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
Hi Jocelyn,
This is hilarious because I learnt exactly the same thing in elementary school: multicultural Canada vs. melting pot USA. I remember feeling so superior to my family in California (despite the fact that they are all first generation Immigrants and I’m a born-and-raised Canadian), but not truly understanding why.
Your line, “different histories result in different present existences, and to claim social justice via equal treatment is to ignore history,” succinctly points out the problem with equality. As Hava mentions in her comment, equality does not mean justice, and people often forget that.
The CanLit guide tells us that “the ideal nation-state was culturally homogeneous,” which is clearly what North America is striving for. Allowing the Multiculturalism Act to exist is a scapegoat — if people are being oppressed, as you say, it is no longer the government’s problem. They’ve covered their bases.
This reminds me of an experience I had recently while facilitating an English class. We discussed the difference between the terms First Nations/Indigenous/Indian/Aboriginal, and my fellow facilitator mentioned that “Indians need to move on with their lives” because “the government said sorry and gives them money for school”. I was seriously baffled that he could say something like that with so much conviction. Then I thought, if a fellow University-educated person could think this way, then clearly the Canadian government’s attempt to cover up the country’s violent history is working. Isn’t that a terrifying thought?
Hey Melissa,
It is actually so funny/bleak that the melting pot/mosaic analogy was apparently part of the national curriculum during the 2000s. It makes me so curious as to whether it is still part of social studies for kids, or what changes have been made and what new terminology is being used.
I really appreciated the anecdote about your cousin, and I find it really curious that kids are often put in this situation of moral black and white–kids are given all of these rights and wrongs in what we’re taught, and it is interesting that it informs our world view so much. Funnier yet, I should have mentioned this in my original post, but I found that the Multiculturalism Act didn’t really speak so much to First Nation’s identities but was primarily tailored to immigrants. When laws are made and taught in fragmented, hyper-moralized manners, they don’t really seem all that effective.
It is really terrifying that sometimes policies are so strongly misused that they actually further reinforce violence rather than deconstructing it. And when histories and politics are taught in schools with moral concretes, there is no space for discussion and different angles to take place. For example, is “the government paying for them to go to school” even the solution, when schools can often reify colonial and oppressive structures?
Thanks for your insights!
Hi Jocelyn,
Thanks for writing this post, as I think you articulate the problem(s) of multiculturalism really well. The funny thing is that Canadians are proud of this as a demonstration of our tolerance and fairness, etc, as though this is an extension of our collective “niceness” as a country. But, multiculturalism is also founded on the notion of two founding (white) nations that accommodate a very neutral form of diversity – as you have said, this erases the experience and struggle of specific cultural groups. And certainly, the idea of even ‘freedom of religion” is getting a lot of challenge these days, with attempts to impose restrictions on wearing any face covering while taking the citizenship oath.
Also, I remember being given the exact mosaic/melting pot analogy in school, and certainly absorbed the same lesson as you did at the time!
Heidi
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for your comment! I like your point about this notion of “niceness” via tolerance of /other/ cultures being a distinguishing feature of Canadian culture. Speaks to what Melissa was saying about how sometimes policies often seem like they are more so covering up histories of violence rather than deconstructing them. It is interesting that these policies to trickle into feelings like pride. Canadians (to use a blanket identity) are generally /proud/ of our policies. It is so strange that nationalism is such an emotional thing, yet the ongoing emotional implications of horrific acts like residential schools are ignored because emotions are not linear or quantitative. It is a bit of double standard.
Thanks for your insights!
Hey, Jocelyn. I thought this was a great post, and you touch on a lot of really interesting ideas throughout it, but I particularly liked your section on equality. The following stood out to me in particular:
“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.”
I work as a teacher at summer school with under-served students, many of whom come from a variety of different backgrounds, and they’re often frustrated when some of their peers are treated differently due to circumstances. We had to explain how “equality” isn’t the same thing as “justice” or “fairness”, and used this photo (http://www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Equality-and-Justice.jpg) to demonstrate that–your post reminded me of this, so I thought I’d share something that, in my opinion, really illustrates what you were saying in your post.
Thanks for a great read!
Hi Hava!
Thank you for your response and for sharing your experiences, your job sounds very interesting, important and like it must be hard work to have challenging discussions such as the one noted, with young minds. It is interesting, too, that the different uses and definitions of words themselves are so /so/ important to our understandings of situations, histories and actions. Even just distinguishing “justice” and “fairness”. It seems like semantics, but proper word usage is actually so vital, seeing as all laws and policies are created with rhetoric, where wording tries to be as specific and strategic as possible.
You’ve got me thinking! Thanks!
Hey Jocelyn,
I agree to the fact that in elementary school we are taught that Canada is a “great” example of what is it like to be multicultural, and because of this we were better than our surrounding countries. But when you truly think about it we aren’t that much better than other people we just put on a good show. People are in theory allowed to express where their heritage comes from but when doing it in public people will always look at you differently for doing it.
There is a different between accepting other cultures and including them into daily things. People are more than able to just accept things and move on without fully becoming understanding of what is going on. They could look at different people and think “they are who they are and they will do it how they are used to”. But why is there way any different as to ours, or the next person?
I enjoyed your blog!
-Kathryn
Hey Kathryn,
Thank you for your response!
It is very true that we see “multiculturalism” as people being free to “express” where they come from, and that is the exact terminology used. “Express”. It makes it seem as if one’s culture is optional, like putting on clothes. While histories and cultures can and should be performed, as a reinforcement of identity, the notion that we can just choose to express culture ignores the complexities, realities and histories or cultures and identities. It makes it seem like all fun, when really, being a visible minority is not so much an expression but an existence that is happening 24/7.
The idea that culture is something to be expressed assumes some bases sameness of history and privilege, which is not the reality. Thanks for getting me thinking! Cheers!
Hi Jocelyn,
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the hypocrisy in labeling Canada a “multicultural” nation. It does seem like we are not much better than the “melting pot” – we might allow freedom of culture or religion but there is still an expectation that they will conform and assimilate into our public life. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone complain about immigrants who refuse to “participate in our culture, learn our language” (and I’m always reminded of this great comic: https://xkcd.com/84/). It does seem like unless Canadians can reject the euro-centric notions of a normative or default culture, there is ultimately little difference between our Multicultural nation and America’s Melting Pot.
Hey Max,
Thanks for the insights and great comic! I like your use of the term “default culture”. On the note of language, I find it interesting how we can pick and choose what makes /national/ identity (something for immigrants, European Canadians, etc) and what is acceptable as /multicultural/. The valuing of one (well two, in theory) national language as something so important it transcends culture, reinforces how we value ways of knowing, expression and communication. Why are other ways of knowing and communicating seen as less important and thus “cultural” rather than an all encompassing “national”? Thanks again!
Hi Jocelyn. It seems to me a very telling action that Canada had to declare its multiculturalism through an explicit policy; were it truly a multicultural society, such a thing would go unsaid. The “token displays of diversity” that the CanLit guide points out makes me even more suspicious, and I ultimately wonder just how different the “mosaic” is from the “melting pot.” If I wanted to be as unflattering as possible, I would say that this difference is only in semantics.
That said, there is value in making a declaration of multiculturalism in that it commits Canada into striving for the ideal of multiculturalism. For that to actually work though, Canada needs to recognize that it is has not yet achieved that ideal–it needs to do less gratuitous self-congratulating and more reevaluation.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your great insights! It is very true that if we /need/ to make multiculturalism and tolerance policy, then perhaps it is because we are functioning on histories and perspectives of violence and superiority that need to be acknowledged and deconstructed. We can’t just claim that we are a “multicultural” nation, but work towards breaking down the structures that prevent this. Cheers!