In my ninth grade social studies class, we spent the majority of the year learning about medieval Europe, the Crusades, and then the renaissance. The last two weeks of school, we did express group circles where one group would do a fast-paced read on the part of the chapter that was dedicated to a small piece of a non-European country’s history. For example, for 75 minutes, I learned all about the Qing Dynasty, from the 1600s and all the way to the 1800s.

In tenth grade, we spent a month or two re-enacting the Canadian Confederation. We dressed up, acted as representatives of a Canadian province or territory and voted. We wrote mock ups and memorized the names of important Confederates. We did this until all provinces and territories agreed to become Canada.

In eleventh grade, we played World War. We acted as countries, passed notes around, made allies and attacked others. I also learned Canada has the cleanest water in the world.

In my final year of high school, I took a history course. Everyday, we learned about World War II again. We made notes from textbooks and answered the questions that were basically reiterations of our notes. Our teacher finally gave us an assignment that we could do on our own and I chose to write about the Japanese Internment camps. I got a check for “good job”. After Christmas, I dropped out of the course because I couldn’t be bothered with learning about things I had already learned about the year before. I was also irrationally angry with Archduke Franz Ferdinand (how could one guy create a whole war?!?!)

I do remember learning about the Iroquois in grade four. We studied their culture and made a mural in our classroom of a loghouse. I thought First Nations culture was so amazing. So I was even more excited to write and design a “textbook” about a First Nations culture in grade ten. I got lucky and received the Haida as my topic. The assignment was that we would have to do all the research on our own, develop chapters and categories, write out discussion questions, and design layouts. I vaguely remember talking about potlatches, not exactly understanding what it was and just knowing they were banned for some reason or another.

The point of my long rehash of my historical studies in high school and elementary is to point out that I learned a hell a lot about Europe and hardly anything about Canada (aside from the Confederation). So, imagine my surprise, when in my fourth year of university, and I finally get to learn about Canada – like really learn. As in, not just only pinpointing where Hope is on a map of British Columbia or which Great Lakes are Canadian or American – but learning about Canada during WWII when I thought I had learned it all (all I learned about Canada during the World Wars was that they fought in Passchendaele and everybody forgot they did), or about the Indian Residential Schools that pretty much happened yesterday if we put everything in context with the time frame of the history of the world.

I learned all of this – in detail – in the past few months since first semester. Of course, we dabbled on the Immigration Acts here and there, read literature about Chinese railway workers, but it was never explicit. It was always about the War of 1812, or about the HBC in canoes looking for beavers, or how the First Nations of Canada got small pox and all died.

So in my experiences, why is it that it took me so long to learn about Canada when I live in Canada? Why is it that history seems to only revolve about Europe and the World Wars, and 75 minutes is enough to cover centuries within China? Japan may have invaded Manchuria but why did they do that? What were the effects? Where have all the First Nations gone now that they had supposedly either died from disease and poverty or had “sold” all their land?

In 1988, the Progressive Conservative government passed the Multiculturalism Act that promoted the equality of all cultures and deemed English and French as the official languages of Canada. So Canada became officially multicultural and bilingual.

Vic Satzewich and Nikolaos Liodakis do a good job in summarizing the four principles that guided federal multiculturalism:

1. The federal government would support all of Canada’s cultures and seek to assist the development of those cultural groups that had demonstrated a desire and effort to continue developing a capacity to grow and contribute to Canada as well as a clear need for assistance.
2. The government would assist all cultural groups to overcome the cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society.
3. The government would promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity.
4. The government would continue to assist immigrants in acquiring at least one of Canada’s two official languages in order that they would become full participants in Canadian society.

At first glance, the Multiculturalism Act seems to encourage a variety of ethnicities to grow and exist. Although, Satzewich and Liodakis argue that these sentiments of multiculturalism came into policies because of economic reasons: to increase globalization by “embracing” cultures. Taking a closer look at the wording of these principles, the growth of these groups is essential only in the idea that they will eventually contribute to “Canadian society”.

This begs the question: what is Canadian society?

Daniel Coleman talks about the “fictive ethnicity” of a country and how, for Canada, British whiteness “occupies the position of normalcy and privilege” (7). So, although Canada may be multicultural, its history is mainly seen through the lens of the European. It doesn’t even see itself at all. My education of Canadian history in high school shows it.

One of the criticisms of multiculturalism is that it works in a way that ghettoizes cultures. This means cultures, other than the dominant culture, become commodified or as a piece that is only showcased when needed in certain places and certain times. Take the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics for example: in the opening ceremony, “Canadian culture” and Aboriginal culture was mainly advertised. But looking at Vancouver, you can see there is a vast variety of cultures other than the two “main” ones.

How I viewed Aboriginal culture in elementary school was similar to how I thought of Greek mythology. I was only taught its culture in terms of pre-colonialism and given the idea that it was wonderful and special, but that it was something that had ended and which is no longer relevant in modern society. I looked at Aboriginal culture with an air of nostalgia.

Aboriginal culture, to me then, seemed to exist separately, outside of the time frame and space of Canada. Coleman writes, “[…] at the same time that civility involves the creation of justice and equality, it simultaneously creates borders to the sphere in which justice and equality are maintained” (9). In other words, by encouraging multiculturalism, it also draws light to the separation or deviation from the “dominant culture”.

There is also the assumption that these cultures exist but are only allowed to exist so long as the dominant “Canadian society” exists above all else. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French sociologist, wrote about dominant ideals and how these ideals were not always the best ideals. They are only seen as the best and as the majority because the most powerful advertise them in this way. So, to many, Canada’s “fictive ethnicity” seems to be the best ethnicity and all others secular.

A good example of this, comes from a Facebook post a friend of mine sent to me:

click to enlarge

There are several different points of view in this post. The first being the idea that advertisements should all be written in the official languages of Canada. Another is the idea that, if English is not the main language, then French is the only other acceptable one to use. There is also, my favourite, the idea that if this advertisement was written in French, then nobody would be able to read it at all.

The third point of view understands the importance of context. This sign was displayed in Richmond, a city with a large Chinese demographic. So, in an advertiser’s point of view, it would make sense to cater to the major demographic than, say, the Francophone demographic.

So why did Telus not place the ad in English? I’m not sure. Does it have to? Not exactly.

It’s interesting that Canada prides itself in multiculturalism, but language seems to differ from this ideation in this situation. Perhaps it’s because English and French are called the official languages and this distinction is viewed as separate from multiculturalism. Is then multiculturalism and by extension, the freedom to use language, a privilege or a right?

This is yet another criticism of multiculturalism – that ethnic differences are contained within certain places and times. Celebrating ethnic holidays is encouraged, but once the celebration is over and things like the bus ad appear in public outside of the “appropriate” space and/or time, it is no longer welcomed. All because, Canada’s “fictive ethnicity” is essentially British whiteness and this still occupies positions of normalcy and privilege (Coleman 7).

I am not arguing that multiculturalism is “bad” or not good enough. In my opinion, it is less problematic than complete assimilation. However, multiculturalism is not perfect. There are problems such as the underlying assumption that these multiple cultures will eventually assimilate into what is supposed to be the “Canadian society”. What exactly is “Canadian society” then? I believe this definition varies from place to place and time to time. It may very well mean something different to different people.

References:

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2006. 14-56.

De Tocqueville, Alexis. “Tyranny of the Majority.” Classical Sociological Theory. Ed. Craig Calhoun, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and Indermohan Virk. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 122-32. Print.

Satzewich, Vic, and Nikolaos Liodakis. “Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Quebec Interculturalism.” “Race” and Ethnicity in Canada. 3rd ed. Ontario: Oxford UP Canada, 2013. 159-87. Print.