Very similar results, too.

It is not the same arguement at all. Here those who violently killed and stole land are now the majority and rule over everyone else. They not only murdered the initial inhabitants and stole their land, but they to this day rule that land and mistreat and oppress the original inhabitants.

When Muslims came to India, they did not kill off all the Hindus. Sure they ruled over them for a few hundred years, but they were never the majority, they did not put Hindus on reserves, and they do not rule the country today and oppress the Hindus. No doubt, there was violence that occurred but the situation in India was vastly different than what happened here. You cannot compare the two.

The actions of Hindu nationalists are closer to those of the KKK or white supremacists – the majority terrorizing the minority. Not the oppressed fighting against oppression.

Recognizing that Canada was created via violent means and that those who stole this land and killed its original inhabitants are now ruling and continue to oppress those they stole the land from, puts things in perspective. Those who gained this land via such horrific means should not be feeling as entitled to this land as they do.

And as Krista has said, no one is denying that English-Canadian culture or French culture do not exist. But these cultures should not be designated as the only Canadian cultures. And as Krista has said, South Asians and Chinese people, as well as Arabs have been in Canada for over 100 years now. When will our cultures be considered Canadian?

true, you didn’t mention the state. but canadian cultures (which is what we were discussing) are deeply related to state institutions and apparatuses and mechanisms.

i didn’t capitalize /anything/ (long story there) in my previous comment, so i don’t think that’s a fair bone to pick.
‘anglocanadian’ parallels ‘anglo-american’. neither word carries negative connotations.
being ‘respectful’ toward anglocanadian culture also means being responsible in how we relate to it. i don’t see how we’re being responsible – or respecting it, for that matter – if we celebrate it as being open and inclusive and ignore its past and present history of colonization and cultural imperialism.

Yes, mixing happens everywhere. The English-Irish mixing in the British Isles and the consequent troubles is a hallmark of that part of the world.

In the same way, the Vancouver-based band Delhi2Dublin, with its Bhangra/Celtin mix and Fiddle/Dhol instrumentation is typically Canadian . You don’t see that mix in California or Caracas.

Mixing happens everywhere, and when it happens, new hybrid, local cultures are created, including local names. Mario Lemieux is a Quebec name, and product of the isolation and mixing of cultures in the lower St.Lawrence. The fact that, on the opposite side of the world, Daniel Cohn-Bendit is also a product of a cultural fusion (French-German-Jewish) in no way makes “Super” Mario less of a uniquely local mix.

Krista also wrote
particularly since, as some of the others have pointed out, their very presence here is based on violence against and oppression of this land’s original inhabitants.

This is the third time this argument has been made on this thread, and I’m suprised. It’s exactly the same argument used by Hindutva activists when they resitrict the rights of Indian Muslims and, in the extreme case, burn Muslims alive.

The Quwat-ul-Islam mosque, made from destoyed Hindu temples, doesn’t justify the Gujurat Pogrom, or render Indian Muslim culture less Indian. In the same way, the numbered treaties and residential schools system does not delegitmate English-Canadian culture.

On another note, no one is denying the existence, or even the prominence, of English-Canadian or French-Canadian cultures. I do, however, take issue with the suggestion that these cultures should be defined as the only legitimate (or the most legitimate) “Canadian” cultures, particularly since, as some of the others have pointed out, their very presence here is based on violence against and oppression of this land’s original inhabitants.

Also, the idea of English and French cultures being the only ones with long histories in Canada ignores the long presence of, for example, Chinese and South Asian Canadians, communities that have been present in Canada for over 100 years.

John MacDonald are not rooted in Canadian history any more than your name. These names are the names of colonizers.

Sobia, Canada is a colonial settler state. The society my parents immigrated to was not Mohawk or Tsuu Tina, it was English Canadian. I spend time in Tynedinaga M.T., but they and I both agree that I’m not part of their society.

Canadian society, up to about 1950, is a society of colonizers, (which only made room for aboriginals as assimilated individuals, not as a separate nations). Scott MacDonald is a name more typical of that colonial society than Fakhr Bhatt, and I respect that.

(Again, Scott McDonald, like Mario Lemieux, are not typical European names. Please don’t try to deny the existance of English-Canadian or French-Canadian culture in North America. It’s insulting.)

The only real Canadian names are indigenous names

This is the sort of thinking used by white South Africans during apartheid to justify the dispossession of African (Bantu-speaking) South Africans. They argued that only Khoisan people were “real” South Africans, and everyone else was equally an immigrant.

I don’t think its productive to focus on what groups are truly Canadian and what is a ‘recent’ arrival. That’s the direction ot Israeli-Palestinian debate has taken (go back to 1948? 1880? 300 AD? Moses?) and the direction France has taken (defining non-white Frenchmen as second or third generation “immigrants”!).

Instead, I think it’s better to recognize that societies, cultures, and identies can all form very quickly, and age of a society is not a measure of its legitimacy.

Biqbal wrote:

we need to recognize it for an imperial, colonizing force that wreaked (and continues to wreak) incredible havoc

If you want to see it is a force of “incredible havoc” go ahead. My own view is that it was, and is, an open, accepting, and adaptive society. Either way, I think we both recognize it’s existance and accept its right to exist.

but anglocanadian culture isn’t how the state self-represents

If you re-read my comment, you’ll find I make no mention of the “state”. I’m not sure who you are responding to.

Also, this may only be a typo, but the usual, respectful term is “English-Canadian” or, “Scottish-Canadian”. anglocanadian, (not capitalized) verges on a Mark Steyn-type ethnic slur (e.g. muzzie for Muslim, etc).