Canadian History While Canada often depicts its society as being a very progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural nation, Canada also has its own history of racism. Although the historical records are not very clear at the very beginnings of the country's history, one can argue that the first instance of racism in Canada occurred during the first trip of Jacques Cartier in 1534, when he brought two Iroquois more or less against their will back to France, which greatly amused the French royal court. Later, although still not very clearly recognised in the mainstream culture (where it is more seen as territorial wars), much racism occurred between the French and the First Nations people, between First Nations tribes themselves (fuelled by alliances of certain tribes with the French, and others with the English), between the English and the First Nations, and between the English and the French. Although the country's history was influenced greatly by these wars, the relationships between all those ethnicities has changed a lot since the beginning of European settlement in Canada. Moreover, there are notable records of slavery in Canada in the 1700s. More than half of all Canadian slaves were aboriginal, and the United Empire Loyalists brought their slaves with them after leaving what became the United States. In 1793, Upper Canada governor John Graves Simcoe passed a bill making it illegal to bring a person into the colony for the purposes of enslavement, and slavery was fully outlawed in 1834. Most of the emancipated slaves of African descent were then sent to settle Freetown in Sierra Leone and those that remained primarily ended up in segregated communities such as Africville outside Halifax, Nova Scotia. (Today there are four remaining slave cemeteries in Canada: in St.-Armand, Quebec, Shelburne, Nova Scotia and Princeville and Dresden in Ontario.) Starting in 1858, Chinese "coolies" were brought to Canada to work in the mines and on the Canadian Pacific Railway. However, they were denied by law the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, and in the 1880s, "head taxes" were implemented to curtail immigration from China. In 1907, a riot in Vancouver targeted Chinese and Japanese-owned businesses. In 1923, the federal government passed the Chinese Immigration Act, commonly known as the Exclusion Act, prohibiting further Chinese immigration except under
"special circumstances". The Exclusion Act was repealed in 1947, the same year in which Chinese Canadians were finally given the right to vote. Restrictions still existed on immigration from Asia. In 1967, these restrictions were repealed and Asian immigrants were given the same rights as any other group. In 1999, Adrienne Clarkson, the child of Chinese immigrants who moved to Canada in 1942 under the "special circumstances" clause, became Governor General of Canada. Japanese Canadians were also subject to anti-asian racism, particularly during World War II when many Canadians of Japanese heritage even those who were born in Canada were forcibly moved to internment camps. The government of Canada officially made restitution for the treatment of Japanese Canadians in 1988. Notable organizations in Canadian history have included the Parti national social chrétien, and the Heritage Front. Other notable individuals in this context include Adrien Arcand, Ernst Zündel, Doug Christie, Wolfgang Droege and Don Andrews. [edit] More recently in Canada Recently, Canada has been perceived as practicing systemic, institutionalized racism by allowing employers to require Canadian-based job experience in a potential employee. This puts landed immigrants at a clear disadvantage, and can often result in highly educated people working for much lower pay than their Canadian educated counterparts, or even struggling with a minimum wage job. This unequal footing has left many new immigrants feeling disillusioned with the entire immigration process, and segregated from Canadian culture as a whole. Both as an expression of protest, and as a means of warning potential immigrants still overseas, online groups have formed to share information and stories of victimization. [2], [3] Such experiences have led to ongoing jokes that "Toronto has the world's highest qualified taxi drivers". However, racism in Canada has not only been connected to immigration. French Canadians, including Acadians, Québécois and Franco-ontarians, and aboriginals have purportedly also been subject to discriminatory treatment in Canada. While having French recognised as an official language was seen as
a step towards multiculturalism for Francophones, there has been nothing similar that can be described as culturally validating for Aboriginal Canadians. In fact, Canada's treatment of Aboriginal-Canadians is still governed by a document frequently described as racist, the Indian Act. Quoted from Rainbowmaking, a curriculum prepared for the Canadian Unitarian Council NATIONAL CONTEXT It is easy to lose sight of Canadian uniqueness when we evaluate our nation from the inside. One Canadian, Fil Fraser, a Black man who has worked as an educational media specialist, transcends this widespread inability to appreciate Canada from the inside. It's somehow typical that we Canadians have difficulty recognizing our uniqueness. We see ourselves as a not very powerful, not very innovative, not very exciting land that is nevertheless safe. We look to other countries with envy, wishing we had their strength, their depth of culture and character, their creativity. But look more closely. Our first motherland, France, is culturally stagnant, lurching from political to economic to social crisis. Britain, once the home of empire, is in danger of losing its role as leader of the Commonwealth... And when we look, nervously, at our continental neighbour, our desire to buy into the American dream becomes highly selective. We do not wish to be drawn into pre-emptive war. The melting pot never really worked-yet in the US multiculturalism is a very recent notion. In the Middle East, cradle of civilization, even brothers can't get along... Gays are increasingly being killed by conservative Islamic governments. Baha'i are under attack in Iran. India is still trying to grapple with racial and religious strife, even though untouchability is officially dead. China is working at being homogeneous... Most of the world's countries are either unicultural, uniracial, and religiously homogeneous, or else caught up in internal strife. Canadians have yet to discover the creativity of their social order. If we can solve the problems of making it possible for people of every kind to live together in reasonable harmony, we have a message for the world. The problems of this shrinking planet are problems we're
solving in Canada. Sometimes, the proper questions can force a more positive glimpse of our nation. A 1991 Heritage Project survey discovered that two often-cited sources of national pride are: the free and democratic nature of our country, and our multicultural society. In the same year, the Angus Reid Group found that 85% of Canadians say that we can be proud to be a Canadian and proud of our ancestry at the same time. They also found that 77% of us believe multiculturalism will enrich Canada's future; 90% support multiculturalism programs that improve the equality of employment opportunity; and 85% support efforts to help immigrants acquire the skills and knowledge to integrate into society. However, only 58% support efforts to help minorities preserve their cultural heritage. This last statistic provides a hint that Canada's official Multiculturalism Policy, despite being the envy of the world, is rather controversial here at home. Part of our debate flows from confusion about the meanings of key terms. The term "multiculturalism" is used in three very different ways - as a descriptive fact, as an ethical ideal, and as a government policy. Multiculturalism refers to the fact of diversity, observable ethnic or cultural heterogeneity in our society. It refers to the lofty ideal of true equality and respect among ethnocultural groups. It also refers to the federal policy that dates back to 1971. Here is the heart of Canada's Multiculturalism Act (July, 1988): The Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society, and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians, while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada. It is important to understand that this policy looks in two directions at once-back toward our various heritage, and forward toward a day of full participation and equality for every Canadian. The policy does not insist that we embrace and celebrate our individual heritage; it only makes this possible and socially acceptable. Also, it does not guarantee absolute acceptance
for all in the centres of power and prestige; it only aims our legislative machinery in this direction and encourages respect for all participants in the evolution of Canadian society. Before we review some of the current Canadian opinions about multiculturalism, it will be useful to remind ourselves of major twentieth century stepping stones to the present situation: -- In 1903, the Canadian government raised the head tax on Chinese immigrants by 1000%. -- In 1908, Mackenzie King called Canada "a white man's country". -- In 1914, a boatload of 376 East Indian refugees was refused permission to land in Vancouver, thus undergoing tremendous hardship. -- Ukrainians were imprisoned during World War I. -- In the post World War I years, 93% of the immigrants to Canada were from Europe, though large numbers from elsewhere desired to become Canadians. -- In 1939, during the time of Hitler's genocide program, 907 Jews who were trying to escape the Nazis, were refused entry into Canada. -- In the early 1940's, Japanese and German Canadians were placed in harsh internment camps. -- In 1942, the Citizenship Branch set up a program "to create a better understanding of Canadians of recent European origin". -- In 1948, Canada was an original signer of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. -- In the post World War II years, the immigration quotas for non-british Europeans tripled, while the doors remained essentially closed to Asians, Africans and Latin Americans. -- In 1960, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism
made explicit recognition of the multicultural character of Canadian society; and the Canadian Bill of Rights, initiated by John Diefenbaker, contained many "equality" provisions. -- In the early 1960's, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec that had been set in motion by Jean Lesage, began to stir the aspirations of minorities in other provinces. -- In 1969 Pierre Trudeau took the government out of the bedrooms of the nations's gays. -- In 1971, Pierre Trudeau's administration drafted an explicit multiculturalism policy that (though tabled) influenced most social and educational programs thereafter. -- In 1982, multiculturalism was enshrined in the Constitution Act as part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. -- In 1986, Otto Jelinek, then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, said "Our society has become irreversibly multiracial and multicultural"; and Brian Mulroney, then Prime Minister, said "Tokenism is over... fairness is in". -- In 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was officially proclaimed, establishing in law the right to retain one's ethnocultural heritage and participate on an equal basis in Canadian society. -- In 2005 equal marriage rights were granted to Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. Because of this laudable transformation in Canada's recent history, we are now one of the most sought homelands on earth, embracing and encouraging more diversity than any other country. Over 4/5 of us live in neighbourhoods with persons of different ethnic or racial backgrounds. Almost 3/4 of us have close friends of different ethnic or racial backgrounds. About 2/5 of us have family members of different ethnic or racial backgrounds. 1/6 of Canada's citizens are
"visible minorities" - people, other than aboriginals, who are non-white in colour or non-caucasian in race. Toronto is one of the most multicultural cities in the world, with almost 2/5 of the population represented by visible minorities. In this category, Vancouver has 35%, Calgary 27%, Edmonton 25%, Winnipeg and Montreal about 17%. What is our global story? Where do our Canadian brothers and sisters come from? About 32% have French backgrounds, 29% British, 7% issue from Southern Europe (e.g. Italy, Portugal), 7% from Western Europe (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands), 5% from East and Southeast Asia (e.g. China, the Philippines), 5% from Eastern Europe (e.g. the Ukraine, Poland), 2.5 % are Canadian aboriginals, 2.2% are from East India and Pakistan, 1.2% are Blacks, 1.1% have Scandinavian backgrounds, 0.5% Caribbean, 0.5% Middle Eastern, and 0.4% Latinos. MUTICULTURALISM AS A POLICY The fact of increasing diversity on Canadian soil, and the burgeoning ideal of universal human rights in Canadian consciousness-these two forces operating together-have led to the government policy of multiculturalism. But this policy is controversial, even among Unitarians * Universalists. There seem to be eight basic criticisms of multiculturalism: 1) it is divisive for Canada as a nation 2) it marginalizes minorities 3) it encourages infighting among minorities 4) it obscures Quebec's special status 5) it is politically opportunistic 6) it reinforces racial consciousness 7) it provides insufficient aid 8) it is not the government's business. We now look at each in turn, along with their corresponding defences.
1) Those who say the policy is divisive for the nation claim that it diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship by emphasizing ethnic and national origins. More time spent maintaining the mother culture means less time spent building new allegiance to Canada. How far can we go in promoting cultural diversity? Haven't we reached the point where it threatens social cohesion and destroys national identity? Aren't we making Canada ungovernable by encouraging racial and cultural selfabsorption? Are we destined to be a nation of multiple solitudes? In response, defenders say that these worries are natural growing pains as we develop a new concept of nationhood. The need to get newcomers to conform to some previous version of Canadian identity is racially motivated. One's original culture and the new Canadian context can be creatively synthesized, but this takes patience. 2) Those who say the policy marginalizes minorities see it as a way to maintain Anglo-Saxon dominance by diverting others' attention away from political and economic concerns, and toward less important "cultural" concerns. It keeps the population divided and thereby amenable to manipulation. It institutionalizes a ghetto mentality, and actually pays minorities to remain peripheral. In response, defenders say that firming up one's cultural base eases the transition to economic independence and political participation. Cultural concerns lie closer to the source of self-esteem, and give one an initial "place under the sun". Without the policy, minorities would stay marginal longer. 3) Those who say the policy encourages infighting among minorities claim that selective support creates competition, and an unhealthy focus on self-preservation. Smaller and smaller subgroupings bicker about how to use limited heritage-retention funds. Furthermore, discord in the motherlands is imported to Canada through ethnic news media, placing minorities at odds with each other. In response, defenders say that consulting with the actual recipients of services shows that more bridges between ethnocultural groups are
built than chasms are opened. Overall, the policy brings solidarity to Canada's minorities, and the tensions between them are only more visible, not more serious. 4) Those who say the policy obscures Quebec's status as one of the two official linguistic communities claim that now many small groups feel they have a right to special or at least equal attention. Even the "founding peoples" are relegated to "just two other ethnic groups". In response, defenders say that bilingualism is not affected; the "founding peoples" retain special status. But yes, there are more cultural needs to consider in shaping social policy. 5) Those who say the policy is politically opportunistic claim that it is motivated less by progressive ideals than by a desire for "ethnic votes". Promoters of multiculturalism are posturing more than serving. In response, defenders say that there are always a few who tarnish a good idea with selfish and malevolent motives. A broad-minded program should not be held accountable for how narrow-minded individuals distort it. 6) Those who say the policy reinforces racial consciousness claim that discrimination is best overcome by refusing to identify oneself racially, ethnically or culturally. People are people, and multiculturalism draws us away from our essential humanness. In response, defenders say that cultural identification is a normal and natural process, and only becomes harmful when one's own culture is made the standard for others. Wanting cultural issues to disappear lends covert support to the dominant culture. 7) Those who say the policy provides insufficient aid claim that much more support is needed to retain one's culture on new soil. Merely token contributions are made in hopes of reducing complaints. In response, defenders say that any more federal support would
discourage provincial, municipal and grassroots initiatives. Each level must make its proper contribution. 8) Those who say the policy is not the government's proper business claim that cultural backgrounds should be preserved solely by those who value them inherently. Why should taxpayers have to support foreign heritages? In response, defenders of the policy say that the principle of respect for the cultural backgrounds of Canadian citizens is still too new to be left completely to the preferences of individuals. Canada is the world leader on this legislation, and this status must be maintained. We have given this much attention to the multiculturalism policy because it is central to an understanding of our Canadian national context. The designers of these workshops favour the policy. However, even those who oppose the policy can still appreciate the fact and the ideal of multiculturalism. For this reason, we have used the word "intercultural" in describing the central purpose of this project. Work between races, ethnocultural groups and faiths will be needed locally and globally, whatever the fate of the policy.