In complete subservience to the mandated idea that Canada must be identified as an immigrant nation of "diverse peoples", Bumsted interprets immigration between 1815 and 1867 as an experience that reinforced the diversification of Canada. He argues that the immigrants who came from the British Isles did not come from a "homogeneous anglophone group of people". Britain was a nation of diverse dialects, religions, and historic minorities, and this was manifested in the people who emigrated from the Isles to Canada.

Through this period of immigration, he observes, there was a strong Irish presence, ranging from 30 to 70 per cent of the total number of arrivals, many speaking "the Irish tongue", and, after the mid-1840s, "huge numbers of Catholics" were included among these Irish immigrants. There were also Scottish immigrants, amounting to 10-15 percent of the total throughout this period, almost all of them speaking Gaelic as a first language. Immigrants also originated from other "dialects and linguistic variants" and "distinctive regions" within England proper and "distinctive peoples in Wales" (p. 134).

Bumsted wants to imprint upon students the idea that this internal-English diversity was in line with the diversity Canada is currently experiencing, when peoples of very different races, totally different religions, and cultures are arriving in the millions. But one has to wonder if he believes, then, that all European nations, not just Canada, were uniquely diverse from the beginning insofar as they were not "homogeneous" but were populated by people with different dialects, regional customs and folkways, which was surely the case before the standardization of national languages and the full integration of regions through modern communications?

Take France, for example, late into the 1800s, regional dialects such as Breton, Gascon, Basque, Catalan, Flemish, Alsatian, and Corsican, prevailed across the nation, notwithstanding France's reputation as a nation centralized since the absolutist days of Louis XIV or the French Revolution. Different folkways, heroes, provincial loyalties superseded any notion of a homogeneous nation before 1900. Are we to conclude that France was also uniquely multicultural (and immigrant) from its origins?

Bumsted does not ponder over these questions. All academics are for diversity, and diversity academics avoid any question that threatens their mirages. The goal is to push the claim that Canada's was "uniquely diverse" from "its origins" in order to trick white students into accepting their eventual dispossession.

Yet the rationale underlying Bumsted's argument about England's inherent diversity is now standard fare among the promoters of immigration in both the settlers nations of America and Australia and the nations of Europe at large. Deceptive academics and politicians are exploiting the presence of different dialects, ethnic minorities, and different Christian denominations in the past to push onto unsuspecting students the notion that these nations have always been diversely shaped by migratory waves of peoples from all over the world. The sudden arrival of millions of Muslims and Africans to England, France, Italy, Sweden...is nothing to be alarmed about, so they tell naive white girls; it is consistent with the ethnic histories of these nations.