious celebrations of other sects – right?

Religious carols celebrating the birth of Christ are now mostly heard only on Christmas Day; but secular Christmas music is featured throughout December. Some religious hymns are now seldom heard at all.

Lethbridge AB’s panoramic 416 nativity scenes remind people what Christmas is all about, according to the sponsoring local Mormon congregation. Nowadays, however, nativity scenes are rarely featured in most public parks or downtown squares, having been displaced by secular dioramas. But, again, that’s okay. After all, these restrictions are being invoked so as not to demean or offend non-Christians who don’t celebrate Christmas – right?

Even Santa Clause, a pagan or at least a secular symbol of Christmas that has been accepted as Saint Nicolas within Christian tradition, now comes under occasional criticism by Third World religious sects. Will we eventually have to do away with shopping-mall Santas or the annual Santa Clause Parade because to some ultra-religious, non-Christian sects they suggest homage to paganism or godlessness? Well, if we do ban Santa, that’s okay – right?

There are hundreds of sectarian schools in Canada: Catholic, Muslim, Native, and others. But, after Canadian and American public school systems secularized by abolishing all Christian vestiges, Third World minorities still persist in foisting their sectarian rituals, observances, dress codes and culinary customs onto the public education system. That’s okay. But, if the Christian community tried to restore its presence and its sectarian privileges in public schools, that would be regarded as an expression of religious bigotry – a Christian supremacist attack on religious minorities – right?

Indigenous and Third World ethnic/sectarian communities, plus their ‘progressive’ supporters, all have organizations, institutions and societies – collectively numbering in the hundreds – with which to lobby governments in order to advance their respective ethics, values and traditions. That’s okay. But when the moderate, centrist, mainstream community tries to organize and speak out to protect its ethics, values and traditions, it’s indiscriminately lumped in with right-wing supremacists, neo-Nazis or neo-Fascists, and its spokespersons are shouted down and muzzled in a politically correct travesty of the right to free expression. Entitlement to have one’s say is especially restricted and discriminatory under our current federal Liberal government. Still, all that’s okay – right?

The slightest criticism of things Muslim is branded as Islamophobia. Any criticism of things Jewish is called Hebrewphobia. That’s okay. But why is there no admission or recognition of ‘Infidelphobia’ – a very real and aggressive reverse criticism toward white Infidels on the part of so many non-whites – especially Muslims? Well, that’s just a myth because Third World peoples are all more tolerant toward and accepting of mainstream Canadians and Americans, as well as of Monocultural French Quebeckers – right?

Does the preceding commentary feel like you’re getting splashed by a disconcerting bucket of cold water? Well, you’re right! One could go on pointing out these double standards, but the writer assumes you get the point by now: So-called political and socio-cultural ‘correctness’ brought about by overwrought cultural pluralism goes beyond diversity to breed divisiveness!

The book you’re about to read takes a no-holds-barred look at a set of controversial issues that have been spawned by the divisive diversity of touted ethnic/religious/cultural ‘mosaics’ which have been imposed on traditional ‘white’ North American society by Canadian ‘Multiculturalism’ and American ‘Civic Nationalism’ in deference to minority communities who regard themselves as Canadian citizens that differ from traditionally accepted norms.

The writer makes no attempt to placate any ethnic, sectarian or gender-based group; he makes no attempt to appease or to smooth out any feathers that he may have ruffled; he takes a calculated and reasoned stand, and offers no apologies. He will, hopefully, force you to take an introspective look at how you think of others, and why; he’ll test the validity of your personal leftist, centrist, or rightist biases and, perhaps, he’ll compel you to start questioning your own ideology in a quest for the true essence of societal harmony and a cohesive national identity.

Once we all realize there are other sides than ours to every perceived racial, sectarian, sexual or cultural issue, we’ll have collectively embarked on a road to objectivity that just may lead to a resolution of Multiculturalism’s dilemma – maybe. But even then there’s no black; no white; only shades of gray. So, best we learn how to understand others who think differently, and dialogue with one another in good faith to negotiate a fair and mutually beneficial modus vivendi. We must rise above humankind’s philosophical contradictions because they’re not going away any time soon!

Preface

One finds two related definitions of ‘fearmongering’ in Oxford’s pocket dictionary: (1) it’s the purposeful spreading of frightening or exaggerated rumours of an impending danger or (2) it’s the habit of purposely or needlessly arousing public fear about an issue. Fearmongering usually involves psychological manipulation that incorporates scare-based tactics to influence public opinion in order to cultivate a desired outcome amongst the target audience – first by injecting suspicion and wariness, then, by instilling intolerance and, finally, outright hatred.

In fearmongering, the threat of danger is either real or imagined. If it’s real, the fearmonger will attempt to blow it out of all proportion through exaggeration and repetition; the aim is to get the target audience thoroughly aroused and worried. If it’s imagined, the goal is to convince the target audience that the threat is, in fact, very real. This is accomplished by the skillful manipulation of propaganda that’s mostly founded on misinformation rendered to look credible in order to deceive and arouse.

The campaign by Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Party to paint ‘international Jewish bolshevism’ as the root cause of the political, economic and social turmoil that plagued Europe in the aftermath of WWI, and a defeated Germany in particular, is a classic case of fearmongering.

Psychologists Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons define ‘conspiracy theory’ as a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conversely, it valorizes the conspiracy theorist as a hero for sounding the alarm. Such theories are based more on emotional rhetoric rather than empirical evidence – a matter of faith rather than proof, according to political scientist, Michael Barkin. The term is generally used in a derogatory manner to stir up animosity.

The unsubstantiated Nazi conspiracy theory against the Jews claimed, in part, that a cartel of Jewish financiers, bankers and business moguls controlled the economic destiny of Europe through their self-serving manipulation of international money-lending markets, commerce, and numerous facets of industrial production. Thus, argued Adolf Hitler, a European Jewish cabal was largely responsible for the onset of post-WWI’s social and political upheaval, and for economic recessions – especially the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Given the subject matter of this book, one can argue that fearmongering and conspiracy theories are prevalent features of North American culture and politics.

Turning to the United States and Canada, it’s been suggested that, in the late 20th century, a bloc of Americans and Canadians of British- and European descent, plus French Québécois, have come to believe that Third World immigrants and their descendants are purposely conspiring to overthrow traditional North American society. By demographically overwhelming Intercultural Americans and Canadians, plus French Quebeckers, these other ethnic peoples strive to outvote mainstream citizens at the electoral polls so as to get control of both nations’ governments. Then, they’ll proceed to establish Third World-inspired political regimes – issue precepts for new sets of ethics, values and traditions that are alien to those of the original host societies whose demise is unregrettably regarded merely as collateral damage.

Like it or not, there’s some measure of truth to this argument, as we’ll see.

Through fearmongering and conspiracy theorizing, a hyper-nationalist minority of white malcontents carries this thesis to extremes. Energetically seeking scapegoats upon which to hang counter-conspiracies involving economic, social and political manipulation, they tend to target the Jewish community or a burgeoning Muslim population. But these ardent supremacists should be dismissed as a paranoiac, fringe faction of mainstream Canadian and American societies – except whenever a few of these fanatics manage to get their hands on assault rifles, form ‘militias,’ and wreak homicidal havoc out of all proportion to their miniscule numbers.

Overall, however, one must recognize and acknowledge that there does exist amidst Canada’s and America’s Caucasian populations a genuine, legitimate concern regarding the general direction being taken by their countries’ respective societal and political evolution.

Let’s pause briefly to redefine so-called ‘white supremacists’ more accurately. First, we need to eliminate any clichéd physiological connotation. Henceforth, we’ll refer to this faction as Far-Right, nationalist groups of Caucasian Canadian and American societies whose forbearers came from Britain, continental Europe and Eurasia, and intermarried to create similar ‘blended’ national societies. Skin pigment is not a defining factor in our description.

Second, for discussion purposes, the term ‘white supremacists’ excludes ‘Québécois supremacists’ who are nationalist Quebeckers of French descent. They uphold and defend their unique French ancestry and heritage against any encroachment by the ethnocultural heritages of ‘Anglo’ and Third World outsiders, and they consider themselves ‘pure-laine’ or ‘pure wool.’

The common denominator of both white supremacists and Québécois supremacists is the abiding suspicion with which they regard Jews and/or Third World migrants, particularly those from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. This distrust can swell into racial animosity but, nowadays, its origin is embedded primarily in religious/sectarian roots.

Third, with regard to Hasidic Jews, South Asians, Orientals and Blacks, an ethnic ‘visible minority’ component – built around physiology and custom: skin tone, facial features, tonsorial customs, traditional garb and behavioural customs – is an added factor that enhances the basic racism shared by Far-Right supremacists.

Concerned Canadians and Americans of traditional British/European/Eurasian descent want to understand better those unfamiliar ethnocultural elements that are being introduced into their midst by Third World immigrants; they’re also worried about the future of posterity arising out of infiltration by large numbers of these newcomers. Canada’s French community is further troubled by the possible destructive impact of Third World immigration on the future of its entire unique heritage.

There are countless websites and written works that address how Canadian Multiculturalism and American Civic Nationalism apply to Third World immigration and the advent of non-Judeo-Christian religions like Islam. They also try to rationalize how cultural pluralism currently impacts rapidly secularizing, Christian societies in the U.S., Canada and Quebec.

GenXs, Millennials and GenZs, plus most media pundits, embrace an all-inclusive, cultural mosaic as the utopian societal arrangement; one that combines ethnically diverse peoples in a single community without robbing them of their unique cultural heritages. Older War Babies and Baby Boomers tend to regard this mosaic as an intrusive concept; one that threatens to displace a homogeneous society, historically blended through intermarriage; a society that shares a single, common, national identity. Both camps are locked in a sometimes rational oftentimes emotional philosophical debate whose outcome might well decide the future evolution of our two nations.

In the decades after 1960, an influential bloc of British/European/Eurasian-descended War Babies and Baby Boomers was responsible for piloting cultural pluralism through its formative phase in Canada and America. Along with Third World migrants who feel they benefit from Multiculturalism, they were and remain intolerant of the traditional society of their elders. They’re not prone to entertain any disparaging talk leveled by their forbearers or peers at their nations’ fashionable Multicultural ethos; nor will they brook any criticism of the process that is allegedly transforming their societies into a better world of ethnocultural mosaics.

Their descendants – GenXs and Millennials – were raised on this ethos, and not only perpetuated it, but further developed it when they inherited the reins of power circa 1990. They, too, share their forefathers’ intolerance with any faultfinding criticism of cultural pluralism.

Cognizant of this intolerant bias, this treatise of cultural pluralism will provide a comprehensive sketch of Canadian Multiculturalism and American Civic Nationalism, plus the issues arising out of the application of these twin societal concepts to Third World immigration. In an attempt to sample a wide range of source material, the writer compiled data from over 800 websites, plus several books. Still, this foray into a complex and controversial subject must be regarded as a preliminary review rather than a definitive examination.

The thesis presented herein is straightforward.

On the one hand, after nearly half a century (1971-2019) Canada’s Multicultural experiment may threaten to radically distort the nation’s traditional mainstream heritage by over-injecting in the name of diversity elements of foreign ethical values and religious precepts, non-liberal/democratic political tenets, and questionable cultural traditions. America’s counterpart experiment, Civic Nationalism, is liable to allow alien cultural heritages to threaten that nation’s traditional Intercultural heritage as well.

On the other hand, there’s evidence to suggest that the immersion of Third World migrants into a vibrant, Intercultural milieu of British/European/Eurasian descent might insert a wedge of change into the barriers thrown up by first- and second-generation newcomers who try to protect their imported lifestyles from the diluting effects of their hosts’ way of life. Third World immigrants may not admit it, but signs of cultural disaffection and religious apostasy are already quite evident among their more progressive Canadian-born and American-born descendants.

Acculturation is a two-way process; and, in phased moderation, that’s as it should be. But a race is on that might tip the balance too far in one direction or the other.

Chapters 1 through 5 of this book dip into the past to review briefly how both Canadian and American societies evolved historically through ethnic intermarriage to develop parallel systems of Christian ethics, liberal/democratic values and cultural traditions, as well as similar capitalistic lifestyles. We’ll examine how ethnic mixing created over time two blended societies of British/European/Eurasian descent, plus two national identities that exhibit many recognizable political, cultural, social and economic commonalities.

With one significant exception! After the British conquest of New France, and still under the yoke of a theocratic Catholic clergy, abetted by a French professional and land-owning oligarchy, Québécois ‘habitants’ were prevented from intermingling with the governing Protestant Anglos. Great fear existed that their unique community, with its large families, Code Louis legal system, French language, agrarian lifestyle, and fealty to the Papacy, would be diluted by contact with the British after 1763. Thus, Quebec continued from the mid-18th century into the 21st century as a distinct, somewhat cloistered society rather than join an evolving mainstream Canada.

Therefore, this book treats the Québécois as a separate entity within Canadian society because their ethnocultural evolution has remained apart from its Canadian counterpart. Unlike those French Canadians who live outside of Quebec, and who have largely assimilated into mainstream Canada, French Quebeckers still don’t fit well into Canadian society. In fact, after Biculturalism was superseded by Multiculturalism, one wonders if bilingualism and the concept of ‘two charter races’ are still relevant when it comes to defining a ‘Canadian’ identity.

For the reader’s convenience, a few crucial terms that will come up again and again need to be defined. We’ll deal with the Canadian context first, then with that of the U.S.

The term ‘Interculturalism’ sits at the opposite pole from ‘Multiculturalism’ which we’ll describe and discuss in some depth later. Interculturalism describes a process whereby the citizens of a nation are blended over time through intermarriage into a relatively homogeneous populace with a new, single national identity: Canadian! American! Thus, Interculturalism is a more precise, accurate euphemism of ‘mainstream.’

The term ‘white’ is a euphemism for ‘Caucasian’ and refers to those original migrants from Britain and Northwestern Europe (mostly Germanic and Scandinavian) who intermarried and created an initial, limited phase of Interculturalism. Note: this definition is devoid of physiological factors such as skin tone.

The term ‘Intercultural’ represents more encompassing phases of ethnic intermarriage, not a only among whites, but between whites and those migrants who arrived from Central Europe, from Southern Europe (the Mediterranean Rim, the Balkans) and from Eurasia, plus stateless Hebrews.

Original Black African migrants (both ex-slaves and freemen) and original Oriental newcomers weren’t included at first; but via mixed marriages they, too, had been slowly integrating; then, assimilating. So, they’re included in the final phases of Interculturalism.

In Canada the descriptives: ‘white’ and ‘Intercultural’ exclude those Quebeckers who list their ethnic origins as either ‘French’ or ‘Québécois.’ That is, they’ve elected to remain a non-assimilated, Monocultural community alongside mainstream Canadian society; a strong culturally unique bloc that distinguishes itself from the Intercultural majority of Canadians.

The size of Quebec’s French majority is reflected in language data that distinguishes between Francophones (French speaking) and Anglophones (English speaking). Some 78% of Quebeckers list French as their mother tongue; while 80% specify French as the language most often spoken at home. Thus, Quebeckers of French descent probably comprise around four-fifths of the province’s population.

Turning to the U.S., the term ‘white’ also defines an initial phase of Interculturalism wherein British and Northwestern European migrants intermarried after they arrived in America.

‘Intercultural’ is, again, a more inclusive term encompassing whites plus migrants from Eastern Europe and Eurasia, plus stateless Hebrews and gypsies – all of whom subsequently intermarried. This constituted the next phases of U.S. Interculturalism.

The final phases of U.S. Interculturalism added ‘Cajuns’ (ex-French Acadians), inherited California Spaniards, and inherited Hispanics from ex-Mexican territories in the Southwest – all of whom had been integrating, then assimilating, over time, through intermarriage, into that nation’s mainstream, Intercultural society.

Original Black African migrants (both slaves and freemen) and original Oriental newcomers are also included in these final phases because, over a long period of time they, too, had been gradually integrating, then assimilating, via mixed marriages.

Neither Native North Americans nor those Third World migrants who arrived during the latter part of the 20th century are included as part of Canada’s or America’s Intercultural populaces since they haven’t been assimilated by or even closely integrated to date with either mainstream society in any meaningful way outside the workplace and political arena.

The phrase ‘Intercultural North America’ includes Canada and the U.S. but not Mexico or Quebec.

We next proceed to explore the further partial downside of Intercultural blending, starting with a thumbnail sketch of ‘ghettoization.’

This phenomenon began when biased WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) selectively segregated other ethnic/sectarian groups and marginalized them as second-class citizens. Ghettos also sprang up because certain immigrant minorities voluntarily refused to integrate with, even less to be assimilated by, the host society – mostly for religious reasons.

Among the ethnocultural groups that were marginalized or excluded altogether at first by WASPish mainstream majorities were European Catholics and Eurasian Orthodox Christians, plus longstanding North American inhabitants, such as French- and Hispanic Catholics, African Blacks and Chinese non-Christians. It took a long time for of these groups to integrate with whites to launch the beginnings of full Intercultural societies.

Mostly ghettoized on reserves, Canada’s Indigenous peoples serve to exemplify the open divisiveness that has overwhelmed the Multicultural concept of diversity, despite Intercultural society’s efforts at ‘truth and reconciliation’ with the Indigenous community.

This is especially true of Canadian and American Native opposition to the development of the oil and gas industry involving Native lands in the Western U.S. and in Western Canada. Sovereignty issues surrounding the Energy East pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the Coastal Gas Link pipeline are examined, juxtaposing the group rights accorded Indigenous peoples within Canada’s ethnocultural mosaic against their obligations to the economic wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

Interculturalism’s flaw of non-inclusiveness was partly responsible for more recent attempts by cultural pluralists to de-ghettoize and reshape Canada and the U.S. into all-inclusive mosaics founded on ethnocultural diversity.

Apart from the flawed application of Interculturalism, a deterioration of the longstanding military, economic, social and cultural ties that developed between Canada and the U.S. prior to and during WWII also help account for the advent of Canadian Multiculturalism. Several developments occurred in the 1960s that soured Canada’s impression of the U.S. as the paragon of Western democracy, the foremost being America’s disastrous embroilment in the prolonged, costly and unpopular Vietnam conflict which threatened to tear the American heartland apart with unrest and turmoil from which the U.S. military’s élan never recovered for over a decade.

The Vietnam War coincided with a prolonged, violent and sanguinary civil-rights odyssey, plus the high-profile anti-sectarian and anti-racial assassinations of JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

Overall, observers in Canada and elsewhere came away with the impression that the U.S. was in crisis during the 1960s; overwhelmed by controversy, both at home and abroad, our neighbour appeared to be falling into a moral tailspin. Preparing to celebrate a century of Confederation at Expo 67, Canadians hastened to disassociate themselves from their troubled American cousins in response to an overwhelming need to reassert the distinctiveness of their own nation as a sovereign society.

Then there was a half-century of overwhelming incursion by American pop culture that had to be unraveled on the eve of Canada’s centennial. National preferences in music, theatre, cinema, sports, culinary arts, dress and deportment appeared to have been taking on a distinctly American hue for decades, prompting a concerted, flag-waving campaign to bring out and celebrate Canada’s own worthwhile counterparts.

Multiculturalism seemed to provide that sought-for distinguishing feature, although the Americans, themselves, soon turned to its counterpart – Civic Nationalism – to help resolve their own divisive internal and external issues, and repair some of the self-inflicted damage to their international stature.

Finally, the overriding factor that brought cultural pluralism to both Canada and the U.S. was a sustained influx of Third World immigrants that began in the 1960s.

Europe’s economic rejuvenation after WWII resulted in booming economies that provided ample opportunity to pursue professional careers, skilled trades, and unskilled labour jobs. Consequently, there was a significant drop in migrants from the Old World. This paucity of newcomers was compounded by plummeting birth rates and an overall decline in Intercultural North America’s population growth.

As a result, in lieu of children who would mature into new generations to staff the means of production and consume goods and services, both Canada and the U.S. opened the floodgates to a surge of migrant families that would provide the surrogate population needed to fuel healthy economies. However, notwithstanding a brief surge of British immigrants, European and Eurasian immigration sank to an all-time low. Most newcomers had to be imported from the Third World.

These new ethnic migrant groups tenaciously held fast to their own cultural heritages, and refused to integrate closely with Canadian, American or Quebec society except on their own terms. Intercultural North Americans and Monocultural Québécois reacted by protecting what they revered as the key cohesive elements of their own respective cultural heritages and identities which they believed formed the basis of a successful Western way of life.

Stymied by this unexpected dual obstinacy, cultural pluralists decided to take the easy way out by dismantling the Intercultural status quo of traditional Canadian and American societies. They tried to replace Intercultural assimilation by combining these non-compliant, Third World newcomers with their host societies, creating all-inclusive yet diverse ethnocultural mosaics that facilitated the retention of their members’ distinct ethnocultural heritages.

We’ll undertake a quick overview of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration because of the Multicultural inspiration behind it. The Compact is intended to respond to the current global migration crisis by presenting a comprehensive blueprint and framework in which signatory states can cooperate more fully to render the migratory process more orderly, efficient and equitable for all stakeholders: regular migrants, refugees seeking asylum, and countries of origin, transit and reception. The Compact’s policy, objectives and protocols are briefly examined so as to point out their strengths and weaknesses.

Chapters 6 through 8 examine Canadian Multiculturalism and American Civic Nationalism in some detail, beginning with a look into the essence of cultural pluralism in an attempt to point out its ambiguities and its contradictions.

In their quest to placate intransigent Third World newcomers, Intercultural GenX and Millennial elites, plus GenX and Millennial Québécois – all well-educated and affluent – grasped at this cultural pluralist concept, which had been first introduced by their War Baby and Baby Boom parents. They, too, saw it as a practical mechanism to absorb Third World immigrants with the least hassle. These self-styled progressives now regarded themselves entitled to occupy the leadership positions in the U.S., Canada and Quebec, and have since emerged as the chief architects of cultural pluralism.

However, many of their War Baby and Baby Boom elders now entertained second thoughts, and regarded GenXs and Millennials as being too hasty in giving away chunks of their own Intercultural and Québécois heritages on credit by failing to exercise due diligence. To their forefathers’ chagrin, the latter generations banked on pious but vague promises by migrant minorities that the newcomers, in their turn, would offer cultural concessions of their own to the host societies. Of course, these acts of reciprocity have hardly materialized!

Thus, in trying to accelerate the creation of ethnocultural mosaics, this misdirected application of cultural pluralism has, so far, failed to diversify without dividing. Frustrated, its proponents continue to search in vain for a historical precedent to justify and legitimize the transformation of Canada and the U.S. into pluralistic societies; but all they can come up with is several centuries of evolving Interculturalism which they hastened to disavow and disparage.

Notwithstanding, instead of creating all-inclusive yet diverse Canadian and American societies, the architects of cultural pluralism have perpetuated an impasse. Third World immigrants and their descendants are caught between the need to adopt Intercultural-dominated ethics, values and traditions without giving up their own theocracy-driven counterparts. So, obsessed with ethnocultural self-protection, they insist that the host societies do all the adapting. And, predictably, politically correct cultural pluralists hasten to comply.

One the other hand, older generations of Intercultural Americans and Canadians, plus French Quebeckers, balk at such intransigence; they distrust these strident, allegedly disruptive, Third World ways, and they don’t wish to see them grafted, unbridled, onto their own societies.

As an instructive lesson in what minorities should and shouldn’t do to integrate with and assimilate into our Intercultural majority, we compare and contrast the Sikh and Hebrew immigration experiences.

We find that, under Interculturalism, the Jews were able to successfully integrate with and assimilate into both Canada’s and America’s Intercultural societies through an admittedly arduous process. On the other hand, while they’ve been absorbed into the political arena and the job spectrum of the workforce under Multiculturalism, in the social arena Sikhs – along with other South Asians – haven’t really integrated with, much less assimilated into, mainstream society; so far, they’ve only managed to create modern intra-urban ghettos dubbed ‘ethnoburbs.’

Next, we take a discerning look at that tidal wave of migrants from the Third World that, beginning in the 1960s, washed up on Canadian and American shores. They were welcomed here primarily for self-serving reasons: to help sustain the means of production needed to output an adequate supply of goods and services, plus maintain an adequate consumer purchasing base. Both Canada and the U.S. now depend on this continuous stream of newcomers and their offspring, rather than home-grown children, to create the substitute generations of workers and consumers required to sustain their respective capitalism-driven economies.

By corollary, however, in filling Intercultural society’s near-childless void, the racial and/or sectarian faction that furnishes the most immigrants and produces the most children is liable to outpace all others demographically and, thereby, gain political ascendancy via the voting polls in our Canadian and American democratic systems. Of course, cultural pluralists are in denial, burying their heads in the sand, but it’s an unshakable possibility!

So, which Third World ethnic minority is best poised to reach this threshold? Middle Eastern? South Asian? Black African? Other? Or which sect? Muslim? Sikh? Hindu? Buddhist? Other? Read on.

Chapters 9 through 12 deal with the advent of Islam into Intercultural North America; its subsequent marshalling of Muslim communities to achieve politically its sectarian agenda; and the reactions its perceived intrusive tactics have generated within non-Muslim North American societies and Quebec.

Islam is a religious ideology with strong political overtones; ideally, it seeks to create a sociocultural environment in which Islamic ideology and Shari’ah precepts are sufficiently embedded in the host society to guarantee the Muslim way of life – a goal that’s best attained politically through the establishment of an all-pervading, quasi-Islamic state – regardless of any collateral damage inflicted as a by-product on the ethnocultural heritages of others.

Specifically, current demographic trends suggest that, by the last third of the 21st century, Canada’s Sunni Muslims could, through immigration supplemented by high, first-generation birthrates, conceivably comprise up to one-quarter of the nation’s population. Thus, they could make a significant impact through the voting polls on the country’s political power structure. The same process is at work to change the balance of political power in the U.S.

We examine just how this can happen by looking at the development of lobbying strategies and tactics, plus the establishment of institutions like mosques, schools and community centres – all dedicated to embed Islam and Shari’ah in the fabric of both Intercultural host societies and Monocultural Quebec.

But even this gradualist – seemingly unobtrusive – approach on the part of the Muslim minority has sufficed over time to generate a widespread concern among a plurality of senior and middle-age Americans, Canadians and Québécois that the Islamic community might go too far.

Lamentably, in both countries a Far-Right, ultra-nationalist faction that crosses all generations manifests an overt and abiding fear of non-Intercultural immigrants and their descendants – and of Muslims in particular – especially radicalized, theocratic Islamists. These minor Intercultural redneck factions make a lot of hate-filled noise, prompting Establishment media pundits to fearmonger against all criticism of Third World newcomers by overblowing so-called ‘Islamophobia’ and other sectarian phobias way out of all proportion.

But all forms of xenophobia have their flipsides; in this case it’s ‘Infidelphobia.’

After looking at Islamophobia, we’ll trace the nature and characteristics of Islamist Infidelphobia toward all Intercultural, non-Muslim peoples, and against apostates from Islam. We’ll assess Infidelphobia’s impact on Canadian Multiculturalism and American Civic Nationalism in order to put into perspective the phenomena of mutual distrust, mutual animosity, and mutual irreconciliation. There’s a need to understand how suspicion, skepticism, cynicism and mistrust on both sides affects the evolution under cultural pluralism of all-inclusive, ethnocultural mosaics in both countries.

Chapters 13 through 15 address the question: What would it be like for the descendants of today’s non-Muslim, Canadian populace to live in a quasi-Islamic Canada under some form of Shari’ah law? One again, this is an eye-opener; an educational exercise, not fearmongering or conspiratorial theorizing.

The experience to date with Muslim immigration to Britain, Germany, the U.S. and Canada is first examined to assess the probability of turning these nations into quasi-Islamic states. One concludes that such a transition is possible in Europe; and it could be possible in Intercultural North America as well if the current trend to give in to Muslim demands continues unabated. Quebec, however, is a different story!

There follows a precis of life experienced by non-Muslims in an Islamic state, with the understanding that a more radical Islamist state would be extraordinarily repressive. Then we’ll deal specifically with the lot of women under Shari’ah since feminism and gender equality have become so important to the evolving essence of North American society.

This brief foray into the human condition under Islam should enable Intercultural-descended readers to judge for themselves if some watered-down version of this way of life is what they’re prepared to bequeath to future generations of Canadians and Americans.

Chapters 16 through 18 begin with an overview of Islam’s radical derivative, ‘Islamism,’ which preaches an extremist interpretation of the Qur’an, the Hadith and Shari’ah as the springboards of a fanatical crusade to establish a global Muslim caliphate. This, in turn, leads to an analysis of Jihadi terrorism’s potential impact on Canada’s homeland security within the context of Ottawa’s excessive Multicultural permissiveness under Team Trudeau.

Also discussed is the effectiveness to date of the nation’s ongoing legislative measures to defend against Islamist terrorism in the homeland while attempting to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians against a perceived Orwellian encroachment on their lives. Americans, by the way, are caught up in the same soul-searching, balancing act.

There follows an assessment of global terrorism and the efforts put forth by Canada and America to combat it in the face of disenchantment on the part of their citizens with questionable foreign entanglements that may irritate and lead to more Jihadi retaliation along the lines of 9/11 against Intercultural North America’s home front.

Chapters 19 through 21 focus on Canada and, to a lesser extent, on America as both nations co-exist today – mired in a murky Limbo of Multiculturalism/Civic Nationalism.

We begin by identifying the essence of Canada’s ethnocultural predicament.

A demographically dwindling, Intercultural majority and a shrinking French Canadian minority both vie to co-exist in accordance with their historically evolved systems of ethics, values and traditions amidst a swelling Muslim minority that subscribes to an unfamiliar behavioural codex which it seeks to embed in mainstream Canada’s and Quebec’s ways of life.

Caught in the middle is another collective minority, comprising Indigenous Canadians and other ethnic groups and cultures of non-Intercultural descent – primarily Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists – who all differ from Intercultural Canadians, French Quebeckers and Muslims, as well as from one another.

Together, all these home-grown and immigrant ethnicities find themselves jockeying for political influence within a shared societal framework to protect or expand their respective cultural/sectarian turfs while they cautiously try to accommodate one another without sacrificing too much of themselves. A similar phenomenon currently co-exists within American society.

Next, we’ll examine the paradox within cultural pluralism: that is, ethnocultural integration versus overwrought ethnocultural diversity.

One the one hand, having engineered the possible demise of Intercultural society, cultural pluralists threatened to undermine the very mosaic they sought to install. Ironically, instead of perpetuating an Intercultural society, they plumbed for a cultural mosaic that might soon risk morphing into a Monocultural Islamic quasi-theocracy, with its Sunni Muslim majority bent on assimilating all societal components in order to orchestrate and regulate them under Shari’ah.

Or, conversely, maybe the grass does look greener for Third World newcomers on the other side of the fence! Interestingly, the genesis of new, ethnically broader, blended societies could be in the making as curious Third World newcomers observe and/or experience life among Intercultural Canadians and Americans, or amidst the Québécois, and decide to cross over.

A broader-based, Intercultural way of life may be regaining some appeal in the minds of progressive-thinking Muslim youth who feel stifled by the orthodox conservatism that dictates they lead austere lives amidst the vibrant, relatively uninhibited, social milieu of their Judeo-Christian/secular peers. However, breaking away from Shari’ah’s almost impermeable web and the suppressive control exerted by Islam’s old guard is a monumental challenge fraught with severe retribution for anyone contemplating disaffection or apostasy.

In light of the above, the critical question becomes: In their haste to create ethnocultural mosaics, will cultural pluralists bring down Intercultural society before it can morph into a more inclusive version; one capable of integrating – perhaps even assimilating – open-minded generations of Québécois and non-Intercultural, migrant peoples who express a willingness to come on board, bringing with them reasonable injections of non-Judeo-Christian religions and non-Intercultural heritages to create all-encompassing versions of Interculturalism that could endure beyond divisive cultural mosaics?

In truth, it’s a challenge characterized by a prolonged, agonizing race between two plodding turtles heading in opposite directions to separate finish lines!

In the interim, we’ll explore ways and means to put both Multiculturalism and Civic Nationalism back on a more centrist track. At the moment, cultural pluralism can only result in half-integrated, half-divided, Canadian and American societies. And then only if the Islamic community relents in trying to embed its religious beliefs and cultural practices at the expense of Intercultural North America’s Judeo-Christian/secular ethics, liberal/democratic values and cultural traditions.

There’s no intention here of trying to spread alarm based on rumours; moreover, there’s no attempt to distort fact into fantasy; the existing evidence plainly speaks for itself. However, there’s much about our evolving societies to concern Intercultural Canadians and Americans, plus French Quebeckers on the one hand, and Third World immigrant minorities on the other.

Nor is there any intent to conspire by making a demoniac scapegoat of any particular ethnic community or its culture. If the focus happens to be on the Muslim minority in Canada and America, it’s because the unprecedented rise of Islam and radical Islamism in both countries, and the reaction to them on the part of other ethnic/sectarian groups, will almost certainly determine the evolutionary course of these two North American societies.

In conclusion, under the umbrella of cultural pluralism, political initiatives are being taken in Canada and America that are, perhaps, going too far in transforming the traditional cultural heritages of these two nations. Is the quest to accommodate the ultra-religiosity and deeply embedded cultural heritage of the Muslim minority, in particular, proceeding at the irrevocable expense of those moral principles, liberal/democratic values, and cultural traditions that make up the ways of life of North America’s Intercultural societies and its Québécois community?

Chapter I: WASP/European/Eurasian Migration Spawns Flawed Intercultural Societies

Ever asked who looks, dresses, thinks and acts more or less like an American, but isn’t an American? The answer: a Canadian!

Despite this old cliché, one introspective assessment by dyed-in-the-wool Canadians is simply that they aren’t Americans. Indeed, since the 1960s Canadians have gone to great lengths to differentiate themselves from their neighbours to the south. They point to differing attitudes toward firearms and gun control, labelling Americans as ‘gun crazy.’ They distinguish between a more responsive Canadian approach to atmospheric pollution, global warming, and the exploitation of unsustainable natural resources versus perceived predatory American attitudes.

They argue the superiority of a Canadian parliamentary system dedicated to ‘peace order, and good government’ over a U.S. congressional system dedicated to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ And they deeply suspect the viability of an American ‘military/industrial complex’ that appears to drive a self-indulgent U.S. foreign policy characterized by unilateral intervention in the affairs of other countries. Canadians like to think they pursue a policy of mutual cooperation with the global community, relying on the negotiating forum of the United Nations (UN) and international financial, economic, environmental, scientific and health-care organizations to resolve thorny issues that have to be faced throughout the world.

Moreover, young adults, plus a sprinkling of middle-agers and seniors, pride themselves in helping weave a Multicultural Canadian mosaic that they believe works better than an Intercultural society with British/European/Eurasian/Jewish/Black/Oriental antecedents co-existing alongside a Monocultural society with French roots. And they tout this Canadian mosaic as the preferred alternative to an Intercultural American ‘Melting Pot’ that they’re convinced no longer works – if it ever did.

Indeed, most Intercultural Canadians and Monocultural Quebeckers of all ages would disagree that Americans inhabit the greatest country on earth. They’re joined in this belief by Third World newcomers and their descendants. Canadians smugly reserve that exalted station for themselves in a virtue-signalling conviction that a willingness to welcome migrants of any stripe – especially refugees seeking asylum – under the all-inclusive umbrella of Multicultural diversity constitutes Canada’s strength as a nation and its foremost contribution to the global community.

But there’s another perspective – a different one founded on factual historical evolution.

Thanks to the assimilation of successive waves of migrants from Britain, continental Europe and Eurasia, the U.S. and Canada both forged vibrant yet flawed Intercultural societies that evolved concurrently over time through intermarriage; a practice continued by successive generations of their descendants to this day. These two neighbouring societies developed similar blended cultures and created nearly twin national identities.

Notwithstanding the presence of a large French populace that was inherited after the fall of New France, immigration from Britain in the late 18th century, boosted by the emigration of United Empire Loyalists from the ex-Thirteen Colonies, set the stage for the evolution of Canada’s Intercultural society. Because they were the first non-French inhabitants to settle here, Protestant Englishmen, Welshmen, Scots and Irish from Britain and the ex-Thirteen American Colonies established their traditional Westminster political system, their Protestant Ethic, plus their cultural traditions and customs, adapting them to British North America’s variegated geographic regions.

The Old-World heritage they brought with them included: parliamentary democracy, political representation by population, British Common Law, and fealty to both the Anglican Churches of England and Ireland, and to the Scottish Presbyterian Church. With them, too, came the Irish-Scottish Orange Order and Freemasonry. An extended clique of merchants and landed gentry governed an informal hierarchy of socioeconomic classes – one that tried to emulate the formal British system with its tiered socioeconomic order under an oligarchy of titled aristocracy and landed gentry.

The descendants of these early British settlers intermarried and, through a gradual winnowing process, blended key elements of their respective Old-World cultural heritages into a uniquely Canadian one, injecting their traditions of dress, culinary arts, medicinal practices, songs and dances, theater and other customs into an evolving cultural mélange. This vibrant, ongoing, ethnic and cultural meld, supplemented by contributions from an early fringe of continental Europeans, formed the foundation of Canada’s original WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) society and defined the first iteration of its unique national identity.

Less-relevant cultural elements were either internalized within the respective ethnic groups, themselves, or put aside but not forgotten; for example, the Welsh and Gaelic languages were displaced by the official use of English, and relegated to informal use at personal discretion.

It can be fairly argued that the historical American experience largely mirrored its Canadian counterpart. Originally, the ethnic identity of the Thirteen Colonies was forged from the same British ancestral roots and tempered in the same way by generations of intermarriage among Protestants from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, with a sprinkling of Germanic and Scandinavian peoples from continental Europe.

Among other changes made after the American Revolution, British parliamentary democracy was modified to a not-dissimilar congressional system which American founding fathers reckoned was more congenial to New-World circumstances. The Churches of England and Ireland became the American Episcopal Church, and Protestantism continued to reign supreme. Diligence in applying the Protestant work ethic in a largely agrarian but industrializing American socioeconomic order was the hallmark that mirrored – indeed, preceded – its Canadian counterpart. The British class system was especially parodied in the anti-bellum South with its plantation hierarchy of tenant farmers and slaves under a pseudo-aristocratic landed yeomanry.

Throughout the U.S. a not-dissimilar system of cultural traditions and social customs to Canadian ones evolved accordingly.

Subsequently, both Canada and America underwent concurrent phases of a near-identical ethnic and cultural melding process that continued to evolve down to the present day.

During the first phase, the WASP core identity and culture were further refined and reinforced in both countries through intermarriage with more waves of migrants from Britain. New immigrants from Northwestern Europe – mostly Protestants – modified these core characteristics by introducing a cultural heritage of their own into the mix.

Beginning in the early 19th century, Irish and Scottish Presbyterians immigrated to Canada and the U.S. in significant numbers, where they were joined by a growing trickle of Scandinavian and Germanic peoples. In Canada they settled mostly in Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and the Maritimes; in America they settled in the Northeast and Midwest. As Protestants, these newcomers and their families already had much in common, culturally speaking, with Canada’s and America’s WASP societies; so, it was relatively easy for them to assimilate.

Successive generations of intermarriage between their descendants and those of the original Anglo settlers, grafted onto fledgling Canadian and American societies new cultural components that began to dilute the original commonalities shared by both British North Americans and Americans. These two traditional WASP societies thereby evolved into parallel, blended British and Northwestern European ones.

The second phase began toward the middle third of the 19th century with the westward expansion of both America and Canada into the continental interior. Coupled to this outward thrust were political flare-ups that plagued much of Europe, plus the potato famine that spread over Ireland, both of which spurred new waves of immigration. Catholic Irish were joined by the first significant numbers of Central- and Southern-European Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish worshippers.

The third phase took place between the latter third of the 19th century and WWI. During this period, another influx of Catholics – mostly Irish and Italian – was accompanied by more Hebrews. Their path to integration and then assimilation into mainstream Protestant society was to prove long and arduous but, through diligence, hard work, and an acquisition of financial acumen, they made steady inroads economically, thereby transforming Canada and America into truer Intercultural societies that benefitted from their ethnocultural contributions.

The fourth phase of this Intercultural transformation occurred in the interwar years and in the post-WWII era with the arrival of more Eurasian immigrants, including, eventually, migrants from a dissolving Soviet bloc. Their path toward integration, then assimilation, had already been blazed and made easier by previous waves of similar newcomers. With the gradual entry of this latest bloc into mainstream society, and its contribution to a common culture, North America’s Intercultural evolution was nearly complete.

To arrive at the fifth and final phase, it remained for the original French, Hispanic, Black African and Oriental inhabitants to achieve a greater measure of assimilation between the end of WWII and the 1960s. In Canada after WWII, Blacks and Orientals began to integrate then assimilate more easily, but ever so slowly.

While most of Canada’s French community remained voluntarily separate, it managed to eke out a modus vivendi with the nation’s evolving Intercultural society. In the U.S. by the last third of the 20th century, hitherto ghettoized French Cajuns, Hispanics and Black Africans had also begun to be absorbed by that nation’s mainstream society, launching a last, nearly all-inclusive, phase of Interculturalism.

Thus, down to the mid-20th century, both Canadians and Americans proclaimed their societies were egalitarian, liberal and democratic; open to individuals from all ethnic, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds; where anyone with drive could work hard to achieve financial success, ethnic acceptance and social respect.

To summarize, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, all manner of British, European and Eurasian immigrants contributed the more adaptive elements of their own cultural heritages to further enrich an original WASPish blend of parallel Canadian and American Intercultural traditions. For instance, Italian, Greek, German, Oriental and South Asian cuisines became mainstays of Canada’s and America’s culinary fares. The overall result in both nations was an evolving continuum of similar political attitudes, economic endeavors, cultural traits and social behaviour.

Withal, in each country these newcomers took care to preserve the remaining elements of their own cultural heritages (their mother tongues, their quaint dress, folk music, certain culinary arts, and unique medicinal practices) which they passed on clandestinely to their descendants; that is, these traditions were internalized and practised within each ethnic community. Thus, beneath an outward manifestation of Canadian or American commonalities, ethnic minorities covertly proceeded to nurture the full spectrum of their own Old-World heritages.

Through the practical workings of the melting-pot concept in both countries, the two respective Intercultural societies that emerged – increasingly comprised of descendant generations who were born in-country. These projected successive iterations of Canadian and American ethnocultural commonalities and national identities that featured an uncanny resemblance in shared, historically evolved Christian ethics, liberal/democratic values, a capitalistic work ethic, and common cultural traditions.

Far from stagnant, ethnocultural mixing is still a dynamic, vibrant, expansive blending process that now includes Brits, continental Europeans, Eurasians, Jews, Blacks, and Orientals in two Intercultural populaces. It’s the manifestation of an ongoing inclination among like-minded ethnic groups to intermarry and meld their respective cultural heritages to create something new and better; an inclination that has even begun to pervade to a minor extent, insofar as the French and Irish are concerned, the Québécois community.

By way of illustration, the writer’s wife aptly describes herself as a product of Intercultural evolution. She can trace Protestant ancestors on both sides of her family who migrated from Britain, Germany, the Orkney Islands and the U.S. Midwest. Thus, her family on both sides has been Intercultural Canadian (English/Scottish/Scandinavian/German) for several generations. Or, as she puts it: By descent I’m a ‘Heinz 57’ blend, but after several generations of familial evolution, I consider my identity, my values and my beliefs to be pure, unadulterated Canadian. And our children have a mixed bloodline that includes British, French, German, and Scandinavian forbearers. But they, too, regard themselves simply as Canadians.

Hence, Canadians and their national identity can, perhaps, be defined as follows:

Canadians are mostly citizens of a single, Intercultural mix whose ethnic forbearers created via generations of intermarriage a predominantly blended society within the geopolitical boundaries of Canada. They share a common system of liberal/democratic values; pursue a variegated, capitalistic way of life; and are organized socially in a vertically-structured, class society differentiated by personal status measured in terms of education, career, wealth and power.

These citizens live in a parliamentary democracy characterized by peace, order and good government. They publically share a single national identity while covertly preserving their Old World heritages within their own ethnocultural communities. Most are Christians; many are Hebrews; a growing number are secularists; others practise a variety of minor religions.

Citizens of French descent, Indigenous peoples, Anabaptist sects, plus peoples from the Third World, comprise individual blocs of Canadians who, mostly out of choice, cultivate their own Monocultural heritages. They share selectively in the ethics, values and traditions of the nation’s Intercultural majority with whom they co-exist. But, although they publically affirm a ‘Canadian’ identity, they think more in terms of ‘adjectival’ Canadian identities, such as French Canadian, Native Canadian and Muslim Canadian, and most consider being Canadian subservient to being preeminently French, Native or Muslim.

This definition is, of necessity, a convoluted one because it depicts the current state of Canadian society; any Intercultural definition of an American identity would be equally cumbersome. In either case, it’s a multi-faceted description that reflects the partial implementation of an alleged all-embracing inclusivity through the practical, if selective, application of Interculturalism. Having summarized the upside of the Intercultural ethos in the evolution of Canada and the U.S. down to the mid-20th century, we next look more closely at its flawed downside: its real lack of all-inclusiveness.

Let’s begin by defining the successive generations of Canadians and Americans that interact today in both societies. ‘War Babies’ were born between 1939 and 1945; ‘Baby Boomers’ were born between 1946 and 1965; ‘Generation X’ (GenX) was born between 1966 and 1980; ‘Millennials’ were