MULTICULTURALISM POLICY OF CANADA

Marginal note:Multiculturalism policy

• 3. (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

  • (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

  • (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

  • (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

  • (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

  • (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

  • (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

  • (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

  • (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

  • (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

  • (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

• Marginal note:Federal institutions

  (2) It is further declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada that all federal institutions shall

  • (a) ensure that Canadians of all origins have an equal opportunity to obtain employment and advancement in those institutions;

  • (b) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to the continuing evolution of Canada;

  • (c) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the understanding of and respect for the diversity of the members of Canadian society;

  • (d) collect statistical data in order to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada;

  • (e) make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins; and

  • (f) generally, carry on their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada.

—————————————————————————————

Question 2) 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 Multiculturalism Act of 1988 was an attempt by the Canadian government to protect the heterogeneous/non-European members of the population. It was a response to the growing immigration in Canada during the 70s, and by my interpretation it seems like reconciliation for the previous mistakes made (Indian Act, Chinese Head Tax). The Multiculturalism Act recognized Canada as a multicultural nation, a nation in which no one culture held superiority over another. It sought to unite members of different cultures in understanding one another, and through those means to create an integrated Canadian identity.

This law brought funding to, and encouraged the celebration of, many cultures’ festivals and holidays in Canada (it has given rise to the celebration of Chinese New Year, St. Patrick’s Day, and Vaisakhi Day). The law also reinforced legal equality and treatment of members of every culture and race, so that no one would be discriminated against either by the law or by other citizens on grounds of culture. The Act demands that everyone be granted equal opportunities in terms of employment and career advancement, and legally prevented citizens from being denied these rights on basis of culture. It served to promote the use of multiple languages and not assimilate the population into speaking English or French, while still maintaining English and French as the official languages. It also allocated funding towards schools and institutions in which languages other than English and French could be practiced. The Multiculturalism Act gave citizens the freedom to practice their religions, and prevented the discrimination of individuals based on religious grounds. It also served to recognize the rights of the Aboriginal peoples and grant them freedom to heritage practices and fair treatment.

The Multiculturalism Act is in direct disagreement with Coleman’s white civility, and was Trudeau’s attempt to counter ethnocentric attitudes. This law desired to make everyone equal as a Canadian, and sought to oppose the nationalism that plagued Canada’s past. The point was to promote every ethnicity and culture and put an end to this idealization of the white, European national. The goal was to avoid a distinctly Canadian culture, and instead have society consist of several independent cultures that existed in harmony and unison.

An unfortunate by product of the act is that focusing on the promotion and preservation of culture has indirectly led to the segregation of people of the same culture. This segregation is not caused by the state, but because of populations that tend to flock to different areas, and associate mainly with those of their own culture. Even today certain cities and districts are overrepresented, and portrayed based on certain cultures/races that inhabit them. On a smaller scale those of the same culture would appear to group with one another, and in some cases avoid close association with members of out-groups. This is not in direct relation to the Multiculturalism Act, but instead a consequence of independent groups. An effect of this is that certain groups maintain ethnocentric and culturally ignorant attitudes towards others, and it fosters tolerance instead of acceptance.

——————————————————————————–

Works cited:

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

1] In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to the story.

—————————————————————————————

From the beginning of Robinson’s story the syntactic structuring caused my first reaction to be to read it aloud. The word choice, and the flow of the sentences made it feel more like a conversation or personal story than a textual source.

My first read through was done silently. It was a definite struggle because the story wasn’t linear, it was conversational, and Harry Robinson pauses now and again to ask questions: “do you know what the angel was? Do you know?” (Robinson 66). Points were returned to and repeated because of its oral nature, and the trouble involved with recalling what one has already said and remaining true to the story. Certain aspects and details were left out that I expect in text-based stories: characterizations, surroundings, internal thoughts/monologues. The pace was also incredibly quick at some points, it felt like the narration was excited, as if the words were more of a trail than the sight to behold. There were also moments for interpretation within the book, at one point Harry says “So she finish ’em-a book, good & thick. Thicker than this & bigger” (Robinson 78). There were points where Harry loses track of his train of thought “That’s all the name I know. I don’t know his second name. Or, his first name. Maybe his first name, maybe TOH-mah, maybe that was his second name”. This train of thought was difficult to follow silently because it’s a pattern of speech, it’s a confusing process to make sense of silently. The personal references to age, and events “I seen him in Penticton, I seen him twice” generally challenge story perspectives because the narrator is a relatable person, and consistently disconnects from the tenses of the original story. The perspective also alternated from Harry Robinson’s point of view and thoughts on what things occurred and what he saw, to a third-party witnessing the events of Coyote, TOH-ma, the white man, and the king.

My second read through was done out loud. The story was more fluent because it uses informal spoken language. The imagery and metaphors were also much clearer, and my friend and I could picture the events that were unfolding. Speaking this story brought out deeper meaning within the conversations, and context of the characters. I am sure it was my perspective coloring the voices and intention of the character’s words, for instance “Well, what did my children do for your children?” (Robinson 70), almost felt hostile. This felt like the King of England was a child trying to hide his guilt, in this case the guilt was over colonial settlers. In my telling, Coyote was a reasonable, peaceful person who was seeking sympathy and cooperation with the King of England. It did actually feel like I was creating a performance with the story, because no two sentences sounded the same. Meaning and emotion were altered with each sentence because of the words used.

The third reading was done by my friend, and the experience as a listener was similar. The text came alive, and the performance aspects were more visible in seeing someone else recreate the tale. The fluidity was still greater than the silent reading, although I have to admit we both stumbled about Harry Robinson’s grammar and syntax.

In conclusion the oral syntax played a large role in my understanding of the story.

*About “Black & White”/The Indian Act*

———————————————————————————————–

Works cited:

“Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, C. I-5).” Legislative Services Branch. Web. 20 June 2015.

Joseph, Bob. “21 Things You May Not Have Known About The Indian Act.” Working Effectively With Aboriginal Peoples. 2 June 2015. Web. 20 June 2015.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal With the King of England.” Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 288. Print.

Robinson, Martin. “Let’s Stop Feeling Guilty about the Empire Because the World Has Moved On, Says Hague.” Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 20 June 2015.

Prompt:

Question 1)

First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?

——————————————————————————————

Thomas King uses distinctly separate styles of telling The Bible’s “Genesis”, and the First Nation’s creation story about Charm, “The Earth Diver” because it reflects a Western audiences’ perspective. Stories of identity and stories that explain how things came to be are heavily ingrained in people’s concepts of the world. Also religion, for a large portion of the population, is intertwined with how people define themselves and their environment. For these reasons, Thomas King wanted to illustrate the dichotomy to point out how society’s norms affect our thinking, in that one creation story can be recited as fact and the other as fiction.

People are more familiar with the story of Genesis, and due to the popularity it is seen as sacred. In comparison, stories like “The Earth Diver” are told less and do not hold a similar significance, and thus aren’t commonly believed. King compares these two stories to demonstrate that these dichotomous patterns discerning stories are still common, and that many of us still commit the act of separating stories into opposing categories. It also serves to demonstrate how rooted the need to organize information into categories is. Many people don’t realize that we filter opposing stories into truth and non-truths (not lies, but also not fables). By comparing two stories of creation that wouldn’t normally be evaluated together, King allows the reader to think critically about why they would be considered more different than similar.

I imagine people would humor the tale of Charm and her twins, just as they would mock myths of gods and goddesses from Greece and Nordic countries. These same people would debate endlessly that the story of Adam and Eve is historical and actually occurred eons ago, yet both the myths and the tales of Eden cannot be proven. If these stories are so similar why are people so biased to believe one and dispose of the other? I reason that the point King is trying to allude to is that the stories we are raised hearing are the stories we recite and believe later in life. Claiming that “Genesis” is more authentic or true than any other story is ethnocentrism; it would be using cultural values that are familiar/typical to evaluate one that is foreign.

Another point of comparison for why this particular dichotomy is refuted is due to method of storytelling. Much like the differences between a potlatch and Western courts, universities, theatre, and churches, the key is that “Genesis” is written while “The Earth Diver” is spoken. The written word has traveled further due to the ease of distribution/recital, the translatability, and perfect retention of the story (although how stable The Bible’s translation over the centuries has been is debatable).

Comparing “Genesis” and “The Earth Diver” is an ironic demonstration by King of this binary thinking he urges us to avoid. We can’t fix a problem we can’t recognize, and by pointing to a core belief amongst many Western citizens King is providing recognition. He is pointing out an example of what it is that requires change.

———————————————————————————————-

Works cited:

“Creation Stories.” History World. History World, n.d. Web. 13 June 2015.

Paul, Annie. “Your Brain on Fiction.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 June 2015.

Read at least 3 students blog short stories about ‘home’ and make a list of the common shared assumptions, values and stories that you find. Post this list on your blog with some commentary about what you discovered.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

The concept of “Home” is one that varies markedly between different people. It was touching and enlightening to see how open people were with their past in the stories they told. I’m grateful that so many classmates shared these intimate details that were vastly similar and dissimilar simultaneously. I’m quite nervous in making generalizations based on my perception because these stories are so vulnerable, and dear to those who tell them.

Many of the ideas connected to home are linked to strong memories, composed around feelings of belonging or safety. Tales of childhood experiences, and interactions with others, or memories of traveling. Some involve past locations, beaches, train stations, and schools in this case. Many stories involved family members and what family meant to those individuals, and this desire or longing to strive for this ‘ideal’ family. It appeared that our ideas of what home and family means are construed by the culture we live in, it colors our expectations and in some cases corrodes reality (understandably so in unfortunate cases). The role and importance of family in one’s concept of home, and who was considered to be family seemed to be quite diverse. Family appeared to be a malleable system wherein members can flow in and out of its nucleus, those who are harmful phase out, and those who weren’t originally members who become important phase in.

|”This path toward figuring out my ‘home’ is one that I am on. It is a never ending, twisting, turning, a constantly evolving journey.” – Hannah Vaartnou|

A connection with one’s home is deeply rooted in identity, where you’re from paints the perception of who you are. When we hear where someone calls home we grab traits from the schema we have about the area and apply what we can to said person (many are stereotypes). Sometimes, lacking a sense of home is experienced as a lack of identity.

|”The nation’s body jellied and primped in the language of neoliberalism, ecological crisis, and silenced histories.” – Laura Avery|

Some connect the idea of home with a geographical location, learning from its past and applying it to their life practices. Knowing the history of a nation is critical to being culturally respectful, and mindful of why norms exist today.

|”Why cling to the steel through-line of story when perhaps ‘home’ is more like an estuary?” – Laura Avery|

|”Being away from home, the idea of home became more abstract to me.” – Evan Franey|

                In many cases, home is seen as a fluid and dynamic concept. It can change depending on where you move to or live, or based on who is important to you and your sense of identity. Despite a comparatively uneventful upbringing I had trouble thinking what home meant to me, it can never be one thing. As sad as it is to think about, the people and places in my life are as temporary as I am. Distance from someone, moving from a beloved house, or loss of a loved one may cause ripples in one’s sense of home, but it somehow withstands. This means that in some instances, home is greater than the sum of its parts.

Thank you again to everyone, and especially Evan, Laura & Hannah for sharing your stories.

-Landon .T

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Works cited:

Avery, Laura. “2.1.” English 470A. ENGL 470A: Querying narratives of ‘home’ and of national identity. 05 June 2015. Web. 07 June 2015.

Franey, Evan. “Home in Transition.” English 470A. Liminal Space Between Story and Literature. 05 June 2015. Web. 07 June 2015.

Vaartnou, Hannah. “Home is in Your Own Heart.” Hannah and Canada. 05 June 2015. Web. 07 June 2015.

Write a short story (600 – 1000 words) that describes your sense of home; write about the values and the stories that you use to connect yourself to, and to identify your sense of home.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

It’s a dark morning, the sunroof is covered in snow and the light of day can’t break through the clouds. Today is Christmas morning, and I am ten. I run from my bedroom and join my sister in waking up my parents. My dad makes himself tea and grabs the newspaper. My family spends the first few minutes of their morning going about routines. I sit and wait patiently by the tree, more excited about what my family members have given each other than what I will receive. I’m joined by them shortly after, and we start handing gifts to each other. My mom selects the order in which gifts are opened, making sure nobody feels left out. She announces who each gift is for, and who it’s from. We’re always surprised with each gift opened, and show outward expressions of gratitude. After that my mom and sister start making breakfast; it’s always eggs, toast, hash browns and bacon. When that’s over we spent the day watching T.V., going for walks, and just spending time together.

It’s now July, and I am sixteen years-old. My family is waiting in the hot Florida sun at Port Canaveral. We’re waiting for the green light to board the cruise ship. It will be touring around the Caribbean, stopping seven times along the way. My sister and I are joking with each other to pass the time. My parents are patiently waiting, and double-checking that all our luggage is present, and that all the necessary travel documents are accounted for. Eventually we’re allowed on the ship. My sister and I eagerly want to begin exploring every inch, so as to not miss a single thing. My dad reminds us that we should visit our rooms first, then check the dining room so we know where to go. My family travels as a unit, it’s a routine we started since I was born. After traveling the ship for a while we group up for the muster drill (in case the ship begins to capsize). Over the course of the cruise we wander around the ports, dine, and go to various events as a family. When we get to the airport I cannot  wait to be home, somewhere everything makes sense, and things are predictable. A place where the norms don’t feel foreign, and there aren’t flags everywhere reminding me that I’m not home (*cough* America *cough*).

Despite the fact that now my sister has moved away from home, and created one for herself. Even though I spend more time doing homework, and going to school, than I do with my mom and dad. I still feel at home in British Columbia, surrounded by family. The mountains provide me with a sense of security. The familiar streets and bus routes make me feel that I’m not lost. The frequent mixture of cloud-high buildings, and parks with lush trees combining nature and industry gives me a sense of connection to the environment. Being in the house where I’ve lived for all my years, though they may be few, it creates a history for me. Home for me is familiar, though things may change and people with them, I can count on certain things to be constant. My house to remain the same (for now), and my family to stick together despite geographical distance. My home will certainly change in the future, as my life changes, and environments shift. Home for me is, and will be, anywhere I feel welcome, or where I feel like I belong. Anywhere my goals and aspirations lead me, though it will take time to settle in, will become my home. My concept of home isn’t static, it changes with time, and as families grow and shrink. It’s not a place, but a feeling of being loved and loving those who you’re with; not wanting to be anywhere else.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Works cited:

Beck, Julie. “The Psychology of Home: Why Where You Live Means So Much.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 5 June 2015.

“Greenest City 2020 Action Plan.” Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Web. 5 June 2015.