Canadian Literature: Parkinson Perspective

(Response to Question 2)

According to Coleman, state legislation is based on nationalist ideology which in turn excludes certain groups of people who do not fit into that frame work. This would mean assimilation or else be excluded from the national dialogue. Coleman argues that this legislation excludes people of colour, or else purposefully works to exclude these individuals from a passage to full citizenship.

However, is this always the case? I have analysed the Immigration Act of 1910 and it specifies certain requirements in order to immigrate into Canada for that period. Priority immigrants are listed, particularly those from Northern and Western European heritage. Refugees do not exist in this act, in fact, a person is forbidden from entering Canada on sponsorship from a charity or church, and government funded programs do not yet exist.

Alright, so clearly the majority of the immigrants during this period from Western and Northern Europe had fair skin, and ascribed to a more Imperialist ideology. This is not the whole package of ‘white civility’. Men are considered primary property owners during this era, and truly the only ones considered to have an independent income. Women could immigrate if they were sponsored (hmm… despite the fact that sponsorship was considered illegal) it was okay if they spoke English and had an arranged marriage (this is actually the case with my ancestor, Lucy Pannell, see below).

This dowry entertained a specific gender role that aligns with the values of white civility that Coleman claims exists in state legislation. Additionally, women who are considered prostitutes (though more likely victims of sex traffickers) do not have a place in Canada either, and there is also no legislation that exists to protect these individuals (once again, how refugee status would be useful here) instead, they are barred from entering Canada, criminalized much like how the ‘pimps’ and traffickers are. Essentially, enforcing the gender role of women as being docile and obedient is written into the 1910 Immigration Act, which furthers Coleman’s points about white civility.

By the time 1910 had rolled around, the UK was beginning to retreat from its former colonies, declaring them independent nations, which were now deeply indebted to their formed colonizers. This process of globalization, which continues today, is well summarized by Maracle,

“Grinding poverty and dependence build inside the colonized, cumulatively, the longer colonialism lasts.” (Maracle, 86).

It makes sense that by refusing refugees, and stating that immigrants require a certain sum of monies in order to immigrate to Canada, this excludes individuals with lower economic earnings, which have lower earnings as a result of colonization. In turn, this helped purport a nation that ascribes to an Imperialist, white civility viewpoint.

References

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2006. Print.

Image. Ancestry Records Parkinson Family.

“Immigration Act, 1910”. Pier 21. Web.

Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: A Body of Writing.” Across Cultures/Across Borders: Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literature. Ed. Paul DePasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, and Emma LaRocque. Toronto: Broadview, 2010. Print.