CHAI BONOAN'S DIGITAL SKETCHBOOK

Reflection #2

According to the Multiculturalism Act introduced in 1971 by Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, “Although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over the other.” I believe that without one cannot comment on this statement without being aware of the history of Canada’s immigration flow after World War II, and the progression of multiculturalism within Canada from that point onward.

Post-war Canada made several attempts to address its high demand for labour without “a fundamental alteration in the character of their population” (Mackey, 52) or “endangering national identity.” They did so by being very particular with their criteria for immigrants—more specifically, “finding suitable ethnic and racial stock that would be assimilable” within Canadian society, which meant “the exclusion of Asian immigrants” (ibid.: 52). After the war, majority of immigrants were European—Polish, Jews, Ukrainians, etc. Given the circumstances that Canada was in during the time, it initially surprised me to realize how much vanity had to do with the Canadian government’s decision to preserve its “look”, and call it “national identity.”

By the late 1950s, the number of North-Eastern immigrants could not keep up with the demand for labour. The government, aware of the necessity of immigrants for nation-building, decided to “de-racialise the immigration selection process, and yet still maintain control and selectivity… [by] replacing ethnicity and country of origin with questions about skills, education and training” (Mackey, 53). The immigration law was changed, which allowed immigrants from Asia and other Third World countries to settle in Canada under certain conditions—Canada’s conditions within the fine print of the policy called ‘Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework’ whose aims were to “help minority groups preserve and share their language and culture, and to remove the cultural barriers they face” (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada 1985: 15). But, as it was promoting to maintain the ethnic languages and culture of these groups, it also promotes one of the two official languages that each immigrant is required to learn in order to be assimilated into Canadian society. This policy identified about eighty different ethnic or cultural groups, which the Ministry of Multiculturalism would support and maintain; however, the policy defined and limited the forms of support that the government would provide for multiculturalism. Its support and tolerance for multiculturalism was conditional to the cultural groups’ demonstration of desire and effort to contribute, participate and culturally assimilate into the Canadian culture and ways. “Ethnic groups are thereby mobilized as picturesque and colourful helpmates and allies in the nation-building project” (Mackey, 66).

It is a misleading and deceitful policy. Multiculturalism was never the purpose or the goal. To give rights to members of an ethnic minority and limit them to rights as individual citizens, and not as a cultural entity different from those of European descent or of the dominant culture, is to rob them of their individuality. Although this limited tolerance for multiculturalism has developed for the better over the past few decades, multiculturalism is still a pressing issue in today’s society all around the world because of its rapid development. Movement has increased so much that each country has turned into a mosaic of cultures, and it is a struggle to manage and adapt for both parties. However, I believe it lies in the willingness to understand and accept each other. We are all still a work in progress.

Reflection #1

After coming across the concept of the body not only being restricted to physical and biological aspects, but extends to the sociological, I felt question holes in my mind being filled in.

“Ethnicity is an aspect of social relationship between persons who consider themselves as essentially distinctive from members of other groups of whom they are aware and with whom they enter into relationships. It can thus also be defined as social identity…” (Eriksen 2009: 16-17) Reflecting on this, the term ‘social relationship’ stands out. For a long time, I understood ethnicity as a reflection of my physical characteristics and my land of origin. In the Philippines, I looked like everybody else, I talked like everybody else, and I had the same God as everybody else. At the time, my identity belonged to a group of people—in a worldwide scale, I may have been different; but, in my neighbourhood, I was my parents’ daughter and my sisters’ ate (older sister), and those were the only things that made me different from the person sitting beside me in class. But, coming to Canada 6 years ago, I was faced with questions and challenges that broke and re-moulded my identity. Being in high school is tough enough, but all the more when your own kind decide that you’re not worthy to be part of their group. Nothing personal; I just didn’t fit in. I took it hard, because all I’ve ever known until that point was being part of this group of people. I felt unidentified; no sense of belongingness anywhere—if I wasn’t accepted into my own ethnic group, then what chances did I have belonging anywhere else? Then, I started asking myself, “What makes me a Filipino?”

“The members of each group had particular notions about the vices and virtues of the others.” (Eriksen 2009: 28) This is true; however, members of each group also have particular notions for themselves and of each other. Filipinos are no exception to this. I am still brought up in a traditional Filipino home, unlike many of my friends who were born in Canada and whose families have been accustomed to the Western way of living. However, I have not been restricted by my family from learning and being a part of something other than what we are. The Filipinos I came across in high school created boundaries—us and them; and, many times, it became us or them. The choices I made to embrace a culture other than our own was unacceptable to them, and I found this too restrictive. I found nothing wrong with being Filipino-Canadian, and I still don’t. I don’t see why I can use hyphens when I write, but not use them when I’m living my life.

Russel Peters - Race and Culture

About Me