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
No comments:
Post a Comment