The 1971 Multicultural Policy, the by-product of recommendations seen in Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism report, gave Canadian society a new image. The policy set out to assist cultural groups to retain and foster their own identity, overcome barriers to participation in society, promote creative exchanges among Canadian cultural groups, and assist immigrants in acquiring at least one of the official languages. The Environics Institute for Survey Research conducted a survey that found 56% of Canadians saw multiculturalism as one of the core symbols of Canadian identity, up nearly 15% from 10 years prior however, there is still high skepticism for the Multicultural Policy. As a result of Canada’s Multicultural …show more content…
There is no simple acceptance that one is Canadian due to the multicultural policy. Bissoondath makes the argument that the emergence of this policy defines different categories of race and culture that prohibit social interactivity to its fullest. The recognition of difference such as different types of Black, Asian, and hyphenated Canadian creates sub-categories that replace the Canadian identity. This becomes a concern because by recognizing these differences there is more freedom to pursue these identities; instead of actively pursuing a Canadian identity it is justified to pursue an Indo-Canadian identity. Bissoondath says in frustration, “here is that multiculturalism has failed us… in evoking uncertainty as to what and who is a Canadian, it has diminished all sense of Canadian values, of what is a Canadian.” The Canadian culture is less apparent than ever before, we Canadians understand multiculturalism to be one of the key features of our identity, but the categories that multiculturalism creates encourages uncertainty of who fits in the general category of a pure Canadian. By having this recognition of different groups and visible minorities through our multicultural policies there is an implicit creation of true whiteness, a “Canadian-Canadian”. The Canadian Multicultural Policy establishes a hierarchy by recognizing differences and creates …show more content…
The Canadian Multicultural Policy was supposed to be the end of racism instead it simply helped promoted the 3 D’s. One example of this is the public objection to the policy that members of the Sikh faith can wear their turbans when joining the Royal Canadian Mountain Police. This act was seen to violate the long established “Canadian” tradition. However, when this practice is viewed as a cultural dress aspect then public opinion seems to be different. Sikh youth clubs host turban tying events in Toronto that get a lot of positive public attention. Similarly, Indian restaurants and Indian dance often receive high appreciation from the Canadian public. Sikh cultural dances were part of the opening ceremony at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. This presence of materialistic cultures weakens social unity and the larger Canadian culture because it undermines many ethnic groups real cultural values. Similarly, Canadian Chinatowns have survived throughout the past century but what is usually seen in these areas is the food, clothing, and dance of these cultures many of the more deeply rooted cultural practices, those that do not fit into the 3 D category are often forgotten. The counter argument is that the different cultures actually add to the countries overall culture
As its own state Quebec would have the capacity to act, consolidate and further create their own cultural identity (Heard, 2013). For example, Quebec could foster the national language to be French. By gaining independence from Canada, Quebec can then create their own laws, own immigration rules and levy taxes (Heard, 2013). This would allow Quebec to be completely independent from the rest of Canada, but they would have connecting boarders like the United States and Canada do.
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...
...to identity with at least one of the countries predominate languages, English or French, dictated the degree in which they could participate in Canadian life. According to the Commission, this participation was real under two conditions: “that both societies, the French-speaking as well as the English-speaking, accept[ed] newcomers much more rapidly than they have done in the past; and that the two societies willingly allow other groups to preserve and enrich, if they so desire, the cultural values they prize[d]” (RCBB Book 1 xxv). It creates an interesting take on the acceptance of those “othered” groups, as change was necessary not only on the part of the minorities but also from Canada’s French and English-speakers. The Commissions work remains focused on language and culture, more so than ethnicity amongst a bilingual, bicultural and “othered” Canadian society.
The mention of the abolition of multiculturalism for a “new” post-multiculturalist approach becomes difficult to understand. It claims, “to avoid the ‘excesses’ of multiculturalism” (47), however where does this notable governmental and social switch take place? How is the term coined, and how is it understood in theory versus in practice? How is it different from its predecessor? Even the classification of history struggles to define what is considered to be modern, let alone post-modern, and yet the term suggests a positive approach to alleviating difficult assimilation projects similar to those faced elsewhere (47). This notion may developed on the grounds of “someone else’s problems” ¬– in regards to its Canadian context – as a means to label, or justify, miscellaneous aspects of multiculturalism. However, with the government-wide commitment to policies and programs, in conjunction with social understanding, it naturally becomes subject to a wide array of differing opinions. As both immigration and citizenship policies change, its public reception often shifts as well. Especially since the channels referred to within the ‘multiculturalism...
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...
Is Canada a nation or has its control just switched empirical hands? As Professor Hutcheson asked, did Canada go from "Colony to Nation or Empire to Empire?" This question has greatly influenced Canada's changing identity since her birth as a British colony with Confederation in 1867 to the present day. The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse the shifting Canadian identities between the years 1890 to 1960. The objective is to illustrate Canada's transforming identity by using the novels The Imperialist by Sara Jeanette Duncan, Barometer Rising by Hugh MacLennan, and Fifth Business by Robertson Davies and to connect the stories of each of these works of fiction to the varying political, economic, and social issues of their times. Each book is written by a prominent author, and portrays an accurate reflection of the demanding political, economic, and social concerns throughout the late nineteen and first half of the twentieth century of Canadian history. All of the novels reflect Canada's peripheral view of the world, as opposed to a central point of view, because throughout its history Canada has always been perceived as a secondary player. As George Grant says in his literary piece Lament for a Nation, Canada is "a branch plant society" , meaning Canada is controlled by another power. The essential question is where has Canada's loyalties traditionally lay and how has this shaped the Canadian identity. The Imperialist by Sara Jeanette Duncan, written in 1904 reflects a very British influenced Canada. At this time, Canada is still a British colony under British rule, and the people of Canada are very content to consider themselves British. The novel predominately ill...
35 Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Nelson, 2002: 164.
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.
The Dual Nation Theory took its heading starting in 1960, with the beginning of the sovereignty movement (Gorman, Robert F. 2008. 2018-2020). It truly took off, however, with the Quiet Revolution, where the idea of “maîtres chez nous” and the shift from being a distinct part of Canada to Quebec being a nation in its own right begins to take hold. Québécois nationalism defined Confederation as being an agreement between two peoples: the French and the English. “Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and civil law tradition” (Chotalia, 1993). This is significant to mention because this is the theory that ultimately leads to the Three Nation Theory.
The Indian Residential schools and the assimilating of First Nations people are more than a dark spot in Canada’s history. It was a time of racist leaders, bigoted white men who saw no point in working towards a lasting relationship with ingenious people. Recognition of these past mistakes, denunciation, and prevention steps must be taking intensively. They must be held to the same standard that we hold our current government to today. Without that standard, there is no moving forward. There is no bright future for Canada if we allow these injustices to be swept aside, leaving room for similar mistakes to be made again. We must apply our standards whatever century it was, is, or will be to rebuild trust between peoples, to never allow the abuse to be repeated, and to become the great nation we dream ourselves to be,
The culture of Canada refers to the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that are a representative of Canada and Canadians. Throughout Canada's history, its culture has been influenced by American culture because of a shared language, proximity, television and migration between the two countries. Over time, Canadian-American relations have helped develop Canada’s identity during the years 1945-1982; thus introducing changing social norms, media and entertainment. In support of this, due to the United States being approximately 9.25 times larger in population and having the dominant cultural and economic influence, it played a vital role in establishing Canada’s identity. With Canada being its neighbour, naturally, the United States would influence their way of life upon Canada.
Multiculturalism is a significant fabric of Canadian society that defines its unique identity among the rest of the world. Enactment of the Canadian multicultural policy (1971) affirmed government position and recognition of multiculturalism as a vital element of Canada. It is imperative to understand that multiculturalism is a static concept that keeps changing overtime and has a multidimensional entity. Canadians have always and will continue to revise the concept of multiculturalism to suit the ever expanding needs of Canadian society. In this paper, I will evaluate the reasons behind Canada’s adoption of multicultural policy and assess whether the policy should be maintained or not. I will defend the thesis that Canada’s multiculturalism
In recent years, Canada has become the most preferred country for immigration. Besides first nations, everyone or their ancestors have immigrated to Canada sometime during Canada’s history. “About 250,000 new permanent residents arrive to Canada yearly” [Knowles, Valerie]. Among all the G-8 countries, Canada has the highest immigration rate. Canada is a country constructed by immigrants, playing an elemental role in Canadian society. Immigration has a significant impact on Canadians, creating a welcoming diverse cultural society. Canadians express great support for immigration with the many vital benefits Canada gain from it. Although immigration brings many benefits to this country, few Canadians may not support immigration.
Multiculturalism is often taken up at surface level, in which certain (or allowed) cultural practices like, dance, drama, clothing and food are used to construct an inclusive and accepting society, although the space given for multiculturalism manifests through a dominant narrative. Thus, multiculturalism ignores the power relations and discrimination that have shaped society (Lee, 1991), in turn projecting the idea that Canadian culture is rooted in the inclusivity, acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. Within the discourse of Anti-Racism education, White (male) power and privilege and the rationality for dominance within a society are questioned (Dei, 1996), as opposed to the discourse surrounding multiculturalism. There are massive social, political and economic benefits that have and still do amass to individuals in society due to the dominance of White (male) power (Dei, 1996). Thus, multiculturalism serves as a mask that allows this power to continue and manifest as in dominant positions can validate and impose their own definitions of normality and define boundaries for the sole purpose of excluding, enclosing or exploiting others (Solomos, 1998). In essence, behind said mask, the prism in which multiculturalism has brought Canada to a supposed ‘post-racial’ society continues to hide the inequities of a society in which individuals still suffer for a racialized identity. Hence, one can say that multiculturalism carries particular notions of value and entitlement and thus defend privilege either directly or though the operation of codes, norms and rules and that may appeal to universalism but actually represent the social interest of dominant groups (Solomos, 1998). Thus, multiculturalism serves as a policy to protect dominant power, without alluding to racism or notions of assimilation, allowing the dominant hetero-patriarchal Euro-defined body to continue to benefit without
As Canadians we are constantly celebrating and are known for our multiculturalism, this country is well known for its inclusivity. Multiculturalism symbolizes harmonious integration and open-minds that is why most people tend to see multiculturalism as a positive thing. However, that is not the case with Himani Bannerji in her paper On the Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the state of “Canada”.