1. But I did say we have a national identity. It is recognized in our being welcoming and accepting.
That's it? Not saying those aren't aspects of our culture. Particularly how we are far, far too accepting of everything, especially the failings of out government and economic system. But there's more to us than that.
Intellectually, it makes sense for us to "push" or let's say "promote" diversity because the goals of promoting a national culture are to do what is right for the time.
There are a couple of issues with this. The first is that we need to have a national identity to bring us to together and make us feel as though we have some kind of tenuous relationship with our fellow citizens - or why else should so many of us consent to having our money taxed away to pay for benefits going to others? Another is that in order to integrate all these foreigners coming in as immigrants we need to be able to present to them a body to join, a group, a people they might seek to emulate. Then there's the sociological fact that a people without any kind of shared history or vision aren't a people, and will shatter into disparate elements at the first rough spot on the road.
For Canada to thrive, we have to be open to attracting talent and growing so diversity is the way IMO.
Lots of countries thrive and have thrived for centuries with little or no immigration or diversity. Canada's level of diversity is extraordinary among western countries and I haven't noticed this has made us superior rivals to our peers.
If you think of culture as old guys in Tartan skirts, well guess what - culture dies.
Not if it's the agreed culture of a people and not something foisted upon them. Men don't wear kilts in this country but Scottish Canadians I know retain much of the awareness and pride in the history of their people. Are we teaching Canadians pride in the history of THIS country? I don't think so.
And nobody's culture dies quicker than that of the landed immigrant.
Says who? Historically, perhaps, when all our immigrants were from Europe and the great majority from the British Isles integration happened quickly. Especially since we had little tolerance for anything else. But we're in a new era. The opening up of immigration to the third world forty or so years or so ago changed the narrative and we just don't know if people with hugely different cultural and religious values will ever fully integrate. Lots of Chinese never have. Nor do we pressure them like we would have, being far more willing to accommodate their different values and views. The federal government launched a great national experiment forty years or so ago without ever asking the Canadian people, and we have no idea how it's going to turn out.
You can think of it as a trade off: they will not think of themselves as Indian or Pakistani anymore, but we will have more Canadians and more unity and cohesion.
That's is not the way it's looking, especially with the progressive determination to separate everyone into different tribes, races and groups and the politicians playing along so as to target various ethnic groups for votes and donations.
3. People never knew much about our history, even before immigration turned up a notch.
But we did have a shared sense of our history, our values and who were were as a people. And btw, immigration went from about 75k in Pierre's time to 400k now and still rising. That's not a 'notch'.
And this statement: "f you want people to feel united then nurture a national identity/culture where everyone feels they belong." seems to be a slogan for promoting diversity.
Only if it's to feel they belong to a single body, not as a separate tribe that's part of a loose federation of some sort.