In the news
Loading...
| Interkulti Monitor - Articles & Research | |||||||
Page 1 of 2  Most of the criticism that is directed at multiculturalism in urban Canada is based on an antiquated, conformist notion of cultural integration. When compared to such a notion, multiculturalism is, by virtue of the relative absence of cultural resentment, the more progressive notion of cultural integration for a society to accept. In recent years, however, the criticism directed at multiculturalism has become increasingly progressive and synthetic in nature, and has gained credibility in the process. This discussion will give a brief overview of the aforementioned conformist notion and “declining” support for it amongst most Canadians, and will then go on to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the current form of cultural integration in Canada (and its urban centres, in particular) – multiculturalism. It will then present and conclude upon the inspiration behind the more progressive and synthetic critiques of multiculturalism.Amalgamation is the process by which minority cultural groups would shed their culture and adopt the dominant culture. The European experience is different than the North American one, in that the dominant culture is synonymous with the native one (and thus more prone to nationalistic tendencies). In Canada, this process is better known as Anglo-conformity, as people of British descent comprise the dominant culture. A 1985 survey conducted by Reginald Bibby indicated that only 27 percent of Canadians preferred amalgamation as the process for cultural integration (38 percent in British Columbia), including only 22 percent of young Canadians (aged 18-34) and only 19 percent of Canadians with university degrees. (Driedger, “Public Opinion”) While Americans profess that their country is more of a melting pot (that is, a new culture that synthesizes old ones) than a country of amalgamation, some of their own sociologists argue skeptically that “the [American] melting pot often means little more than ‘Anglo conformity’ and that assimilation is not always a positive experience – for either society or the immigrants themselves. And with today's emphasis on diversity and ethnicity, it has become easier than ever for immigrants [especially Hispanics] to avoid the melting pot entirely.” (Branigin, “Immigrants”) However, a 1995 survey conducted by that same Reginald Bibby suggested increased support for the melting pot model (40 percent, with 44 percent of Ontarians, 34 percent of young Canadians, and 36 percent of university degree-holders). (Driedger, “Public Opinion”) The current form of cultural integration in Canada is that of multiculturalism in a bilingual framework, the federal policy of which came about in 1971 under Prime Minister Trudeau (emphasis in italics for later on). In his own words: National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help to create this initial confidence. (Trudeau, “Statement”) In the aforementioned 1985 survey that Bibby conducted, 56 percent of Canadians preferred their status as the world’s first official multicultural nation – as expressed in the country’s ethnic mosaic (ie, different cultures co-existing side by side as part of the greater Canadian whole) – including 59 percent of young Canadians and 69 percent of Canadians with university degrees. In fact, the policy of multiculturalism as a means of cultural integration emerged from the old notion of biculturalism – which suggested Anglo-conformity everywhere outside Quebec – due to pressure from established minority groups which did not accept the bicultural society as their own. A 1991 Angus Reid poll on diversity and multiculturalism suggested that most Canadians supported ending racism in health care (87 percent), education (88 percent), the job market (90 percent), and the justice system (87 percent) – as well as promoting ethnic, cultural, and racial diversity in various ways (as high as 91 percent). (Angus Reid Group, “National Attitude”) Of course, this serves to affirm the current policy of multiculturalism as a means of cultural integration in Canada, for now. The pro-amalgamation criticism concerning multiculturalism is becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the assimilation of many minority groups – such as Jews and Sikhs – into another culture is extremely difficult, if not impossible. However, over-emphasis on tolerance and co-existence and under-emphasis on national unity and the majority cultural group does lead to problems with multiculturalism, such as increased hate crime occurrences. At the national level, hate crime occurrences increased significantly. The Ministry of Justice estimated more than 60,000 hate crime occurrences in 1994, and Statistics Canada reported more than 272,000 hate crime occurrences in 1999 – all of this, to remind the reader, being about information prior to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which themselves were catalysts for even more hate crimes! (Lauder, “False perceptions”) The Toronto-Hamilton area makes for a good starting point for progressive criticism at the urban level. Statistics Canada reported that, during the 2001 census, less than 19 percent of Toronto census respondents associated their ethnic origin with the newly-created “Canadian” ethnicity; this figure includes less than 12 percent of single respondents and less than 36 percent of multiple respondents. (Statistics Canada, “Toronto”) The Toronto Police Service reported 155 hate crimes in 1993, only to report 292 hate crimes in 1999! (Lauder, “False perceptions”) [In the two years immediately preceding 1999, 187 hate crimes were reported in 1997, and 228 in 1998, including “an incident of arson at a Toronto Jewish community centre during the Sukkot holiday.” (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, “Canada”)] Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, “Hamilton-Wentworth police report that, between September 19 and November 19, a total of 71 incidents of hate were reported […] In comparison, a total of 59 incidents were reported in all of 2000 […] Moreover, a Hindu Temple in Hamilton was firebombed on the weekend following the terrorist attacks, causing more than $600,000 in damage. Police believe that the perpetrators mistook the building for a mosque.” (Lauder, “False perceptions”) The Greater Vancouver area makes for another good starting point for progressive criticism at the urban level. Statistics Canada reported that, during the aforementioned census, almost the same percentage of Vancouver census respondents identified themselves as “Canadian” in terms of ethnicity. (Statistics Canada, “Vancouver”) While the Vancouver police does not report separate hate crimes statistics on an annual basis, the Canadian Jewish Congress posted a recent National Post article on what could easily have been a hate crime – following are excerpts from that article: Prosecutors in British Columbia have decided not to lay hate crimes charges against a Muslim newspaper that published a shocking column blaming Jews for everything from pedophilia to the 9/11 attacks. The RCMP Hate Crimes Unit in Surrey, B.C., confirmed yesterday that its year-long probe of The Miracle newspaper had ended and that the Crown would not be pressing charges […] The controversy began in December, 2003, when Mr. Hussain's small newspaper published an article written by an Idaho Holocaust denier that blamed Jews for organized crime, "race-mixing," militant feminism, "forcing us to allow homosexuals to lead Boy Scout troops" and a long list of other items […] The Canadian Jewish Congress gave copies of the "virulently anti-Semitic article" to police hate crimes authorities last January and asked for an investigation […] The congress will continue its "zero tolerance" approach to hate and "will continue to be vigilant in confronting such acts and in reporting suspected hate crimes whenever they occur so that the criminal justice system may take its rightful course," he said. (Bell, “No charges”) One must also consider the actual hate crime (as judged to be so in 1999) of publishing white-supremacist columns in 1998 West Vancouver, which was done by Colpress on behalf of “journalist” Doug Collins. (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, “Canada”) The aforementioned Angus Reid poll also suggested two, more subtle problems with multiculturalism: little intercultural interaction (the word “intercultural” will be critical for the latter parts of this discussion) and voluntary apartheid. Only 58 percent of Canadians supported a federal policy that would “fund festivals and special events celebrating different cultures [… as well as] help ethnic and racial minorities maintain their cultural heritages in Canada”; a quarter of Canadians were against. (Angus Reid Group, “National Attitude”) Also, the aforementioned 1995 survey conducted by Bibby suggested decreased support for the ethnic mosaic model (44 percent, with half of young Canadians and half of university degree-holders). Voluntary apartheid refers to the fact that people of the same cultural background tend to occupy the same area within the city – and keep to themselves. In the 1990s, Statistics Canada reported that, within Winnipeg: many Poles lived in the north end; the Filipinos and aboriginals lived in the west end; and the French lived in the St. Boniface area. (Driedger, “Multi-Ethnic Canada”) The Chinese Canadians, of course, have their own Chinatowns – especially in Toronto and Vancouver. In spite of the fact that “new Chinese arrivals have located more evenly in a less segregated way in the total city [… many] have continued to concentrate in Chinatowns in the centre of the city.” (Driedger, “Multi-Ethnic Canada”) In Vancouver, this concentration will continue to occur due to recent redevelopment projects throughout its particular, tourist-attracting Chinatown. Two of the objectives of the federal multiculturalism policy are the “enhancement of national unity through the promotion of cultural exchange and interaction among Canadian cultural groups… [and the] assistance to members of cultural groups, particularly immigrants, in learning at least one official language” (Minister of State) The former objective, in particular, is not well known to the general public, as its perception of struggling multiculturalism justifiably excludes such a notion. Judging by the aforementioned words of Prime Minister Trudeau, multiculturalism would only “create [initial] confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this [confidence] can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions.” (Trudeau, “Statement”) The respect and intercultural exchanges are signs of a society moving past segregationist multiculturalism and towards genuine cultural integration. During the inception of multiculturalism in Canada, Quebec was opposed to such a shift in cultural integration policy, given the Quebec immigrants’ predisposition to the English language. The Charter of the French Language – or “Bill 101” amongst Quebecers – was the first step towards a new form of cultural integration, as well as towards de facto recognition of two unilingual societies within Canada. This charter made French the language to be used in all aspects of Quebec politics, administration, business, and education. The government of Quebec, “through its use of an interculturalism policy, seeks to integrate immigrants to the mainstream French-speaking society of Quebec. The government of Quebec understands pluralism as being a de facto feature of modern Quebec society or any other society that welcomes immigrants. Because it considers itself the national government of all Quebecers, the Quebec government seeks to have all its citizens participate to a common civic culture. In order to accomplish this, it promotes French, the language of the majority, as the common public language of all Quebecers. Whether as a first, second, or third language, French becomes the instrument which allows the socialization of Quebecers of all origins and forces interaction between them. Interculturalism is a policy that aims at fighting racism, misunderstanding of others, and ultimately bring about the solidarization of the multiethnic human collectivity the nation is supposed to be.” (BambooWeb Dictionary) In terms of the urban setting, it is interesting to note that, during the 2001 census reported by Statistics Canada, a majority of Montrealers “shed” their original ethnicity and adopted something more. More than 55 percent of Montreal census respondents associated their ethnic origin with the newly-created “Canadian” ethnicity; this figure includes more than 50 percent of single respondents and more than 70 percent of multiple respondents! In addition, less than 2 percent of Montreal census respondents identified themselves as “Quebecois” in ethnic origin. (Statistics Canada, “Montreal”) Interculturalism – especially in the urban setting – is really “the best of both worlds.” It incorporates conformist amalgamation in the sphere of language, wherein minority groups would have to adopt the majority language as a means of social survival, and wherein all groups would have to interact with one another in combating racism and strengthening national unity. The pluralism that inspires multiculturalism is recognized in the intercultural notion of cultural integration, thus restricting conformist tendencies to the sphere of language. In all likelihood, most of the support for the melting pot model is little more than a signal to move towards linguistic unity and dynamic cultural interaction.
|
