2] For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. 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.
I have chosen to write about the Multiculturalism Act because it is so contemporary and relevant today. In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to implement multiculturalism as a policy, but it was not until 1988 that it became an official law. The goal of this policy/law was to preserve and further the development of multiculturalism in Canada. The Government of Canada’s official immigration website (CIC) states that by adopting this policy, “Canada affirmed the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation… [and] also confirmed the rights of Aboriginal peoples and the status of Canada’s two official languages.” Essentially this policy gave all citizens the right to practice their own religions, languages and cultures without having to fear punishment or discrimination and hence it attempted to promote acceptance of different cultures within all Canadians.
What I noticed most while researching this act was not what was said, so much as what was not said. There is not a single mention of why the act needed to be created in the first place. No discussion of Canada’s racist, discriminating and violent history and no expression of a desire to learn from past mistakes. What is emphasized is that Canadian identity is defined by acceptance. The CIC claims that, “Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding.” This would be wonderful were it true, but as we know, discrimination, especially towards First Nations cultures, not to mention the legacy left behind by residential schools, still exists today. This made me think about the discussion of Coleman and his argument about “white civility.” Coleman emphasizes, “the fictive element of nation building, and the necessary forgetfulness required to hold that fiction together” and “how the normative concept of English Canadianness as white and civil came to be constructed in the first place, how this fictive ethnicity requires a forgetting of the very uncivil acts of colonialism and nation-building, and finally a recognition that creating a Canadian identity that is white and civil is a project that began with colonialism and continues in the present” (Patterson). And indeed, this forgetfulness is transparent in the Multiculturalism Act.
Another thing that I noticed during my research was the way that language is used. First of all, the official document that I found online was in English and French only. The document also makes statements such as:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.
So while the act does claim to promote multiculturalism in terms of language, it also makes it clear that English and French are privileged above all the others. The fact that there is a “national commitment” to these languages implies that they are relevant to all Canadians and stems from, what I might call, a colonial heritage.
Furthermore, the CIC explains that, “Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes,” and “Through multiculturalism, Canada recognizes the potential of all Canadians, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs.” It is interesting how the language used by these two documents warps the very idea of multiculturalism, which emphasizes diversity, and instead uses it to actually promote a form of assimilation to the Canadian identity.
So, while I do believe that the intention of the Multiculturalism Act may have been for the most part, good, I feel like it may also have come from a place of ignorance and privilege, which fails to acknowledge historical injustices that contributed to the Canadian identity or realize the implications of the very words and languages it uses.
Canadians: We’re oh so tolerant. Comic by Kate Beaton
* * *
Beaton, Kate. “Mountie Comics.” Hark! A Vagrant. Kate Beaton, 2006-2009. Web. 05 July 2014.
“Canadian Multiculturalism Act.” Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada, last amended on 4 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 July 2014.
“Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship.” Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Government of Canada, 19 Nov. 2012.Web. 04 July 2014.
Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3:1.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre 98A. UBC Blogs. n.d. Web. 4 July 2014.
I most definitely agree with you that the act was created out of ignorance and privilege. I did this same question for my blog and pulled out the same two sections about language. I’ve been thinking about this use of language, the ability for the government (and others) to present information in a certain way to (hopefully) evoke a certain response in the reader, how convincing it can be if you don’t think critically. I wonder if I read the act in a different context (outside of a course design to ask questions about what we are told) if I would have the ability to notice such contradictions and ignorance?
Yes, that’s a very good question. I want to think that I would notice, but the truth is that I probably wouldn’t. Even worse is if a person never encounters the actual document itself, but instead has it explained indirectly. This is especially problematic with the way it gets paraphrased on the Citizenship and Immigration website… it makes it sound so fine and dandy! Such a good reminder that we need to think critically no matter what the source of the information is.
It’s interesting that you brought up how English and French are privileged above other languages in Canada. In present day, I think that English is definitely “above” French in most of the country but Quebec (and I guess Ottawa too). For example, why do we not learn English and French simultaneously at the elementary school level? I remember only starting to learn French at grade 5, which is already really late for language acquisition. Why are there schools designated for French emersion? Since both English and French are our official languages, why do 9/10 provinces and 3/3 territories primarily use English?
From a practical standpoint, it would be pretty much impossible to write the Multiculturalism Act in every language for every culture that exists in Canada! No matter how much we try to be equal, there are flavours of colonization that we can’t completely shake off.
I think maybe what’s most hypocritical to me about the language in the document is the phrase “in harmony”. In one reading (maybe it’s intentional reading), multiculturalism in that sense is really a celebration of only French and English cultures. In a more contemporary reading (which includes ALL cultures under the multiculturalism banner), it seems that all of these cultures will be preserved, so long as they are funnelled through both official languages.
I agree with you about the complete ignorance of the past atrocities that lead to this bill. But it seems to me that, while this bill is focussed on multiculturalism, it is mostly focussed on the reconciliation of English and French. At this time, for instance, there were residential schools that were still open. You touch on the fact that it seems more like an assimilation than anything else – do you think that this applies to the official languages as well?
Partially, yes, but like I said, everyone is expected to know English and not necessarily French. If French was the dominant of the two official languages, then we might not see the separatist movements in Quebec.
Your first reading of “in harmony” is intriguing. Technically, French and English cultures can be considered to be “multi” since there are more than one… but you’re definitely right about that one.