The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was created to ensure the equal rights of all Canadian citizens, regardless of difference, as well as to protect and promote diversity. However, multiculturalism as a government policy is highly problematic since it creates an illusion of cultural and ethnic equality where it in fact does not really exist. Within Canada there still exists a racial and cultural hierarchy inherited from years of British colonial rule, affecting ideas about Canadian identity, who is classified as Canadian and who really ‘belongs’. As a result of this, Canadians who are visible ethnic minorities constantly have to justify their status as Canadians in ways which white Canadians never have to. These deep set assumptions and attitudes are often exposed through the current media, such as MacLean’s recent “Too Asian” article. Such publications highlight common themes within Canadian society and often expose deep set attitudes of white entitlement and privilege as well the assumption that to be truly Canadian one has to be white. So then, despite all the legislation, government policies and multicultural rhetoric, within Canada it seems that true Canadian-ness still equates to whiteness.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which passed in 1988, is a government policy created to guarantee the rights of all Canadian citizens regardless of ethnicity, skin colour, nationality, religious affiliation or any other difference. It states that all people should receive both equal treatment and equal protection under Canadian law while also respecting and valuing their diversity. Additionally, it recognizes the rights of all minority groups to keep their native languages, cultural traditions and religious practices (Government Canada 1988). The policy of multiculturalism in Canada started to emerge in the early seventies in response to the increasing demands of Quebec to be recognized as a distinct society. Canada hoped that by drawing attention to the fact that many different ethnic groups already existed within the Canadian nation state then it would defuse the tensions with Quebec and lessen their demands. Multiculturalism as a policy was in recognition of the reality of cultural pluralism within the country, as well as an attempt to counter earlier policies of cultural assimilation (Alexander 2008).
The whole concept of multiculturalism as a government policy is problematic and creates issues within a society since it perpetuates the myth that all Canadians and all cultures within Canada are equal. This notion of equality is just an illusion as it hides the actual reality that some Canadians are in fact more equal than others. Additionally, policies which extend from ‘official’ multiculturalism have been problematic in that they create the paradox of an inclusive yet divided society. As with all ‘official’ histories and stories only certain aspects are highlighted and as a result of this selective highlighting other versions and features are hidden. Canada’s focus on being a multicultural nation, on seeing itself as ‘The Mosaic Nation’ hides the reality that Canadians of colour find themselves having to justify their status as Canadians in ways that Euro-Canadians never do. Additionally, it conceals the reality that within Canada there is still the assumption that ‘true’ Canadian-ness equates English-ness and whiteness (Turner-Riley 2010). Such implicit assumptions are frequently exposed through the popular media, such as the recent MacLean’s article regarding ‘worryingly’ high numbers of Asian students in Canadian schools.
In November of 2010, the popular Canadian publication McLean’s published an article entitled “Too Asian” which suggested that many of Canada’s top universities are too Asian since enrollment is based on meritocracy and Asian students work harder than white Canadians. The article created an enormous backlash nationwide in response to what was deemed a racist and irresponsible piece of journalism. The article was full of racial generalizations and stereotypes about both Asian-Canadians and white Canadians and also had elements of sexism and classism, however, what it most clearly highlighted was the concept of white privilege and the assumption of Canadian-ness still equating whiteness.
The article states that since Asian students work so hard at their studies, white students are finding it difficult to keep up with them and doing so would require a “"a sacrifice of time and freedom they're not willing to make" (Findlay & Köhler 2010). However, the underlying argument presented in the article is that Asian students are taking up too many spots in Canada’s top universities; spots ‘intended’ for white students. This argument then holds the assumption that these places should be set aside for white Canadians, an assumption that completely embodies the notion of white privilege and the sense of entitlement of white Canadians, while ignoring the privileges afforded to them simply based on their race. Furthermore, in arguing that Canadian universities are becoming “too Asian” there is the assumption that universities are assumed to be white spaces and that there is a need for a predominantly white student body, anything else is cause for concern. In fact the whole concept of something being ‘too anything’ is so laden with this white privilege ideology; saying that something is ‘too Asian’ implies it is a deviation from the norm, the norm of course, once again being white (Turner-Riley 2010). Arguments like these are not just restricted to Asians or Asian-Canadians, similar arguments are used to refer to many non Euro-Canadian groups within Canada. Though it is assumed that Canada has moved on past such blatant expressions of racism the very fact that articles like this are being published and the continuation of the sentiment expressed within it exposes deep set ideas of white privilege.
The concept of whiteness can often be rather tricky to define and pinpoint. The idea of a ‘white race’ like all other racial categories is of course a cultural construct and therefore so historically contingent; ideas around who constitutes the white race have constantly changed and shifted through place and time. Within the current mindset whiteness is simply taken as a reference to skin colour; the light skin of people of European decent, however, this was not always the case. As an example of how ideas of whiteness are culturally constructed, one needs to look only to Victorian British systems of racial classification; not all European’s were considered white. The Victorians did not consider the Irish and the Italians to be white nor were people of Eastern European ancestry seen as white. People of East Asia; China, Japan, Korea, Burma were not considered to be white, nor were Hawaiians. Southern Asians such as Pakistanis and Indians were also not deemed white; however the Sikhs and the Gurkhas were; seen as a “martial race”, along with the Maori who were also classed as white. At different times Arabs were considered white; Syrians, Levantine Arabs, Turks and Copts are classified as white. There has been much debate over Jews, once not considered to be white, some are now considered white; Baghdadi Jews are, Cochin are not (Painter 2010; 165-68). Racial classification then is obviously about more than simply skin colour, it incorporates many other complex features. Racism based on skin colour “never stands alone of course, it intersects and is tangled with other prejudices; classism, sexism, ideas about gender” at every turn (Turner- Riley 2010). Within Canadian society, racism is most commonly perceived as individual acts of prejudice or meanness towards another person or group based on racial differences. This definition ignores the larger institutional, social, political and economic factors that play into racial prejudice, factors which put certain people and groups at a disadvantage. Although it is also sometimes recognized that race does disadvantage certain groups the fact that it in turn advantages others is often ignored.
The modern notion of the white race primarily emerged out of the context of slavery in the United States (Ford 1999; 714). The enslavement of one group obviously had huge socio-economic advantages for the enslavers; the United States built it’s wealth on African slaves. However, justification was needed for the enslavement of other human beings; this justification was to be found in the form of skin colour. The notion of racial hierarchies began to emerge and was keenly reinforced by the scientific research of the day. Whites of course always occupied the position at the top and those of African decent classified as black usually were placed at the bottom. These ‘scientifically backed’ systems of racial hierarchy were used to legitimize white domination and to validate the low social position of the groups which the system disadvantaged. The notion of white supremacy was built upon this in order to maintain the socio-economic advantages which the system afforded to whites based solely on their race, this is white privilege. White privilege is a key component of whiteness. Since white is seen as neutral, normative, average, the desired ideal and anything other than white is a deviation from this desired norm, white racial status and the privileges that come with it are so obscured from view for white people. This is exactly what makes white privilege so destructive; the failure by most white people to recognize it. The ways in which white privilege is obscured and not recognized is highly reminiscent of the ways in which men are taught not to recognize male privilege. Since racial status and classification is something taken for granted by most white people, they can go through life without ever having to pay much attention to their race but while reaping the advantages that their status as white people affords to them.
The MacLean’s article clearly embodies the idea of white racial privilege and superiority and exemplifies the idea of Canadian-ness as whiteness. The MacLean’s article is in reference to Asian-Canadians, Canadian citizens who are not deemed Canadian enough to be classed as simply Canadians. This leads to the presumption then that nationality still depends on skin colour or race, assuming that Euro-Canadians are somehow more Canadian than their fellow non-white citizens. This assumption is very clearly visible within Canadian society with the use of hyphenated forms for non-white Canadians such as Indo-Canadian, Asian-Canadian, and African-Canadian. Even the native population finds themselves marked in this way as Aboriginal-Canadians, labeled as ‘foreign’ on their own ancestral land. Canadian, without hyphenation then simply seems to refer to those of European decent, an assumption which completely ignores the fact that everyone besides the aboriginal population is foreign to this land and just as Canadian or in fact not Canadian as each other. (Turner-Riley 2010).
Despite all the progress the Nation feels it has made in regards to protecting diversity, targeting racism and fostering multiculturalism through government legislation, The Multiculturalism Act, as well as the recognition of colonialism and the huge emphasis Canada places on being a ‘Mosaic Nation’, within Canada it seems that there still exists deep set assumptions of ‘true’ Canadian-ness equating whiteness. Such assumptions stem from old notions of racial superiority and are perpetuated by Euro-Canadians when they create an image of Canada and Canadian identity being based on imaginations of some homogenous white group. Such attitudes directly tie in the concept of white privilege and are often reinforced within the popular media, exemplified in the recent “Too Asian” article published by MacLean’s. As a consequence Canadians of colour still have to continuously justify their status as Canadians in a country which prides itself on being the Mosaic Nation; this is the paradox of Multiculturalism since it creates merely illusions of equality.
Shannon Turner-Riley
ANTH 355: Ethnicity in a Global Perspective
Instructor: Hulya Dimiderik
Tuesday 7th November, 2010
ANTH 355: Ethnicity in a Global Perspective
Instructor: Hulya Dimiderik
Tuesday 7th November, 2010
References Cited
Alexander, Dave
2008 Multiculturalism in Canada. Informed Vote Canada
Electronic Document, http://informedvote.ca/2009/01/02/multiculturalism-in-canada, accessed Dec 4, 2010
Dewing, Michael., and Marc Leman
2006 Political and Social Affairs Division: Canadian Multiculturalism.
Parliamentary Research Branch, Library Of Parliament.
Electronic Document, http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/936-e.pdf, accessed December 4, 2010.
Findlay, Stephanie., Nicholas Köhler
2010 “Too Asian”. Maclean's.
November 10, 2010.
Ford Jr, Lacy K
1999 Making The “White Man’s Country” White: Race, Slavery and State-Building in The Jacksonian South. Columbia, South Carolina University Press.
Government Canada
1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Electronic document, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-24-4th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-24-4th-supp.html, accessed December 4, 2010.
Painter, Nell Irvin
2010: The History Of White People. New York: W. W Norton & Company Inc.
Turner-Riley, Shannon
2010 “Too Asian”: Challenging Anti-Asian Racism in The Media.
No comments:
Post a Comment