2] In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” 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.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988, “provided a legislative framework for the official policy of multiculturalism adopted by the government in 1971”. (pier21.ca) Trudeau’s government introduced the policy, but it was under Brian Mulroney that the Act itself passed in 1988.
I don’t exactly know where my base definition of multiculturalism comes from; it seems that the notion of multiculturalism, Canada’s “cultural mosaic” is engrained into the Canadian consciousness from a young age. In elementary school, I remember being taught about Canada’s stance on multiculturalism in comparison to the United States: where Canada was a mosaic, the US was a “melting pot”. Those racists! was more or less what little me got out of the lesson, and ironically, in understanding that my nation was more culturally tolerant, cast shame and judgment on another nation and culture. The general understanding of Canada’s multicultural policies that I received was that in Canada, families were welcome to engage with their own cultures: religions, languages, foods etc. and be celebrated for it, that everyone could kind of join together and exchange these cultures and learn from each other.
Multiculturalism, as a national policy (and thus part of national consciousness) is more complex than sharing of food and freedom of religion, and deciding who multicultural policies benefit can be challenging and ambiguous. First, to make things easy, and put them in a binary, the choice between cultural mosaic and cultural melting pot doesn’t translate to being so cut and dry. The question(s) of assimilation that come into national policy and /law/ surrounding /culture/ are incredibly convoluted. Does multiculturalism mean room and understanding for segregation (for lack of a better term) in urban spaces, and what assumptions present themselves under that cheeky term “equality”? As a white, settler Canadian kid, I always thought that multiculturalism meant that everyone was treated the same regardless or background. But the problem with that is that background is what creates culture and identity in the first place. Different histories result in different present existences, and to claim social justice via equal treatment is to ignore history. This same glossing over of history is probably what lead me to see myself so self-righteously as Canadian, for I had yet to be taught Canada’s colonial history. This paradox of celebrating “difference” in order to achieve colourblind equality not only washes over histories of violence and identities of anger, displacement and coping out of necessity, but more or less says that cultures are welcome to exist so long as they are convenient, positive and exciting for Canada. Canlit notes this, “some critics have argued that multiculturalism policy leads to token displays of diversity–such as food, song and dance–rather than dealing with actual injustices.” (“Introduction to Nationalism”).
Continuing with this notion of binary, this “us and them”, the Canadian mentality of multiculturalism still latches onto the idea of Canadian culture accepting other cultures. Growing up, my idea of multicultural relied heavily on the idea of immigrant families–those who are welcomed into Canada thanks to multiculturalism, rather than part of this multicultural identity. I fully acknowledge that this could be based on my experiences growing up white, with a predominantly French Canadian heritage. But even if I have come to criticize my previous assumptions around who is legitimately Canadian and who is benefitting from Canadian multicultural policies, I do believe that it is a general consensus that whiteness, the settlers, the colonists are neutral in this cultural mosaic. The grout that holds all of the pretty, colourful pieces of glass together. When the general understanding of multiculturalism is “we are tolerant of different beliefs” rather than “we are a coexistence of different histories”, there is still an imbalance of power. Of who is able to provide the tolerance. Who presents and decides the laws in the first place.
This discussion of multiculturalism as 1) claiming equality to deny history and 2) celebrating the convenient pretty things by making them “legal” rather than full heartedly examining the legacy of violence that continues in Canada today, brings to mind the very recent passing of marriage equality in the US. While this is law is monumental for so many groups and individuals and has on the backs of so many people throughout history, there have been many voices in the queer community–particularly queer people of colour–who say that making marriage legal distracts from the violence that is regularly occurring against them. Furthermore, having equality acknowledged through allowing people to get married, simply pushes the heteronormative, capitalist agenda of what a relationship and a family should be. Two people. Monogamous. In the same way that multiculturalism is often celebrated via food (and hey, I’m not complaining, I love me some food), homosexuality is accepted through marriage–something that is acceptable, comfortable and more or less the norm in the eyes of the law. Legally extending heteronormative values into what used to be deviant (from the norm) groups, can, in some ways, only further extend the influence of those in power (i.e. oppressive, colonial governments). The poet duo Darkmatter articulates some of these thoughts, “when marriage and not murder is the number one queer issue”, in the poem “It Gets Bourgie”; they refuse to join in the ignorance of the intersectionalities of capitalism, colonialism and the misogynistic patriarchy that is the state.
To engage in a legal declaration of the ever ambiguous “multiculturalism” is to shift the focus from, “Europeans colonized this land”, to “now that you’re in Canada, you are allowed to speak your language at home, but you still have to speak English (or maybe French) in most institutions/if you are an immigrant and want to be recognized as a citizen. Also food.” Sorry for being facetious, but to legally claim that Canada is multicultural is to shift the blame of oppressive and unequal policies/mentalities to other parties. All of the daily racism/violence/second class treatment/patronizing that non-white Canadians experience can no longer be the fault of the multicultural government, but of specific ignorant people, and that isn’t really the government’s problem. Furthermore, the Multiculturalism Act doesn’t really speak to any kind of policies to undo the violence that led to inequalities in the past, rather it claims a fresh, “equal” starting point for all groups. Which is impossible given histories of violence and all of the people in power who do not resemble or represent or identify as First Nations, and thus though everyone is allowed to sound their voice, only some are heard. And some have experiences such oppression that they may not feel able to sound their voice. There is so much history in silence. But the Multiculturalism Act more or less assumes that everyone is going to be singing at the same volume.
Works Cited
Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. “Canadian Multiculturalism Act”. Web. 2015. http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-multiculturalism-act-1988
CanLit Guides. “Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom Guide to Nationalism.” Canadian Literature. Web. April 4th 2013.
DarkMatter. “It Gets Bourgie”. Youtube. Web. March 26, 2015.
Darnell L Moore. “I am Black and Gay, But I Refuse to Be Proud This Weekend.” Mic. Web. June 26, 2015. http://mic.com/articles/121420/Civil-Rights-Marriage-Equality
Dean Spade, Craig Willse. “Marriage Will Never Set Us Free.” Organizing Upgrade. Web. http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free
Immigrant Welcome Centre. “Canadian Multiculturalism Act.” Web. http://www.immigrantwelcome.ca/resources/42-canadian-multiculturalism-act