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. (Paterson)
I will write about the government activities that lead to the Chinese Head Tax and Chinese Exclusion Act. Since Charmaine beat me to posting on this topic, I will try not to repeat what she wrote.
A good place to start in talking about this subject would be the 1858 Fraser River Gold Rushes, in which immigrants flooded to Canada in search of wealth. These immigrants came from different places, which caused trouble: “Competition for prospecting rights and other business associated with the gold rushes led to conflict between European, American and the visibly different Chinese, who often found themselves at the harsh end of justice on the frontier” (Gold Rush). Of course, the gold rush had to end eventually, and when it did in 1865, worsened economic conditions resulted in further hostility towards the Chinese. They were racially segregated into Chinatown (which they didn’t really mind) and then deprived of voting rights along with the Natives in 1871. Chinese and Natives were not even allowed to be buried in the same place as Europeans.
So not only did Europeans consider their arrival chapter 1 in the Native narrative, they considered Chinese arrivals chapter 15 in their narrative.
Then work on the Canada Pacific Railway began. Fearing for European workers, the Anti-Chinese Association attempted to block Chinese workers from getting CPR jobs. This petition was rejected, not because it was blatantly racist, but because Chinese workers were absolutely necessary for the building of the CPR. In addition to the Chinese who were already in Canada due to the gold rush, the government encouraged further immigrants from China to work on the CPR. Chinese workers had far lower wages, dealt with far worse working conditions, and were put to far more dangerous tasks such as blasting rocks. Many died.
Then the railway was done. But the Chinese were still there. The government thought that was a problem.
In 1885, Prime Minister Macdonald, who had supported Chinese workers during the CPR’s construction, changed his tune:
When the Chinaman comes here he intends to return to his own country; he does not bring his family with him; he is a stranger, a sojourner in a strange land, for his own purposes for a while; he has no common interest with us . . . A Chinamen gives us his labour and gets his money, but that money does not fructify in Canada; he does not invest it here, but takes it with him and returns to China . . . he has no British instincts or British feelings or aspirations, and therefore ought not to have a vote. (Perpetual Foreigners)
Consul-General Huang in San Francisco had a different view:
It is only about thirty years since our [Chinese] people commenced emigrating to other lands . . . You must recollect that the Chinese immigrant coming to this country is denied all the rights and privileges extended to others in the way of citizenship; the laws compel them to remain aliens. I know a great many Chinese will be glad to remain here permanently with their families, if they are allowed to be naturalized and can enjoy privileges and rights. (Chinese Perspective)
There are two contradicting stories here, and the latter I think would be more legitimate considering it comes straight from a Chinese mouth. But rather than believe or even acknowledge that story, the government chose to create its own story, perhaps in a similar way to how it created its stories about the Natives. It does this to continue its vision of white civility and justify its actions that support it.
The Chinese Head Tax, enacted right after the CPR was built, started off by charging every Chinese immigrant, with exceptions, $50 upon arrival. The government’s message was clear: Don’t come here; we don’t want you. But Chinese immigrants still came, and the head tax was increased to $100 in 1900, then $500 in 1903, apparently “enough to purchase two houses in Montreal at the time” ($50, $100 . . . $500!). But they still kept coming. Finally, in 1923, the government decided that enough was enough and passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese immigration altogether.
Prime Minister Macdonald assumed that Chinese immigrants did not go to Canada to raise families. The Chinese Head Tax and Chinese Exclusion Act turned this assumption into a reality.
Imagine if Natives had forced settler Europeans to pay head taxes on arrival. Imagine if they had told them to go away.
With the blatant racism that the Canadian government employed during these years, one might wonder why they didn’t just skip the head taxing and go straight for exclusion. One possible answer is that they didn’t think it morally just to enforce such policies, but then again, they were quite fine with racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and job inequality. Another possible answer is that they wanted the money, liked the money (especially when it nearly paid for the Western section of the CPR), and (despite their own contrary whining) liked cheap Chinese labour, so long as those Chinese workers weren’t starting up their own businesses (which got its own problems). One more possible answer is that they didn’t want to tarnish their image–their narrative of superiority, of white civility. They were polite Canadians, after all, and they were just politely asking the Chinese to not come to them with their $50 tax; they were gritting their teeth in politeness when they upped that to $100; they bared their distressed politeness in making it $500. Then they gave up, but at least they tried? Had European Canadians shown that they were tolerant of and therefore superior to the Chinese? To the Natives? They probably thought so.
There are of course many way to tell this story, and this site shows one of them. I chose not to use this site in my above writing, not because its facts are wrong, but because I found the way it presented them troubling (it’s interesting to note, however, that this site is funded by the same organization as one of the sites that I did use). Here’s a question then: Do you share my troubled feeling in the way that this site presents this story, and why, or why not? It is worth noting that the site states that it specifically targets children, but this statement could very well make it even more troubling.
You do not have to answer the question should you choose to comment. If you want to write on something else, then please do.
Works Cited
University of British Columbia. Chinese Canadian Stories. UBC, 2012. Web. 26 June 2015.
Hi Kevin,
An informative and insightful post! I wrote on the same question, with my focus being on the injustices experienced by Japanese Canadians, especially during Internment after World War II. Perhaps this topic is one which is more sensitive, especially within the current housing climate in Vancouver especially. I think with history as our reminder, it is important to consider that when discussing the housing issue. Many of those who harbour deep resentment against the Chinese for ‘infiltrating’ Vancouver and ‘buying up all the property’ do not realize that they themselves have done it to the First Nations as well. It is part and parcel of globalization and in order to avoid stagnation or recession into racism, it is and will have to continue to be an issue that slowly seeks resolve- not one which can be settled simply by ‘kicking all the Chinese out’ per se!
Hi Debra. Cross-cultural issues certainly can’t be resolved by simply eliminating one side (unless total war is waged), and cross-cultural dialogue requires participation from both cultures, regardless of how slow that process is. When one culture is oppressing the other, reversing the roles ultimately solves nothing. Binary distinctions of aggressor and victim oversimplify the situation (and I am guilty of heavily implying this distinction both here and elsewhere). I believe that a solution that truly benefits all sides is the only one that will ever work, and until such a solution is found, the struggle to find it will have to continue.
Hey Kevin, thanks for sharing all that history. Yes, that site has an interesting tone indeed…I’m not quite sure what my opinion on it is. I do, however, find it interesting that cultural misunderstanding flows both ways, as the generational gap between Old Wong and Wong Junior shows. While I think the white people in the story had no right to discriminate against the Chinese so violently (such as the riot they mention), do you think it’s reasonable for new immigrants to at least adopt some Canadian customs like language?
I’m not comfortable with the idea of enclaves and everyone staying within their own little cliques. It’s almost like high school—if you stay in your clique you’ll only have assumptions and stereotypes about everyone else without truly understanding them.
Of course, when you ask immigrants to at least learn the language of Canada you run into some problems as well. Yes, our official languages are English and French, but don’t the languages of the first people here deserve some recognition as well? And their customs? Perhaps learning First Nations history and customs should be the duty of every incoming citizen (if anyone knows if it’s already on the citizen test, let me know!).
I think intercultural understanding can only come with communication. So that means: no enclaves…and a common language we can somehow agree on should be common…
Hi Charmaine. I believe that anyone who immigrates to any country should be aware of how they want to live in that country with its culture. If an immigrant to Canada wants to build a life in its wider community, then learning English and/or French would be crucial towards that end; if an immigrant wants only to stay within her or his own smaller cultural community, then learning English and/or French may be unnecessary. Whether adopting a given Canadian custom is “reasonable” or not should, I think, thus be left up to the individual.
You are right that enclaves create stereotypes and assumptions that in many ways harm the community as a whole. Those enclaves, however, are in many (perhaps most) cases created or at least supported by its members, and they are created and supported for a reason. Dissolving an enclave thus comes at a price, and I think that whether that price is worth it or not should again be left up to those involved. Forcefully establishing an enclave is definitely bad, but forcefully dissolving one is even worse. People can live fine without trying to understand everyone, and that’s how many want to live.
Unfortunately, the very concept of a common language means that one culture’s language is valued above all others. We have already somehow agreed on English as the world’s lingua franca, and I don’t see how that decision is ever going to change (short of an apocalypse). The ideal way to maintain multicultural communication then would be for everyone to know all the languages, but that simply isn’t possible. The Canadian Encyclopedia states that there are 60 distinct Indigenous languages in Canada–I do not think that there are many (if any) Natives who know all 60 of them, much less non-Native Canadians. Assuming an oversimplified language-to-culture conversion, that would be 60 histories and 60 sets of customs to learn as well, and just choosing a few from among them would defeat the initial purpose. I think, then, that rather than futilely attempt to become representative of everything, it is better to understand exactly where one is in relation to everything else and to engage in dialogue with that in mind.
Hi Kevin,
“A Chinamen gives us his labour and gets his money, but that money does not fructify in Canada; he does not invest it here, but takes it with him and returns to China…”
This quote was interesting to me because it reminded me about a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the absentee-homeowner debate in Vancouver. An immigrant comes to -our- land, takes -our- resources, and brings the profit back to -his- country! It’s funny that despite time changing, circumstances changing, and people (presumably? hopefully?) changing, these issues are still framed in the same way.
So considering the similarity between this and what you’ve talked about in your blog, what is your stance on absentee homeownership in Vancouver? Personally, I think it is a problem with easily visible effects – zombie neighborhoods, shuttered local businesses, home prices that ensure I will never be able to live in this city – but I bristle up whenever anyone brings race into the discussion (those darn Chinese businessmen!) – it’s a cheap way to generate support or outrage by appealing to xenophobia.
Hi Max. I’m not very informed on the topic, but from what I do know and assume, I agree with you that it is a clear problem and that it does not warrant racism. If the problem is millionaire investors, then get rid of the millionaire investors; what does race have to do with it? It’s not like the majority of Chinese people are millionaires. Better yet, the government should reevaluate its policy so that the problem doesn’t happen again (I suspect they haven’t because they don’t think of it as a problem). Even if all millionaire Chinese investors were to pull out of the market, another group would just fill their place; it’s the vulnerability, not those exploiting it, that ultimately needs to be addressed. Again though, my opinion is not very informed.