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 The Exclusion Act was repealed in 1947, the same year in which Chinese Canadians were finally given the right to vote.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 self-

absorption? 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.