Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
diversity and multiculturalism and federal canadian government
assimilation into canadian culture essay
diversity and multiculturalism and federal canadian government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In my opinion, the heart of the Canadian matrix lies in the nationalist view that Canada is a ‘Cultural Mosaic’. The term Cultural Mosaic stems from the idea that Canada, as a country is made stronger with each immigrant. This is due to the fact that they generate a culturally diverse society that which Canadians can learn from. As a country we have coined this term because we feel as though we are so ‘different’ from the United States in the sense that we do not instill a “melting pot” environment— where immigrants, no matter their past, are American and should believe in said American values (i.e. The American Dream) once they get here. This leitmotif of our Canadian matrix is used as a tool to enable the legitimacy of “Othering” the vast varieties of cultures in Canada today.
This view of a Cultural Mosaic on Canadian society was Prime Minister Trudeau’s main motivation for creating multiculturalist policies such as the Official Multiculturalism Act established in 1971. It is extremely questionable that as a society we could call ourselves that with such confidence, that Canada was (and is) against assimilation, that as a country we embrace all cultures, races, religions, etc. This is due to the fact that the last residential school (that we know of) did not close until 1996. Residential schooling was created in order to assimilate the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, in these schools the students would be taken out of their reserve and stripped of their culture; we created an ‘other’ on purpose. What I mean by that is we allowed the government to stipulate a social phenomena of ‘Othering’ creating the opportunity to define in this case the Aboriginal people in Canada as different. This further justified the attempts made (such a...
... middle of paper ...
... speak English. I have heard many more stories like this. Having said that, this story probably resonates with many immigrants in Canada; they have it hard too. So why is it that these immigrants are what make up the Canadian identity of the “Mosaic” and the Aboriginal people in Canada do not consider themselves apart of that? By immigrating to Canada, these people are deciding to lose hold of their roots and sacrifice a little bit of their identity in order to have a better life, they let the government take control. Aboriginal people in Canada have tried their best to keep hold of their roots and identity and have refused to subdue to the Canadian Mosaic. Perhaps, though Aboriginal people in Canada and Immigrants are extremely similar in regards to their quality of life, maybe Aboriginal people are not considered a part of the Mosaic because they refuse to be.
Although Quebec is in Canada, a majority of Quebecers do not identify with the national identity of Canada. Both societies create a sense of identity as well as nationalism (Hiller, 295). Hiller mentions two approaches to assessing Canadian identity; the unitary approach and the segmentalist approach (Hiller, 277). The unitary approach suggests that society consists of people who regardless of their ethnic back ground, identify as belonging to the national society, while the segmentalist approach concentrates on groups and communities that share racial, linguistic, occupational, or cultural similarities (Hiller, 28). While most Anglophones are more unitary or pan-Canadian, Quebec heavily identifies with the segmentalist approach. This dissimilarity of identity perspective may be problematic for the country, at the same time however, it can also be viewed as a struggle where contradictory parties find a way to compromise and reshape Canadian society together (Hiller, 277). Canada’s former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau made it his objective to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. In 1969 Trudeau’s government implemented Bill C-120, otherwise known as the Official Language act, which made French an...
In “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates” Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka challenge the understanding that failed multiculturalism in Europe will follow suit in Canada. Although Canada is not immune from the challenges that can come with multiculturalism, the way in which they tackle problems are country specific and do not necessarily reflect the practice or outcomes of other nations. As UK critic of multiculturalism Trevor Phillips, observes Canada to be ‘sleepwalking towards segregation’ (44) when the dynamics are far more complicated. TRANSITION SENTENCE REQUIRED
Our government’s predecessors have attempted to eradicate Canada’s first people, which is not only an insult to the indigenous people of the past, but to the present. This country did not start off as a joint endeavor of the two general groups of people that inhabited it during its birth, but decimation and forced assimilation of great traditions and people. The assimilation of a great culture, the destruction of oral histories, and the forced loss of language destroyed the chance trust. Only by teaching disgust towards that type of attitude and action, by not excusing it or attempting to justify, will begin a new age of
One of the most contentious issues in Canada’s history is that of the Metis. Some people feel this unique group of people does not deserve any sort of recognition, whereas others believe their unique history and culture is something to be recognized and cherished. The history of the Metis people is filled with struggle; not only struggles against other powers, but also a struggle for self-identification. Despite strong opposition, the Metis people of Canada have matured as a political force and have taken great strides towards being recognized as a unique people.
Multiculturalism in Canada is actually a beautiful element. Through different texts such as “I am not racist” and “I’m a Banana and proud of it” multiculturalism may not be a beautiful thing after all. The stereotyping, that is describing people shape, colour and language they speak. In Canada, stereotyping and racism occurs even if we think it’s not as we are multicultural country.
Multiculturalism policy was first adopted in Canada in 1971, which reaffirms the dignity and value of all its citizens regardless of ethnic origins, race, religious affiliations, or language. Part of this policy, Canada confirms the rights of all the aboriginals along with the recognition of two official languages. Indeed, multiculturalism has great importance since its main purpose is to give equal treatment to all the citizens (Daniel, 2010). It ensures that all individual citizens could still maintain their identities, and have pride with their ancestry. Through this initiative, the Canadian government was able to give their citizens a feeling of self-confidence, making them more open to their diverse cultures. The multiculturalism policy
Ninette Kelley and M. J. Trebicock, The Making of the Mosaic: a history of Canadian immigration policy. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1998).
“Multiculturalism” entered public speech in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Canada that focused on unique cultural diversity, nationalities, and ethnicity across the nation. Multiculturalism and Immigration are important factors in the development of Canada to attain a strong multicultural example of economic stability, social and political growth which leads to the emergence of Canada’s identity and culture.
Flanagan holds a perspective almost close to the classic conception of assimilation: they should be regarded as a collective more than individuals; they are already very similar to other non-aboriginal people so they should be treated as the same way as non-aboriginal people. Especially for those aboriginal people living in the major cities, the modern society has a kind of sweeping power which assimilates them in a fast pace: they eat the same food, drink the same beer, celebrate the same festivals, live out the same kind of lifestyle, have similar ideology, hold similar self-identity with other non-aboriginal people. Although he is uncertain about when aboriginal people will become completely assimilated into the Canadian mainstream society, he is sure that that day will come sooner or later. It is unfair to claim that Flanagan is unaware of the difference between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. However, he thinks the difference is negligible to a large extent (Cairns and Flanagan, 2001). The fact is that most aboriginals who choose to spend most of the time at on-reserve places are either kids or senior people. A large number of aboriginals are quite flexible in terms of their living places. They go to off-reserve for jobs. When necessary, they return back to on-reserve for festivals and family re-union (Hanselmann, 2001). The boundary between
“Cultural Genocide is the intentional destruction of the culture of another people, not necessarily including the destruction of actual lives” Canada’s first encounter with the Native Canadians was a dark and brutal period. The Native Canadians, also referred to as Indians, were stripped of their cultures and called to be ashamed for their traditional ways. Indian Residential Schools were a method used by the Canadian government to destruct the ethnicity of the Native Canadians. The crimes committed by Canada are clearly represented by the Residential Schools and the special rights that they have gained today; one can not say the aboriginals have not been a victim to Cultural Genocide, if the accusations of cultural genocide are false, why were they given special rights?
What is Canada? What is a Canadian? Canada, to employ Voltaire's analogy, is nothing but “a few acres of snow.”. Of course, the philosopher spoke of New France, when he made that analogy. More recently, a former Prime Minister, Joe Clark, said that the country was nothing but a “community of communities”. Both these images have helped us, in one way or another, try to interpret what could define this country. On the other hand, a Canadian could be a beer, a hockey-playing beaver or even a canoe floating in a summer day's sunset. A Canadian could also be a “sovereigntyphobe”, refusing to see the liquefaction, albeit political, of the second largest country in the world. However, in this era of multiculturalism, could the current immigration flow help us determine what is a Canadian and, to an extent, what is Canada?
...ans and the British settlers. So, why are we forcing ourselves to define what a “Canadian” truly is, when Canada has never been a country with one prevalent cultural group? But this is not to say that Canada will never be a unified country. South Africa is an example of the unification of a country that has torn itself apart by apartheid policies. Nelson Mandela dedicated his life to this struggle, seeking equality for all races, finally achieving his goal in 1995. If Mandela unified a country that was deeply racist and apartheid for such a long time, who are we to say that we cannot someday unify a country simply divided because of deferential to authority and differing arrangements of party systems? Canada and its citizens will one day realize the many deeper things they hold in common that unify them, which will help us in making strides towards true unification.
Do you know that despite Canada being called multicultural and accepting, Canada’s history reveals many secrets that contradicts this statement? Such an example are Canadian aboriginals, who have faced many struggles by Canadian society; losing their rights, freedoms and almost, their culture. However, Native people still made many contributions to Canadian society. Despite the efforts being made to recognize aboriginals in the present day; the attitudes of European Canadians, acts of discrimination from the government, and the effects caused by the past still seen today have proven that Canadians should not be proud of Canada’s history with respect to human rights since 1914.
Canada is an ethnically diverse country. The notion of "multiculturalism" began circulating in Canada in 1971 and is a word that is now commonly used to define this country, unlike the word "melting-pot" which is used to describe Americans' loss of ethnic identity. The broadcasting system in Canada is pressured by the government to acknowledge the culturally diverse society by broadcasting a fair representation of the population in terms of ethnicity. This is achieved through the many acts that have been passed through parliament: the multiculturalism policy of 1971, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy of 1985, and most recent, the Broadcasting Act of 1991. These legislative and policy frameworks have provided guidelines for the management of Canadia...
Growing up with a diverse community makes you realize that Canada is growing and slowly becoming a Multicultural society. Multiculturalism as stated in the textbook, is defined as allowing and accepting different cultures and providing them encouragement and support to keep their culture and diverse traditions (Mintz et al. 2015, 34). In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adapt the official policy of multiculturalism. (Government of Canada. “Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship” 2012). Canada grants all residents of Canadian citizens regardless of their “racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation”. (Government of Canada. “Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship”