At the risk of being terribly offensive
 

I present this article: German Chancellor Claims Multiculteralism has "Utterly-Failed."

There are a lot of very obvious comments I could make (like, say, maybe she should read the history of her own country?) But I mostly just wanted to bring it up.

Look, people of the world, as the globe gets smaller through faster transportation and better communication, multiculturalism will happen. It is not a choice we get to make, it is not something we can wish away, it is not something we can object to. It simply is going to happen. Nothing short of rounding up the "offenders" and putting them in "camps" is going to give you a "final solution" (oh sorry, was that going too far? My mistake.)

The only thing that is to be done is for us, as people, to figure out how best to deal with our differences. Rise above difference, heck, put difference to use! Our diversity is an advantage, not a hindrance! Whether we like it or not, we are all human, we are all part of the same group. And a house divided against itself cannot stand.

PS -- My wife and I talked further on this subject and she pointed out that Merkels main point had to do with language differences between Germans and immigrants. I suppose the "Christian Values" comment wasn't quite as important (it's what got me a bit worried to begin with). I'm not completely sure about how to weigh this one out though. Anyone from the area with an opinion, I'd appreciate some insight.

Hopefully this isn't Hitler, and I'm praying about this.

If it's just language difference, then teach the language. If it's actual culture, multiculturalism has to grow, you know what I'm saying? If it's "utterly failed" as the chancellor says, something's said wrong.

Multiculturalism is allowing several people with different backgrounds, and tolerate/respect each other, while living in one area. It is not submitting to one particular culture and having one culture dogmatically taught. It is coexistence and respect for each other (e.g. learning each other's cultural values).

In Britain, we are seen as very multi-cultural. (Big cities, I'll grant you, but go out to Cornwall or the Highlands and they'll stare and point at the novelty of a different skin or foreign dress code.)

There is a very interesting document from the Middle Ages in London, when one of the city guilds complains about all the foreigners living south of the river. "They live with many families packed into one house, and stink. Their sons are born in England, but they give no allegiance. They are taking away work from Englishmen." And these were Flemish.

The earliest use of the word "Scum" to describe immigrants is from the 17th century, about Huguenots in Shoreditch.

It's worth pointing out that Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived happily together in the Holy Land before the Crusades; and also in Spain before Torquemada's Inquisition.

I'll perhaps agree with Merkel on language: the local government and hospitals in the UK have all their leaflets and forms in about 12 different languages. Go to France: they're only in French. Go to Italy: they're only in Italian. By all means have your own culture and language at home and in specialist schools: but you should be expected to speak and interact with others in a common tongue.

When considering multiculturalism, it's good to look at the alternative.

There is of course one country where immigrants are schooled to become good citizens by conforming to the national ideals. Certain moral behaviours are considered to be a part of the fabric of the state, and children are made to recite a creed of belief in the sanctity of the nation every morning.
I have always found the idea of things being "un-American" at odds with the notion of "Freedom", supposedly held so dearly by this nation. This conformity is also curious as the country is entirely peopled by immigrants. (This is probably going to get a lot of flame, as criticism of the USA often seems to be taboo, whereas most other countries are happy to slag off their leaders or institutions.)

One problem is when someone else's culture includes things which you find objectionable, such as honour killings, Marching Season in Belfast, female circumcision, etc. That is where the State has to say "on our turf, you don't do that". But that can be seen as a restriction on their rights and culture. The examples given are perhaps extreme, but there are some areas that are much more grey.

At the risk of being terribly offensive, I believe:

1. Most certainly every nation has the right to make the rules that those requesting citizenship must follow to gain said privileges.

2. Most certainly every nation has the right to make the laws its citizens must follow, whether they are in agreement with cultural norms of some cultures or not.

3. Most certainly every nation has the right to expel those who are in the nation illegally.

3. Requiring those requesting citizenship to pledge allegiance to that nation is a reasonable requirement, as is requiring them to learn the language and a little about the nation's history and values. If an immigrant is unwilling, they should not be allowed citizenship.

This is going to end badly, isn't it?:)

Seems benign enough.

True to an extent, and that's really what's at issues. Certainly a law requiring people to make an attempt at understanding the common language, and also the expectation that you live by a countries laws are understandable. But, I don't think it's right to discriminate based on religion or race. The extreme example being Hitler.

How far to push it is what's at issue, and I think Merkel has taken things to far. Not with her comments on language (which are debatable, but hey), but her insistence on vaguely defined "Christian Values" which seems to be a statement mainly made to discriminate against non-christians.

This ties into a larger debate on American immigration, but in principle I agree. I'd throw in "a nation should make it reasonably easy to immigrate" or perhaps "expulsion should be on case by case basis and should account for irregularities in each case", but that's just my personal feeling on the matter. When you get down to it, yes, any nation should be allowed to expel people who enter illegally.

It's interesting to me how big of a deal the language thing is. Personally I don't really care if they ever learn the main language. I would think it's to their advantage, but if they don't want to it seems to be more their problem than mine.

On the flip side, I think it's okay for a country to limit the number of languages they officially support. But you know what? If someone comes to America and wants to speak Finnish (or whatever) that's their right, who am I to tell them otherwise? Besides, they may still be a very productive member of society, so why complain? Just my thoughts...

Meh... I think your comments fit into the "reasonable points" section of this debate. If you'd said something like "we should expel all the non-Christians" I might have taken issue, but language is a very debatable area, so a little discussion on that matter won't end badly (so long as you're talking to me anyway...)

What a nation has the right to do and what they actually do are very different things. Having a common religion or race is not a particular concern of mine, rather I think the issue is, indeed, culture. It is not necessary that we all think, worship and speak alike. It is highly desirable that at some point all the various cultures meld into one (a combination of many?), though certainly there is always room for a little diversity.

I am one who has always supported teaching our children to say the Pledge of Allegiance and to learn about US history. Sure, it is indoctrination, but I think it is important our citizens understand who we are and how we got here (our values if you will) lest they fall prey to a different philosophy because they lack the knowledge to resist.

Yes. You've got to know at least how the US was made, or else you're going to be lost on July 4, Thanksgiving, Christmas, …

In the UK, any such pledge would be seen as a terrible infringement on civil liberties; as overbearing and repressive; and would be the sort of thing that the Right in the US complain about the Govt doing. We pretty much all feel embarrassed singing (or listening to) "God Save the Queen" (there are always people suggesting a new national anthem). The National Anthem is rarely played at sporting events, except at the national level.

I couldn't tell you what "British values" might be**; or whether I should aspire to them; or whether behaviour might be "un-British".

Whenever UK politicians try to talk about morality, it is nearly always received badly. They have mostly all learnt their lesson and never address morals now.

** Except for "Eight pints, a fight in the car park, and sex by the roadside.":D

I don't mean to go too far with US values.... I simply mean what is outlined in our constitution and bill of rights.... those things all US citizens should believe in. Specifically, the rights of the individual.

I've lived in the East, West and a number of places in between, including New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, California, etc. Even did a year in Japan. I've worked with and had friends who were black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Island Pacific, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, gay and straight. Even a Brit or two (military officer exchange program). People are just people and the core values are not really that different. Course, the Brits did talk a little funny. :)

I can assure all that cultural diversity is alive and well across the nation. We all seem to get along just fine, despite what we read in the newspaper..... which tends be outspoken advocates of this or that trying to grab a headline.

I went on holiday recently to Syria. The people were immensely friendly, and like everyone all over the world (apart from the politicians), just getting on with their lives: buying, selling, working, providing for their families.

Although part of the "axis of evil", with a president who has "inherited" power from his father: there are long-standing Christian and Jewish communities, and young women can wear either Gucci and Prada or more traditional dress, without problem.

Anyway, if you're looking for a good, unusual holiday, that might also challenge some preconceptions, I highly recommend it.

Personally I prefer cultural diversity. I studied cultural history (mostly Asian) in college and found some of the differences fascinating. It would be an absolute shame to lose any of that diversity, and I think the same holds true for any culture.

That being said, there are some core values that seem to be universal (like "don't kill" for example.) And perhaps that's what you refer to when you say we all have things in common. I would agree with that, and I do believe it's important to foster those sorts of commonalities because that's what keeps any society working. It's why most of those values are codified into laws.

But, I do object rather strongly to nationalism and patriotism. Both those systems are underlied by a very common belief, that your country is better than any other country in existence. This is a terrible belief for several reasons. The first of which is the fact that it often leads to wars (WWI & WWII) as well as standoffs (Cold War, current friction with China). Historically it has also lead to the "dumbing down" of a nation. In the 1600's, when China started running into major European cultures with increasing rapidity, they were of the opinion that they had little to learn from Europe because they were already the "superior" culture. Frankly, at the time they were, but this closed mindedness is one of the main reasons China eventually ended up in it's current state, struggling to catch up financially with the rest of the world. And while China is currently doing okay (more or less) I think, in hindsight, they would have rather avoided Mao and the massive civil wars that proceeded him.

The inability to admit to a countries inherent flaws is a weakness that almost always accompanies nationalism, and that's why I'm not a big fan of it. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, I'm grateful for my freedoms, but I don't have any sort of quasi-religious devotion to America, nor will I ever. I hope for cultural diversity and more opportunities to learn from others, which, circling back to my original post, is why I take issue with Merkels reference to not wanting to tolerate people who don't have "christian values."

The forthcoming extraterrestrial invasion will render all of this discussion moot.

Unless the asteroid hits first.

Or Mac OS X 10.7 is released.

;)

Cultural diversity is important. Think of a city as a restaurant: Toronto would be the Shanloon (Pembroke's Chinese restaurant), and Pembroke would be McDonald's; this is what diversity is!

I disagree. My forefathers left their home countries to form a new country with more opportunities. A country where a person's opportunities is more dependent on their efforts than whose house they were born into. I love my country but I have no desire to attack, invade, or otherwise try to conquer another country. To some extent I assume everyone feels that way about their own country or they would try to legally emigrate to one they did feel that way.

A person who doesn't take pride in their own house, doesn't maintain it and it will soon fall to ruin. The same is true about your country.

Multiculturalism isn't "natural"; by nature most people seek to live among those they perceive as like them and ghettos are as likely to form that way as they are because as "others" they are segregated. At the same time, Canada, the USA, and many European countries have birth rates that are substantially too low to sustain their populations so they import labor and encourage immigration.

Where will those immigrants go? To cities with significant populations like them. Friction then arises, because living in enclaves, immigrants can, to a surprising extent, preserve their own culture and language; shopping in stores run by their compatriots, attending churches preaching in their language, etc. Basically, the only changes they make in their lives are those required by their employment so they learn no more of the language than is necessary to find and keep work. At the same time, really high-end immigrants -- professionally trained folks -- find themselves facing all kinds of barriers to entry from the professional societies; in my view quite intentional, so immigrants are forced to lower echelons.

Why does friction arise? I live in an area of London that has an "enclave" of Hassidic Jews. They have their own shops, their own language, their own schools and churches, and are pretty much the extreme example of a culture preserved.

But they are ferried around by Bangladeshi taxi drivers; and there is no friction with locals of other ethnicities.

That would appear to be multiculturalism working.

Amazing, it's like you didn't read my post at all. I agree with everything you said.

My objection is to crossing "the line" between loving ones country and being fanatically devoted to it. And I hear you ask, "where is that line exactly?" Beats me. I'm sure someone could write a very long book on the subject if they so chose...

Interesting final point you make there. It infers that it's the majority that seems to (often) have a problem with the minority that has moved in. I mean, you could say that the immigrants asked for it by being different culturally different, but...well, that seems like a strange reason to discriminate against someone.

I especially wish this last point wasn't true (though I know it is, I've seen it.) Just because someone comes from a culture that typically doesn't take the time to assimilate fully into a new culture does not mean that that particular individual has not assimilated to a fuller extent so they can be of more use in a professional environment. And really, isn't that the problem with discrimination? We assume a whole culture is going to act a certain way, so we create mental biases towards all members of that group. We compartmentalize to save ourselves the hassle of actually getting to know people. It's a shame, it truly is. Even if 99% of a certain cultural group was worthless (terribly unlikely, but go with me here) wouldn't it be a shame if we ignored the last 1% when they walked into our place of employment? What if we turned down an applicant based on that discrimination? What if that person was the 1% of that culture that was really going to make a difference in the world? Again, extreme, but it's an interesting idea.

We need to make sure that we are getting to know people on an individual level. It's unfair to assume someone will be a certain way simply because of how they look, or what religion they practice. Certainly there are tendencies, but for every norm there are a large group of people breaking them...

I did read and quoted just the part I disagreed with. I do believe in patriotism. I do believe my country is the best and would defend it against those who want to change it into something else. That in itself doesn't mean I want to turn other countries into my country (ie: takeover or force our ideals on them). I don't. Nor does it mean we should not continue to try and better ourselves. Those were two things you seemed to equate patriotism to (war and stagnation).

Loving one's country doesn't mean staying blind to what other cultures have to offer, but it doesn't rolling over and accepting everything either. As you said, the trick is in where to draw the line.

Just as while I disagreed with part of what you wrote, I didn't disagree with all of it.

Are you making the case that discrimination based on ethnic heritage is wrong? Okay. It's against the law, too. Same with race, sex, age, national origin, disability, and religion. (Civil Rights Act). Yup, it still happens.

This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg in my view. We also tend to discriminate against others on a much wider scale, such as fat people are lazy, Southerners are racists, New Yorkers are rude, young people have no work ethic, men with facial hair are hiding something, single parents will miss lots of days of work.... and on and on. All are stereotypes and all are personal prejudices. Also, these are all perfectly legal.

Assuming we all agree that discrimination based on a stereotype is a bad, the bigger question is what is the solution? Using your analogy that 99 percent of some group would make an unsatisfactory employee, how would you ever get the employer to hire somebody from this group given the odds of a successful hire are extremely dire?

Cultures and social mores are the means by which large groups (i.e., larger than a clan) know what to expect of the strangers (non-kin) in their midst. We are quite naturally (a survival instinct, even) a bit wary of strangers because we don't know what to expect from them and we know they're strangers because they don't fit our expectations for appearance and dress.

At the same time, we all want to belong to groups like us and we conform in many ways to the culture(s) to which we belong so we'll be automatically accepted by other members not personally known to us.

I spent nearly 40 years teaching engineering in three universities. In all of those, particularly in their graduate school populations, there was a generous portion of non-natives, so I've had graduate students (and colleagues) from all over the world: China, Korea, North and South India, Indonesia, the mountains of Peru, Chile, Brazil, Libya, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Nigeria, Germany, France, Turkey, Israel, Russia, and Spain. There can be no doubt whatever that the difference in our cultures occasionally interfered in subtle ways with our communication and expectations of each other, and this in spite of the fact that they all dressed like North American students except at multicultural "dos".

It's my contention that unless immigrants from away make a conscious effort to be like us (the perceived American or Canadian persona) we will always note and slightly resent the differences.

Agreed. If one wants to be hired, then one must make some effort to conform to the group/employer norms.... doesn't have to be a complete compliance, but certainly workplace dress and behavior that are not disruptive are essential. Not speaking the common language would seem to be a huge barrier to finding good employment, and not teaching the family to speak the common language just pushes poverty to the next generation.

I think requiring immigrants to learn the language and a little about their new country's history and culture is a reasonable thing to do.... because it helps the immigrant to prosper in their new country.

Social forces push us toward group norms. Group norms may change over time as new cultures are brought into the group, and over time we all adjust to the new norms. I think it is a healthy process and a natural one.

"You! You are not American (or Canadian) ENOUGH! Adjust your attitudes! Stop doing the thing that you were brought up doing."

How would you feel if someone said that to you? How is this contention compatible with the "freedom" in America?

America: land of the free (but only within certain defined parameters). Is that what you're saying?

I have always suspected that people are much more "culturalist" than racist. A black man in a suit with a local accent will be accepted more readily than a street kid (of any colour) in street clothes, or a foreigner with non-Western clothes and an unfamiliar accent.
It's no coincidence that the words "strange" and "stranger" are related.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, my point is that perhaps you should read the persons resume and talk to them about their qualifications. If they're qualified, hire them, if not, then don't. Don't let pre-existing prejudices cloud your judgement.

Couldn't have said it better myself, I've noticed the same thing. I knew a guy who was from Japan, 100% genetically Japanese, but was raised in America with a perfect American accent and all the cultural trimmings of an American. My mind never thought "foreigner" when I looked at him, because he was in the same cultural group as I was. I don't know if this will always be the case, but it was that time...

@Kyd -- We're just arguing over the definition of "patriotism", that's all. If you're willing to accept that your country may have problems, and if you're willing to be part of the solution, then I have no quarrel with you.

PS -- And just for fun:

Is it just me, or did the song "Know Your Enemy" from RATM just start in the background :D.

Seriously though, freedom has always been limited. For example, I am not free to plant a bomb in my apartment complex and then reduce that complex and it's occupants to dust (never mind the fact that I have no desire to do this either, just follow me for a second.) I'm not free to do this because it's impinging on someone else's basic rights to life, liberty and property (as the original saying goes.)

Yeah, it's a very extreme example, but it illustrates an important point. We are not free to do things that might impinge on someone else's rights. Here's where things get reeaaalllly tricky. Which rights are more important? Suddenly we're into a bunch of shades of grey, eh?

I'm not really commenting on what you said per se, I just wanted to point out that rights are infringed on quite often. So cut the hyperbole, k? The issue at hand is what rights need to be respected (the right to be a certain race without consequence), and which should be disregarded (the right to discriminate based on race.)

PPS -- I just can't seem to stop:

Just playing devils advocate: What if they don't care to succeed in their new culture? Maybe they just moved up to be with that friend they grew up with and can't imagine being away from. Maybe succeeding in the new culture isn't important to them in the slightest. Do we need to force them to be successful?

I absolutely agree that the notion of freedom is massively over-hyped, and every right has limitations on it -- speech, bearing arms, privacy, etc.
Let's not forget that the Plymouth Brethren left England to found a new colony not because they were being persecuted; but rather because they wanted somewhere where only their values were in effect!!

I visited my sister who lives in a small town in New England. The local bookshop had a "festival" celebrating books that had been "banned" in the US.
(I'm not sure of the details, it may be that they were considered controversial and someone called for them to be banned, rather than actually banning, I don't know.)
They included childrens books like "James and the Giant Peach"...!!! As I read down the list, I couldn't think of a reason why half of them might cause a problem. I do know that Harry Potter was thought to encourage witchcraft in some quarters.

I don't get the deal with "The Catcher in the Rye", either. The guy who shot Lennon (or was it Reagan?) said "I am the Catcher in the Rye of my generation". But what if he had said "I am the Oliver Twist of my generation"?

Sorry, this is all purely "academic" ramblings and observations. I mean no disrespect. There are obviously many great things about the US (and every other nation for that matter). Equally, I could go on about curious things in the UK or other places I've lived.

Another note on conformity -- it's funny that teenage groups like Goths, Hippies, etc, which aspire to be as non-conformist as possible, often end up being very conformist themselves -- very similar clothing, hair, music tastes, etc. In other words: there's nothing more conformist than a non-conformist!

Strangely, on the topic of freedom, Hydro One is onto Time-Per-Use billing, which means there are peak hours that you pay a lot more to use. Gee Thanks, whatever happened to freedom?

The OP was about Germany though we (I) have used US norms and experiences as an analogy. The issue in Germany seems to be a large number of immigrants moved there, in Merkel's view, to take advantage of their social welfare system and have no intent to become productive citizens or melt into the general population, or even learn the language.

The implication is this is hurting the productivity of the nation and is a drain on resources. If Germany says this is not cultural bias, then I guess we have to take their word for it.

Assuming that is true, then would it not make sense to curtail immigrants moving there for that purpose and encourage the ones already there to become more productive.... as in pay their share of the taxes?

In Jay's example of moving somewhere to be near a loved one, great with me as long as the taxpayers don't have to support them.

Feel free, all, to throw rocks at American freedoms and the pledge of allegiance and other acts of patriotism. We are not perfect and our history is full of examples of errors and miscalculations. Still, on the issue of immigration I would suggest we have one of the most liberal immigration policies of any nation on earth.... currently and historically.

As for illegal immigrants, let's be honest here.... we pretty much turn a blind eye to that at least until there is a problem. A lot of rhetoric, but in the end we do little or nothing to stop it. Many schools run bi-lingual programs. I think English as a Second Language programs are available throughout the US. We have Spanish only TV and radio stations. We are one of the most tolerant, most diverse nations on the planet.

So, yup, I am proud to be an American. And my personal opinion is that immigrants should learn to be Americans, too.... and if they are not interested in doing that they should look elsewhere for a new home.

Mmm... It can be a dangerous assumption, but sure. I mean, paying taxes is the very minimum one has to do in my opinion.

For the sake of historical perspective, the same thing was said about many cultural sub groups in the run up to WWII. People will use any excuse to paint a terrible picture of their enemies, even if the information itself isn't true.

The lesson that we needed to learn historically was to always check the facts in these cases and never turn a blind eye. So...yeah, I guess we should do some fact checking then...

Every modernized country has strict immigration laws. You think the USA is tough? Look at the EU. I have tried to legally get a job in the EU for years now. I figure I could get a job in the UK and work there and then travel Europe for several years while I work out of the UK. I have gotten a few responses on applications but only because the HR person failed to recognize the fact that on my resume it says I live in the USA.

This is because all developed countries have great social programs compared to other less developed countries. Poor people in America live like rich people in some countries. It is true the immigrants do come to developed countries to take advantage of such programs. It is true that they send money they make out of the country. However, I think the numbers used to voice thoughts against immigration are usually skewed to more of a fear mongering tactic than valid data.

Furthermore, there are some people who immigrate into other countries and then have the audacity to request the current government adapt to their way of life and culture. The people who move out of the Middle East and try to get countries like England to adopt Sharia is just asinine in my opinion. A free nation should not have any religious based legislation or be influenced by any given religion.

These examples are isolated and the exception in some cases. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch to quote Robert Hienlein. Meaning if you come to a particular country, or are even born into a particular country that has such great social programs for everyone you have to work and pay your taxes. That is how it works, period.

I think at times the world has become so PC that we are constantly walking on egg shells to even have a basic conversation. When in reality people are generally just happy to be doing whatever it is they do. I eat at a lot of ethnic restaurants. Vietnamese, Lebanese, Greek, Italian, Moroccan, Israeli, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Mexican, Spanish, German, and so forth. All the places I go to are generally run by the ethnicity of the food they serve. The middle eastern place I eat at, which as the best falafel ever, their whole family is from Lebanon. I have eaten there enough I have gotten to know a few and they know what I like to eat there. I almost always get the pita kabob. I chat with the, the lady who runs the place shows me her art work she has hanging up on the walls. They own a market next to the café and they have this guy who sells like every spice known to man. They are happy to be here, they don't press their beliefs on anyone, they pay their taxes and own their own business and their food is damn delicious.

I don't really think people care about culture until it is shoved in your face. Much like religion. Most people just want to get along on their day and not have any trouble. There are ignorant people in the world and they tend to voice their opinions louder than the educated, I mean look at the tea party movement for example.

That's basically what a Chinese friend had to prove before he could get his wife here (Aus.) from Hong Kong. Took him three years of bureaucracy to be reunited.

When it comes to migration I don't have a problem unless it's for the purposes of cultural expansionism. Still I guess that's pretty much the history of the world right there. Cultures rise and fall with civilisations.

Exactly so. This is the deep seated fear that goes unspoken in the debate. Those who write immigration laws, those in power, and by and large the voters who put them there kind of like things the way they are. They are most wary of a large influx of immigrants with a very different culture and who refuse to assimilate into the larger group.

It could mean the end of their culture if allowed to go unchecked.

The numbers are staggering in the US, with the current majority projected to become the minority within a generation.

Something more moderate is what I meant; In China, for example, folks hawk and spit in the street all the time -- it's "normal". In Eastern Canada, that's offensive and in some cities it's actually against the law. Integration involves learning not to do those things you might have been brought up doing when you discover that they offend the locals.

I have had it said to me. I returned to Canada after 22 years in the US and was frequently told I was acting too "American" when I was outspoken.

Of course. It was ever thus. We all have "defined parameters".

In my case it's not culture per se, it's much more level of education.

.
I think everyone should live in a different country for a while, or at least go on an extensive journey abroad. It is enriching (I would say essential) to be able to see yourself and your own culture from outside.

Lacking this perspective, lacking a multicultural experience, it is more difficult to truly know our own culture – and ourselves. Anyways, that’s my 2 øre. ;)
.

Quite. As Rudyard Kipling put it:

"What do they know of England, who only England know?"

Interesting that ArcticStones' observation even seems to apply in cases like mine; sort of half American, half Canadian. Even in that Northeastern chunk of America I've lived and worked in I certainly recognize very different cultures.

1937 - 1955: New York City
1955 - 1963: Halifax, Nova Scotia
1963 - 1984: Buffalo, NY & Cambridge, MA
1984 - 2010: Halifax, NS.

I can easily recognize folks from any of those places after they've said only a few key words.