SCHOLAR: THE STORY BETWEEN FRENCH/ ENGLSH CANADA

 

Multiculturalism is, “a term typically used to describe the ethnocultural diversity arising out of immigration together with public policies designed to accommodate it,” it is a subset of cultural pluralism (Cameron 2007, 73).  Canada has since its inception had two great linguistic communities existing.  It has been shaped through cultural pluralism.  The division between the French and the English created the Canadian identity.  In the, “Early decades of the British North America [there were] unresolved debate[s] between …  accommodation and assimilation” (Cameron 2007, 74).  The Constitution Act of 1791 set out the terms in which the French would tolerate the English.  The French sought to preserve its language and religion as they fought for cultural dualism to be incorporated into the framework for British North America. 

The English looked down on the French and attacked them.  Lord Durham “launched a merciless and scathing attack on the French Canadians, who clung to ancient prejudices, ancient customs and ancient laws” (Cameron 2007, 75).  Clearly the belief of superiority shaped the views of prominent Englishmen when in regards to the French.  They sought to progress the liberal world and coexist with the French.  Durham wanted to dissolve the French to make one nation similar to what had transpired with the Acadians of Louisiana.  He genuinely believed that the French Canadians would be better off.  He planned to obfuscate French identity by constitutional order which would then force the French to participate in the English system (Cameron 2007, 76).  The problem or the division between French and English was an existential problem in the development of British North America.  Mill Acton saw a nation wherein the “co-existence of several nations under the same State” (Cameron 2007, 78) as a test.  This would evidently progress the ideal of liberalism to create national unity.  They needed mutual accommodation in order for this to work.  It has taken generations for Canadians to understand the dualistic nature of the Canadian identity.  There are two communities that vie for authority with two languages.  As time passed the Quebecois began to want the same things as the English although they satisfied themselves with heir agrarian lifestyle along the banks of St.  Lawrence, protecting their language, their faith and their distinctive culture (Cameron 2007, 79).  They continued to distance themselves from the English.  After WWII, Quebec moved towards the adoption of a new collective strategy that brought them in direct competition with the English.  They adopted Bill 1010 Quebec’s language law which was designed to make the English retreat.  They had become a society that Durham thought they were incapable of as they began to modernize Quebec.  They transformed into a secular, commercial and busting society (Cameron 2007, 79).  Through the struggle for imperial dominance, the French and the English had to find a way to amicable live together and through the Quebec Secession Reference, the Supreme Court of Canada identified “four fundamental, unstated principles that support Canada’s constitutional order:  federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minority rights” (Cameron 2007, 82).  This was the practical accommodation that enabled both the English and the French to coexist in a dualistic matter.  In this, a workable compromise was established which then a common culture can thrive. 

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was monumental to the tolerance of multiple cultures.  It recognizes Canadian diversity wherein the enjoyment of liberty in modern Canada can be sustained.  It provides freedom and equality of opportunity in a social environment that is considerate of diversity (Cameron 2007, 85).  The Charter declares democratic, legal, equality and mobility rights.  It has provisions for language and education rights as well as protecting aboriginal rights and freedoms.  It previses equal status between men and women and  freedom of religion.  The Charter represents the fundamental values which upbring the Canadian identity.  Canada is a country of immigrants from all walks of life.  Multiculturalism is a distinct value of the Canadian identity and it is brought together through tolerance, common existence and the act of living together.  Through this, Canada is socially and culturally transformed to form the Canadian life.

 

REFERENCES

Cameron, D. (2007).  Uneasy Partners Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada. “An Evolutionary Story” Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press

SCHOLAR: CAPITALISIM AND IMMIGRANTS

 

The Canadian state was the first to proclaim a policy of multiculturalism in 1971 (Sharma 2011, 85).  They borrowed the American approach of, “we are all immigrants.”  This discourse was most associated with a 1951 publication of Oscar Handlin’s the Uprooted (Sharma 2011, 86).  This publication claimed that the USA was an immigrant nation.  John F.  Kennedy also published in 1964, “A Nation of Immigrants,” which cemented the notion of we are all immigrants.  The Americans turned colonialism to a form of migration which then blurred the history of the violence of colonialism creating a myth that America welcomes immigrants rather than exploit their labour for expanding power in a capitalist world (Sharma 2011, 87).  Through the shift in discourse the violence of expropriation, genocide and exploitation as mentioned were replaced with multiculturalism.  John F. Kennedy’s discourse of multiculturalism depicted that everybody was on the same footing.  It reframed social relations to conceal and neutralize Americas racist and brutal past towards non whites.  Sharma critiques multiculturalism through her critique of capitalism and it is evident in her statements mentioned herein.  The idea of the political economy becomes very pertinent as it describes those who are in control.  The powerful social economic forces define the boundaries and enemies of the nation (Purewall 2020).  And according to Sharma, multiculturalism was used as a tool of capitalism to reap its rewards. 

As a result of anti-racist movements, Canada was pressured into eliminating preference over certain races and nationalities.  They created criteria for which immigrants will be accepted and also recognized non-white professionals.  Capitalism was a factor in which Canada based their immigration policy because they needed to be more competitive (Sharma 2011, 90).  Capitalists were aiming to lower operation costs as they relocated their businesses to places that would be cheaper.  Through the globalized world, capitalist saw multiculturalism as a way to tolerate non- whites and include them in the non-racist nation which then they would receive their support (Sharma 2011, 91).  To the racist, this seemed like companies were in collusion with non-whites.  This is therefore an example of an “us against them” situation in where the Other were those non-whites who seek to profit from Canada (Purewal 2020).  The Other are therefore the outsiders seeking immigration into Canada.  Regardless, Canada framed the non-whites as proof of Canadian diversity which, “bolstered the image of Canada” (Sharma 2011, 92) as they presented the state to potential investors.  In 1971 and 1967 there was an extension of permanent resident rights to non- whites as well as proclamations of multiculturalism which perpetuated the myth that Canada was a “just society” (Sharma 2011, 92).  Canada removed the “preferred races and nations” from immigration criteria however it remained that the objective of taking in immigrants was to support capitalism and the labour market.  NIEP (Non- Immigrant Employment Authorization Program) was such program that, “legally tied [immigrants] to particular employer[s], a particular occupation and …  a particular geographic location” (Sharma 2011, 93).  These people were denied access to social programs even though they paid for it.  It was a way to obtain the cheapest workers however these people remain the most vulnerable in the country.  The program was driven by “employer’s demands for a “flexible” and “competitive” workforce” (Sharma 2011, 94).  This is a form of discrimination and racism.  Specifically, institutionalized racism. 

                Through capitalism, Canada was able to legitimize exploitation in Canada.  However, the agenda of multiculturalism has relegated whites as just another culture, “amongst many, instead of an emblem of power and a form of dominance over Others” (Sharma 2011, 96).  This is used to the tolerate other races in favour of capitalism wherein with their knowledge of the Other, they come to be rewarded by the Other via investments and such.  The neoracist view continues vertical, “hierarchies organized around the racialized duality of superior/ inferior” (Sharma 2011, 96) races.  According to lecture, the hierarchy is as follows, the British at the very top then English loyalists from USA following, along with races such as Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch then the French and then the South-Eastern Europeans, to the Jews and Asians, with Africans near the bottom, and First Nations at the base (Purewall 2020). What is at stake is the formation of identities which therefore aid to change people’s perceptions. 

REFERENCES

Sharma, N. (2011).  Home and Native Land Unsettling Multiculturalism in Canada. “Canadian multiculturalism and its nationalisms.” Toronto: Between the Lines

Purewal, S.  (2020).  Politics of Multiculturalism.  Surrey:  Kwantlen Polytechnic University