Over the past few hours members of the Tamil community in Toronto blocked one of the main highways connecting downtown with the rest of the city. While I won’t claim any knowledge whatsoever of the situation in Sri Lanka, these demonstrations have me reading as much as I can about the current situation. I thought that was the least I could do, realizing that I live in the same city as 200,000 of them, according to MSNBC.
The protesters had been taking the streets of Toronto at least since January, in most cases in a very organized fashion. Perhaps too organized since I barely noticed them before. But only events like this one get the attention of the masses and quickly echo through the news, blogosphere and twitter-verse, generating an overwhelming voice difficult to ignore. The tools of civil disobedience seemed to have produced the results they were hoping for: attention.
As I got involved into the various streams of people commenting about the event, I realized there were two kinds of people participating in the online debate: the pervasive anonymous comment condemning the act and manifesting hatred for blocking a highway and the opinionated intellectual that has taken a position (for/against) the protests. This got me thinking about the role of a multicultural city like Toronto in the world scene.
Toronto is a diverse city. Over 50% of its inhabitants come from another country. What should the role of a metropolis like this one be in the international context? Is multiculturalism only a marketing tactic to attract more people or should it be a baseline for policy making and government action? On days like today, it feels like no one is prepared to see the big picture, yet I believe that the next few months will see a myriad of causes take the stage as minority groups face the consequences of the current crisis.
In a world that is posed to see radical changes over the next few months, flexing our participatory muscles should not be taken lightly. I’ve always believed that Toronto is among a very small group of cities that model what the future will bring us: a diverse population happily integrated into one very prosper society. Figuring out what our role is in events like this one must be a priority. For now, it seems that our civil role is to amplify the voice of these movements. I say that is good thing. But I suspect this is only the beginning.
Prof. Mike Madison has published his Manifesto for a New Pittsburgh, recognizing above all that in an era of hyper-connectivity there are plenty of resources that cities must take advantage of in order to leverage the influence they have on other regions by means of their fellow citizens who have migrated.
In the 21st century, connectivity is key and king, and in that connected world, Pittsburgh has a unique asset, which we call the Pittsburgh diaspora: the thousands of people who live around the world yet who still identify closely with the Steel City. They grew up in Pittsburgh, worked in Pittsburgh, or have family in Pittsburgh. By identifying with Pittsburgh they energize it emotionally. We believe that it is possible to translate that emotional energy into economic energy. Pittsburgh can, should, and must recapture and benefit from the intellectual, economic, and cultural capital associated with the Pittsburgh diaspora. That capital is distributed geographically, but it can be invested locally.
In tone with my previous post big city, in which I wrote about how world change must start by focusing on big cities, the effort from Prof. Madison will likely lead to widespread change with roots in the Pittsburgh local scene, but impact well beyond it.
One piece of feedback I would offer to the Manifesto is that to talk about all the dependencies that Pittsburgh has on other cities, regions or countries has a negative connotation, almost of abandonment to the will of others. I believe it is much more productive to use the balancing force: influence. Influence that is exercised through the thousands of connected citizens that have a position of power in those regions. In a globalized world, it is true that every city depends on others, just as much as each city has influence on others. The main difference is that we can do a lot more with the latter.
A few additional observations on the principles stated by the Manifesto:
- Connect and reconnect with the virtual Pittsburgh: this principle acknowledge that we live in a global society and that to be a citizen of a city doesn’t require to live in it. Those who have ties to the city can very well participate in its development.
- Bring new resources to the region: in my opinion, to be connected to a city implies that you’re either producing or consuming resources from it. Either way this second principle is a consequence of the first one and I don’t believe it must stand on its own.
- Energize Pittsburgh’s culture and community: the very elusive concept of culture makes an appareance here and we should be careful to understand its deep implications. Every city should have a personality of its own, a distinctive mark by which its citizens feel part of the community and no other one. Deeply engrained into their cultural learning are the codes that make the ties permanent, regardless of how far they go. Surfacing these cultural codes or values is in my opinion what “energizing” means in this context.
- Listen for new voices: meaningful change is coming from citizens that had not been engaged in the political life of a city. It is them who understand the dynamics of this new global reality and master the various technologies that would allow for the virtual city to connect. I would add that if looking for new voices, there is a very well defined group of global citizens that posses the insight needed to drive this type of change.
- Change the face of Pittsburgh: I applaud the recognition that new global cities must be inclusive of all immigrants, as they are agents of change for their respective cities and will lead to valuable opportunities.
- Build on the best of Pittsburgh’s past: Our past is part of our culture. I don’t see how this principle is different from #3.
- Recognize the geopolitics of the neighborhood: that is to say assume that all neighborhoods are now global.
- One more principle I believe should be included is the realization that changing a city is the same as changing the world. By focusing our energies into developing all the other principles within the context of a particular city, we are also allowing for change to propagate throughout the world.
The relevance of this manifesto is already being appreciated by others such as another hundred years hence and CEOs for Cities.
Via Burgh Diaspora
An article entitled East Meets West published recently at The National Interest online promised some insights into the current evolution of cultural transfer between China and America. Instead it turned out to be an exhaustive analysis of the coming of age of India as a decisive factor in balancing the power of China. While I’m not an expert on the matters exposed, I found a quote that presents the inevitable scenario of our century:
As far ahead as one can imagine, India and China will provide the two great diasporas of the world. The Chinese diaspora is culturally loyal to Chinese civilization but often has very little regard for the dictatorship that runs the homeland. By contrast, democracy is at the very core of India’s national being. India’s emergence as a strategic equal of China is a good thing for the world, so long as New Delhi and Beijing manage their inevitable competition effectively.
We can continue debating how much influence American culture has on the rest of the world, but soon the cultural hegemony will be exercised by the two most populated countries as they launch millions of nationals in an attempt to grow economies that can support their size.
Thanks to Jorge @ Catenary for rescuing the Worldmapper from the archive of “lost & found” items. While the whole set of maps sheds a brilliant view of our real world, the following two maps provide a visual representation to the metaphor “the South has set itself up in the very heart of the North!” coined by Marco @ Insurgelicious and mentioned in the previous post misunderstanding globalization.
Just take a look at how the countries in the Northern hemisphere are bloated as a result of the net immigration:
 while the countries in the Southern hemisphere are desperately loosing their population as a result of the net emigration:
I know we have frequent visitors from countries such as India, Mexico, China, Singapore, Argentina, South Africa, Pakistan, Philippines, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, El Salvador & Brazil. If you care to leave a comment on how emigration from these countries to the North is perceived, I’m sure we’ll find some recurring themes.
Reading about the British-born terrorists which plot was discovered recently, and remembering how in Toronto 17 youngsters, Canadian born and raised, were planning to behead Stephen Harper, the question of multiculturalism acquires new relevance. We can define multiculturalism as how well a society will receive the different cultures that form the threads of its fabric. The other definition is how well people from different cultures can adapt to the new environment they chose to live in.
Reading Pewglobal you can discover that some groups still have more ties to their original culture than to the adopted one. Muslims in the Western world, born and raised here, still think that they are first Muslims, then British or Canadians. Other example from my own experience is that Italian-Canadian in Woodbridge, Ontario, who have never been to Italy, speak Italian or have any knowledge of Italian history, call themselves Italians and in some cases will cheer Italian teams over Canadian‚Äôs. Chinese diaspora in Markham, On. don‚Äôt bother with learning English and they live all their existence in the safe surrounding of their own. Read “No place like home” from Neil Bissoondath in the New Internationalist for more on the disfunctional relationship between immigrants and the current multicultural policy.
I am guilty of prefering Mexican-raised friends over others. We may keep a strong tie to our original culture, but we have to remember that nobody forced us to migrate (even refugees have options where to go, in some cases) and that we should adapt to our new home.
In our western societies people from all over the world can live with certain degree of respect for each other. The minority groups are accepted or at least tolerated. The same liberty is sometimes missed in our countries of origin. In the Muslim, Latin American and other regions, tolerance to other cultures is less lenient. Being non-Muslim in Middle East is very uncomfortable at best. In Montreal, Radio Maghreb à Montréal (CPAM Radio Union 1610 AM) conducted a poll asking if Algeria should pursue a policy of accepting people from different religion than theirs. The results were that the majority of the callers declared that Algeria should remain a pure Muslim country, denying to the prospect immigrant to Algeria the same liberty that they enjoy in Canada. This may be a red alert that cultural assimilation is not taking place. Reaction against our chosen home culture is what may produce these western-born terrorist.
We can see how two different cultures react: When Sikh men refused to wear the Stetson hat that characterizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, they were granted permit to not use it, demonstrating how adaptive the Canadian culture is by accepting that Sikh join the RCMP using turbans. This is an example of foreigns not accepting local traditions but locals accepting foreigners.
Why people come to a country if they cannot accept the local customs? Multiculturalism should be a two-way street. The hosts to foreign cultures have to accept the contribution from abroad, but people coming to a new environment have to realize that they are vowing to change their life style and they need to embrace, at least to some degree, the ways of their new home. Every time that I cross the border, the customs official greets me with a ‚ÄòWelcome Home‚Äô. It’s about time we all feel at home.
Note from the editor: this is a contribution by another blogger. If you have something to say, this space is yours. Check the guidelines to participate.
Lebanon. A 7 year old girl holds her little brother from the hand while they board the ship that will separate them from their mom forever. She barely knows life herself and doesn’t understand why she must part ways with her loved ones, but is now responsible for the destiny of her little family. Her instructions are simple: go to America, find your uncle. CIRCA 1897.
While historic accounts of the lebanese society of those days are scarce and often lost in the accounts of the Ottoman Empire, it is not difficult to imagine how a humble family from the mountains would’ve been easy to impress given the growing European influence from the previous three decades (after the Sectarian conflict in 1860). Likely as part of this influence, the news about “America” and its industrial prosperity after the Civil War would’ve given enough amunition to the unmarried uncle to venture in search of fortune (those were the days of the Gold Rush in the U.S.), perhaps obeying some ancient phoenician instinct to cross the sea.
Years later, news would arrive from “America” telling tales of modern life and fortune. The mother of our little girl would, in her own ignorance, send her two youngest abroad, following the steps of their uncle, in hope that they would too have a good life. Maybe a certain decadence in the air was telling her of the coming troubling years (rise of nationalism within the Ottoman Empire).
The journey aboard this ship is, of course, undocumented, but we know that they stopped in some European city, most likely Barcelona because when the little lebanese girl asked to be taken to “America” the best the Spanish could do was to put her and her brother on a ship to the port of Veracruz, Mexico. In Spanish “America” is mostly used to denote the continent, not the U.S. On the other hand they were lucky to be adopted by a caring family, so by the time they ended up in Mexico City, after several months of slow integration to the Mexican society and futile attempts to find their uncle, their destiny was sealed.
The little brother would marry within his adoptive family. She would go on to have a normal life and marry a Lebanese much older than her. Their cultural heritage would persist through the next three generations and after that it remains to be seen.
They eventually found their uncle, many decades after they were supposed to.
Lebanese are a fairly influential community in Mexico and the United States (see Lebanese-Americans). Perhaps they have a natural instinct for business. Perhaps they had nothing to loose having left behind their land and families. The reasons why they left their country are no longer important. They were thrown into an unknown land and had to make a living. In the process, they changed everything around them, and everything around them changed them.
Social Networks. If you’re reading blogs you probably have heard of them. The furor around the media would seem to indicate that they are about the revolutionize the ways of societies. They are correct, except their observation is a few decades late. In fact, the social networks I’m interested in don’t even need the Web.
While reading “The Immigration Equation” by Roger Lowenstein published in The New York Times Magazine calls for many comments to be made, its central argument around the economics of immigration is probably a much better target for other blogs with a political agenda. However, there were a number of hard facts that I found very interesting to be discussed here.
As recently as 1970, the U.S. had fewer than one million Mexicans, almost all of them in Texas and California. The U.S. did bring Mexican braceros to work on farms during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s. The program was terminated in 1964, and immigration officials immediately noticed a sharp rise in illicit border crossings [...] there was a catalytic effect – so many Mexicans settled [in the U.S.] that it became easier for more Mexicans to follow [...] with 12 million people born in Mexico now dispersed around the U.S., information about job-market conditions filters back to Mexico with remarkable speed.
You have to be impressed with the fact that this social network is capable of recruiting over half a million immigrants per year in a way that most of them will be able to make a living for a good season. Some of them will migrate with the intention of staying, but the majority will only commit to a short season with the objective of making some money that they can send home. One needs only to look at the statistics around remittances to Mexico to confirm this fact. The general pattern of migration is consistent with my previous observation about the types of migrants: explorers & itinerats. With the vast majority of immigration today being of the second type.
Even more interesting is the demographic composition of the network. Judging by their average income ($22,300 compared to $37,000 of all immigrants) we can assume that they are typically under educated. A day in L.A. will be sufficient to confirm that most low-income jobs are being done by Mexicans. And even then, their current earnings are probably much better of what they could aspire to make back home, which brings me to the key point: they are mostly computer illiterate. And yet, they are capable of running such an efficient social network. They rely on weekly phone calls made to their homes in Mexico, to their families spreading the word around town about the journeys of those up north and a nothing-to-lose attitude of those who are new to the network.
The main argument to be made is that for a social network to be efficient, it must rely not on technology but on cultural predisposition. Mexicans have a strong culture of bonding, often through very large and extended families, but also among neighbors. It’s a characteristic cultural behavior that has shaped this race for ages and will influence the way our societies evolve.
|
|
|
Most Popular