For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities… Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.
“Our oldest Canadians must be given the status of New Canadians or else they may never become true Canadians like the rest of us.” – Andre Renaud 1954 (as quoted in Bohaker and Iacovetta 435; emphasis added)
The policy I chose to explore for this assignment was The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947. After some initial research, I became primarily interested in the Act’s ‘dual mandate,’ which involved the unification of the Canadian Citizenship Branch and the Indian Affairs Branch. This policy not only pooled Indigenous Peoples into a category of “outsiders”, but promoted the notion that white settler populations were inherently more “Canadian” than their Indigenous neighbours. Canadianism, in this context, was an ode to a British Christian heritage, to which “true” Canadians owed their “superior values” (Bohaker and Iacovetta 433). Despite its outward endorsement of non-white cultures, The CCA’s blanketed citizenship policy promoted values that were exclusive to British whiteness. Evidently, these findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility. Through the Canadian Citizenship Act, ALL Canadian citizens were expected to adhere to a “specific form of [Canadian] whiteness.” (Coleman as quoted by Erika in Lesson 3.1).
In their article “Making Aboriginal People ‘Immigrants Too’” Heidi Bohaker and Franca Iacovetta explain that while European Immigrants were encouraged to retain fragments of a European identity, there was little room for Aboriginal Peoples to practice “old” customs or traditions within Canadian citizenship: “The programs aimed at Aboriginal peoples were far less respectful of Indigenous cultural traditions and political autonomy than were the immigrant campaigns of European customs” (430). These policies were evidently informed by the racist constructions that equate “civility” with whiteness, and “savagery” with anything or anyone other.
The Canlit guide explains that while racialized Immigrants could adopt Canadian traditions and values in order to assimilate into the white settler society, there was a ceiling that prevented them from being as Canadian as those who were born white (Canlit Guide: Nationalism 1800s-1950s: Canadian Immigration and War). As Homi Bhabha famously illustrates, this notion was fundamental to the colonization process: “Almost the same but not quite…Almost the same but not white” (Bhabha 130). Non-white populations were expected to “mimic” their white “superiors,” but would never be considered equal as to ensure the rigid balance of power remained intact. I’m wondering how these policies differ. In fact, do they? Both policies involved the subjugation of non-white populations under a political regime; both policies required the abandonment of cultural traditions and customs to be replaced by supposedly superior (white) practices; and both policies were dependent on a constructed system of power, entrenched in racist ideology.
In acknowledging our current systems of privilege and oppression in Canada, it may be confirmed that such ideologies have largely gone unchanged. Indeed, colonization remains an ongoing process.
Works Cited:
The CanLit Guide: Nationalism, late 1800s–1950s: Canadian Immigration and War
4 responses to “3.1 ‘The Same But Not Quite’: Examining the Citizenship Act of 1947 as a Project of White Civility”