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.
———
“White Canadian culture is obsessed and organized by its obsession, with the problem of its own civility” – Daniel Coleman
The Immigration Act 1910 was an act that enhanced the discretionary powers of the Canadian government to control and further regulate the admittance of immigrants into Canada. The act outlined an expanded list of immigrants that were prohibited from entering, and the cabinet was also given an increased degree of authority to make nonselective decisions regarding permissibility and deportation when necessary. With the modifications made to the act of 1910, the governor-in-council was allowed to prohibit the landing of an immigrant based on arbitrary and insubstantial reasons; for example, it could be argued that the individual merely was not suitable for the requirements or type of climate in Canada. Furthermore, the Immigration Act 1910 introduced the notion of permanent residency, which meant that immigrants were eligible to live in Canada after three years; however, until this status was granted, at any given point they were susceptible to deportation if deemed undesirable or ineffectual to Canada. As a means of ensuring that their authoritative control over immigration remained uncompromised, the act barred courts and judges from interfering in the decisions-making process of the executive branch of the Canadian government; the power over immigration was concentrated and tirelessly protected by this exclusive division. In addition, the act also made mandatory that immigrants of Asiatic race were required to possess $200 before being permitted to enter Canada. In comparison, however, regardless of being male or female, or of a different race, so long as you were not of Asiatic origin, you were only required to possess $25 upon arrival to be permitted entry.
“I am given no chance. I am overdetermined from without. I am the slave of the “idea” that others have of me but of my own appearance” – Frantz Fanon
I believe that the above summary of the Immigration Act 1910 validates Coleman’s argument regarding Canada’s projection of white civility. Coleman states that the purpose of his study is to analyze the “construction of White English Canadian privilege” (Coleman, 3) over other races, and upon doing research about the act, it unquestionably seems as though the regulations were incorporated entirely to serve the interests of the ‘superior’ White race in Canada. Potential Canadian Immigrants were susceptible to unfounded abuse and discrimination merely because those that possessed power in the Canadian government were manipulating circumstances in favor of Whites – this notion of discriminating based on race instantly reminded me of sociologist, Franz Fanon’s essay entitled, “The Fact of Blackness”. In his essay he discusses the discrimination that Blacks in America had to undergo, and the extent to which they were severely disadvantaged and ‘othered’ simply because of their darker skin; Fanon comprehends, “Not only must the black man be black; he must be Black in relation to the white man” (Fanon, 82-83). I think this quote perfectly encapsulates the struggles of immigrants attempting to gain entry into Canada. While the Immigration Act does not selectively discriminate against Blacks alone, Fanon’s discussion can still be attributed to the discussion about white civility. Those that are scrutinized, threatened, and expected to possess a certain amount of money prior to entry are all treated in the same racialized way because they are always compared to the idealized White man. In this regard, Fanon’s assertion that as a Black man, he was “told to stay within bounds, to go back where I belonged” (86), relates to Coleman’s concept of white civility, for immigrants that did not live up to the standard of “whiteness” that Canada desired were victims of extensive dehumanization. Therefore, I think that my findings about the Immigration Act 1910 are clear examples of Canada’s undoubted imposition of white civility during this time.
Works Cited
CanLit Guides. “Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom Guide to Nationalism.” Canadian Literature. Web. March 10th 2016.
Coleman, David. “Masculine Migrations: Reading the Postcolonial Male in New Canadian Narratives.” Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Print.
Fanon, Frantz. “The Fact of Blackness” From Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1967. Print.
“An Introduction to Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin White Masks – A Macat Sociology Analysis.” Youtube. Youtube, 2 September 2015. 12 March 2016.
“What If You Were An Immigrant?: Ben Huh at TEDxPortland” Youtube. Youtube, 2 June 2013. 12 March 2016.
Hi Neia!
I’m glad you tackled the same topic as me, but a different piece of legislation. First of all, thank you for that thorough overview of the Immigration Act of 1910. It’s alarming to think that someone could be abruptly deported or abruptly granted the status of permanent residency. There is a strict division present in the law. More clearly, the dichotomy of the “us” and the “other.” An immigrant is not part of the “us,” and instead they require conditions. They require qualifications. Their identity and value is determined by monetary means and whether they are deemed useful for the country. If finally, a person receives permanent residency and immigrant status, are they truly equal to everyone else when they had to satisfy a numerous list of requirements in order to do so? Your discussion of white civility seems to answer this and that apt quote from Fanon is perfect support: “not only must the black man be black; he must be Black in relation to the white man.” Undoubtedly, the law determined the value of an immigrant in comparison to “idealized white man.” Considering the many aforementioned potential immigrants needed to satisfy, that presupposed deficit is emphasized by a law that was written with the monotone brush of white civility.
Lovely blog post. I really enjoyed reading your discussion. Thank you!
Hi Brandon!
Thanks so much for your amazing feedback on my post. 🙂 I think what you brought up regarding the dichotomy between “us” versus “them” is really significant, because during this time it really did seem as though the Canadian government was perpetrating that sort of segregation. It’s interesting to think about how racialized treatment of immigrants in Canada was normal back then — I can’t fathom the awful circumstances these individuals were put through merely because their physical exterior did not reflect that of a White man or woman.
I also highly suggest reading up on Fanon if you ever get the chance to! We are focusing on him right now in one of my sociology courses (Sociology 350: Sociological Theory, to be exact!), and I think his work is super captivating and applicable to a ton of discussions about racialization and dehumanization of minorities.
Thanks again for your comment, Brendan! 🙂
– Neia
Hey Neia,
I took a look at the same question for my blog, but I looked at the multiculturalism act. I like how you’ve brought in other sources like the Fanon reading and considered it in relation to African Americans. I’ve found that some Canadians mistakenly think Canada is ‘better’ than America in the sense the foundation our country is built upon isn’t marred by slavery, however, Canada had no lack of cruelty toward both immigrants and indigenous peoples. Just like Americans, we have held whites above other races in our political policies, as you’ve demonstrated.
Great post, thanks for sharing!
Hey Natalie,
I loved your blog post too! I couldn’t agree more with your point; as a Canadian myself, I would be lying if I said I didn’t ever think of myself as being from a superior nation (when comparing us to the US). However, this mentality I sometimes find myself holding isn’t true at all. As you aptly point out, just because Canada isn’t marred by slavery does not mean we haven’t perpetrated our fair share of racism.
Thank you for your feedback! 🙂
– Neia
Hi Neia, thanks for an amazing post. I also did my post of the Immigration Act so it was interesting to read. I particularly liked the info you brought to the topic by talking about how this policy plays a role in systemic discrimination that persists long after the policy has been revoked. The disadvantages that it places on these communities have generational impacts that take much to overcome.
Hi Maryam!
Thanks for your comment. 🙂 I definitely think it’s very important to discuss systemic discrimination, because as you’ve pointed out, the effects are lasting and life-altering. I think in that regard, it’s always important to acknowledge how such discriminative treatment persists long after a certain policy that perpetrates it has been revoked. It just goes to show how oftentimes, you can’t fully fix, or take things if the damage has already been done.
– Neia
Hi Neia,
Thank you for a great post. Your summary of the Immigration act of 1910 was concise and very informative. I particularly enjoyed the Ted talk you hyperlinked. What stood out to me was the part when he spoke about the different challenges faced by immigrants a hundred years ago compared to those today. The fact that nature was the main cause of suffering in the past compared to it being man made now really put things in perspective. We as human beings bring this level of suffering on others and I would have to guess that many are unaware they are doing it. I think that it is important that people put themselves in others shoes. Another key point he makes in the Ted talk that I think is relevant to this course is that we are all immigrants her in North America and I believe people forget this all too often.
Thanks again,
Danielle
Hi Danielle,
I am very glad you enjoyed Ben Huh’s Ted Talk! I love how you referenced Ben’s acknowledgment that all of us are immigrants in North America, as that was also something that immediately grasped my interest. As we discussed in the beginning of the course, this notion of us all being immigrants reminds me of our discussion about home in reference to Chamberlain. In a previous blog post, I wrote about the relations between the settlers and the Aboriginals, and I think to a certain degree, this is applicable to what Ben Huh is talking about when he calls all of us immigrants. Once we strip away the sense of entitlement, it becomes evident that, in actuality, we are all one in the same; we are all immigrants that deserve an equal amount of respect.
Thanks again for your comment! 🙂
– Neia
Hi Neia,
Really great post with lots of fantastic insight! I really liked the TedxPortland Talk you linked and the ideas the speaker, Ben Huh, seemed to be raising. When you stand in the year 2016 and survey just how much as changed in American and Canadian immigration policy in the last century, two things seem to come to mind: how backward society seemed to be in the 1900s and how far we have come. But after reading your post and learning about xenophobic legislature that generated enough support to be passed and publicized and practiced could be, I got to thinking about how little we have come in some regards. Maybe immigration policies have been improving, and Canada in particular has emerged as leader in offering individuals and families from all walks of life and all corners of the world a new opportunity, but sometimes public attitude can be scarily outdated. I was stunned to see in the news earlier this year about a “hate crime” at a Vancouver event for Syrian refugees in which an unknown man attacked a large group with pepper spray. In a city like Vancouver that I like to think is exceptionally liberal and forward thinking, that violence is surprising.
But like Ben Huh mentioned in his Ted Talk, those negative reactions in both policy and public opinion to the arrival of foreigners in “our” country seem to stem from an insecurity and frustration with our own successes or lack thereof. It seems to be popular trend in the rhetoric against what Canada is doing with the Syrian refugees to ask: “What about me? Why don’t I get the special treatment that these people are getting?” And I think that is a valid enough question. Conversely, however, and as the child of immigrants I might be biased, I think that so long as Vancouver, and Canada at large, has the resources to accommodate the arrival of immigrants and refugees, we should not close our doors. Multiculturalism makes up the fabric of our nation and after reading your post, I could not imagine a Vancouver without a vibrant Asian and historic community at its core.
Hi Simon!
Wow, I loved your feedback; thank you so much for commenting on my post. 🙂
I could not agree more with the points you raised, and what especially resonated with me was your discussion about the acceptance of the Syrian refugees. I was actually unaware of the hate crime that took place at a Vancouver event, and it’s honestly quite difficult for me to accept that it occurred in our home, in Vancouver.
As you mentioned, multiculturalism makes up the fabric of our nation, and I think because of this, I have the perception of our city especially, as always upholding an accepting, anti-xenophobic outlook of all peoples, regardless of their race and where they come from — but in reality, as you’ve noted, this is not the case. I, too, am at odds with how far Canada as come since the 1900s, yet how far we have yet to go in terms of racism. In the case of the Syrian refugees, there was not a doubt in my mind to keep our borders open to them; who are we to turn away people in such a vulnerable state, trying to better their lives? I am strongly against the idea of discriminating against an entire country and condemning them all for the actions of a few.
Hi Neia,
Your comparison to Fanon’s essay to the issue of white civility in Canada was a fascinating comparison. It made me think additionally about mixed races with the “Black in relation to the white man” comment because I remember when Barack Obama was running in 2008, there were many criticisms of his being “not black enough” because of his white mother. From personal experience I have also seen this in my local Sechelt shishalh community – many of the Indigenous peers I knew had at least one white parent.
But I’ve felt that belonging to these two different ethnic and cultural groups is almost more disparaging than belonging solely to one or another, in the same way that some have now construed Mulatto as a racist or outdated term. My father who is half Quechuan and half British grew up entirely in Long Island and Toronto suburbs and had faced and endless barrage of racist comments towards his Hispanic features despite having virtually no connection to his Peruvian heritage. I think mixed children, growing up are most likely put at a disadvantage of knowing their heritage, especially in combination with skyrocketing divorce rates, they may only identify with one side or the other, but still carry with them a sense of placelessness as they are judged by their peers on face value.