The Canadian
identity was taken up by the Canadian state as a solution to the wartime
problem of European Immigrant diversity (Day 2000, 158). The War Time Measures Act was used to issue
the Defence of Canada Regulations where in the First World War, “one did not
need to do anything to become an Enemy Alien, it was enough that one had lived
in an occupied country” (Day 2000, 159).
These persons could be, “registered, detained, arrested, and interned …
with no requirement [of due process]” (Day 2000, 159). This caused people to be disciplined because
of their previous place of residence, or supposed political beliefs. People also had their rights taken away
because of their racial origin. For
example in WWII Germans and Italians were, “arrested or interned for having
been so identified” (Day 2000, 159). The
Japanese on the other had been displaced and transported (Purewal 2020). The Jews were refused entry into Canada
during the war (Purewal 2020). Moreover,
the Chinese were also prevented from entering the country via the Chinese
Immigration Act (Purewall 2020) once work on the railway was completed. These crimes against humanity lead to the
Canadians to adopt a new postmodern method of dealing with immigrants. What had transpired in Europe caused Canada
to rethink the Canadian identity ensuring they form it in such a way the was
not coercive. They dropped the,
“repressive police measures” and advocated, a shift to well written articles
which were published in their own language, distributing these free of charge.”
Tracy Philipps argued against attacking the foreign element and specified there
were two goals that Canada should pursue, win the war and to have unity in the
Canadian nation. Philips advocated for
the use of propaganda to ensure that, “Each community .. feel[s] itself separately and directly linked
to the country’s permanent government” (Day 2000, 160). Through propaganda, it would seduce the
Others into assimilation without their knowing.
In relation to Europe, each country is separate with their own language,
customs and beliefs. The Canadians took
this idea and allowed people to maintain their culture as long as it was not
problematic to the government.
Shortly after the war, scholars
such as Watson Kirkconnell, “tried to discard the notion of race, calling it
‘one of the most dangerous errors that delude the human brain’” declaring that
we are all mixtures (Day 2000, 161).
Kirkconnell advocated for Canadian identity and equality. He specified that we, “’should be careful
never to assume that our fellow- Canadians, of any origin, are by nature
unworthy of our sympathy, respect and goodwill’” (Day 2000, 162). He suggested that we must, “repudiate’ hatred
brought to Canada from abroad” (Day 2000, 162).
The propaganda efforts of the government continued with the creation of
the Nationalities Branch of the Department of National War Services and the
Advisory Committee on Cooperation in Canadian Citizenship (Day 2000, 163). Clearly what had transpired in Europe, caused
policy makers to delineate from European strategies for managing diversity and
adapt it in Canada.
After the end of the Second World
War the long-term objective was still to assimilate the Others. The Canadian government tried to control
immigration through the Citizenship branch which managed European immigrants
but Indians as well. It was clear that Canada
needed a growing population in but there was fear that “immigration would, lead
to a reduction in the standard of living” (Day 2000, 166). The Citizenship Branch had a propaganda
machine and continued to assist people in realizing the best traditions of
Canadian life. At this time, the mosaic
was created to include European dissent but still excluded Chinese, Japanese,
Negroes and Hindi etc. The Canadians
were also concerned about the Indian problem, those natives that were
unassimilated and increasing in population at a rate of 1500 a year. (Day 2000, 169). Like the Europeans, the Indians were allowed
to, “preserve ‘many of’ his characteristics; [found not to be problematic]”
(Day 2000, 170). Evidently Natives got
the right to vote in 1960 and the last residential school was closed 1996
(Purewall 2020). This gives a glimpse of
just how far Canada has integrated diversity.
The Canadian Citizenship Branch was mandated to promote the unity among
all racial groups in Canada 1951 which therefore validates the mobilization for
the natives.
The result of the Second World
War caused people to have a distaste for the term “race”. The Nazi propaganda caused many to question
the term. The Citizenship Branch altered
their mandate to reflect these perceptions.
Race was then out, and ethnicity was used in its place. Ethnicity or ethnic originates from Greece
meaning a sense of belonging (Purewal 2020).
Canadians sought to implement the diverse races into the Canadian
identity in response to what had transpired in Europe. The decline of racialism was not only in
Canada but throughout the whole Western world.
By 1956 The Citizenship Branch aimed for respect and fairness in
dealings with immigrants. They came to
the conclusion that assimilation cannot be forced as what had transpired in
Europe and therefore, they began to integrate the diversity in Canada to cause
unity.
The World Wars evidently provided
the framework by which modern Canada would emerge. What happened in Europe was then refined to
work in the Canadian society. Both the
French and the English had to find away to cohabitate with one another. Through this cohabitation a Mosiac of
identities emerged which come to form the Canadian identity. The European turmoil that caused the wars
allowed Canadians to manage diversity through the creation of the Canadian
identity which would therefore bring the nation unity.
There are three main theories in
which immigrants are considered within the large framework of Canadian society
that creates the mosaic metaphor. Kate
Foster was the first to write about the concept of a Mosaic metaphor. She spoke of its capacity to endure a quality
that’s a requirement for nation building.
She describes how it creates order and unity from a, “flood of chaotic diversity,”
(Day 2000, 151). She describes than that
pieces form to create a pattern wherein every person “was to be assigned a set
of typical characteristics” (Day 2000, 151) in which these would be included in
the Mosaic, the Canadian identity. Similar
to Europe, Canada had immigrants from many backgrounds. The Canadians like the Europeans needed to
tolerate what are referred to as, “the Other.”
Further, they needed to build the nation. In Europe, as mentioned earlier herein, they
fought wars as a result of their differences in opinion. Canadian policy makers saw first hand what
the concept of, “race,” can do and how much of a burden it was. Thus, Canadians aimed to tolerate ethnicities
so as long as it was not problematic to the government.
There are three theories which
come to describe the emergence of the Canadian identity. First,
design theory- which details the assimilation and exclusion of immigrant
bodies. Second, the free emergence
theory which assumes that a proper and desirable Canadian identity would evolve
on its own out of an unconstrained mixing of ‘racial qualities’. Lastly, constrained emergence theory which
mixes both theories into a single theory that specifies that “a unity of higher
types will emerge through the preservation and tolerance of limited forms of
difference” (Day 2000, 149). Clearly,
Europe’s approach during the war was to promote a master race which would be
superior to others. The wars and turmoil
this caused Canadians and the Western world to question this logic. Thus, many prominent Canadians had their say on
the immigration strategy of Canada. J.S.
Woodsworth noted that, “‘the mingling of races’ was in the highest interest of
our country” (Day 2000, 146). Professor
Maurice Hutton argued that, “all great civilizations are created by a blend” (Day
2000, 147). According to Ralph Connor in
1909 he says about the matter of immigration, “the making of a nation… breed diverse in traditions, in ideals, in
speech, and in manner of life … one
people being made” (Day 2000, 147).
Connor and Hutton imagined the Canadian type would emerge on its own
which directly subscribes to the concept of free emergence. They further argued that the process of
fusion and mixing, were essentially unknowable although they were certain that
it would be the highest type (Day 2000, 147).
They placed no limits to the mingling of races and believed that each
nationality will combine to form the grandest race (Day 2000, 148). In contrast, Europeans believed in the purity
of the race and how one race would evidently come to be superior over the
others.
Europeans were fighting over
borders and land. They fought over
religions and over customs. On the other
hand Canadians such as McCullough, insisted that, “promoting unity among
ourselves’ [as Canadians] and the development of an ideal of ‘toleration and
respect’ between the French and English [could be extended to other races] (Day
2000, 148). This forms the mosaic, which
is part of an attempt to nation build.
Through diversity that is multifaceted, Victoria Hayward saw an
opportunity in which Canada can progress (Day 2000, 150). The necessity of tolerance becomes a
fundamental value in which is used to preserve the, “beautiful racial
traditions that flourish in Canada” (Day 2000, 150). Kate Foster in 1926 attempts to make sense of
assimilation and amalgamation saying that amalgamation is a ‘fusion of races’
and that, “each race [contributes] something of value and so slowly but surely
evolving a new people enriched by diversity” (Day 2000, 151). This validates what was mentioned in lecture
where, “all cultures regardless of their presence, … new or old they
contributed enormously to the development of this country and it must be
acknowledged” (Purewall 2020). The idea
of free emergence is a process of incorporating people which would according to
Foster, evolve to a new people. Its
clear than when she discusses the process of incorporating she means, into the
Canadian national life.
The goal of the Mosaic was to
cement the Canadian identity by knowing the Other and making them useful. In contrast to the European method, the
Canadians sought to create good will, friendliness, respect and confidence
between peoples within the Canadian border.
Toleration would then preserve the human tiles which compose the Mosaic (Day
2000, 152). The evolution of British
Canada involved, “increased intervention in the daily lives of ‘the foreign
born’ in the form of ‘Dominion wide system of educating the aliens in Canada
for citizenship’” (Day 2000, 153).
Isolation was therefore the greatest wrong that could be done to the
foreign born. The concept of culture and
ethnicity when in relation to the Canadian identity aided the development of a
means by where immigrants can be incorporated into the Canadian life by
seductive means rather than through coercion (Day 2000, 154). Coercion was the preferred tactic of the
Europeans and thus it created conflict which evidently lead to war. It becomes evident then that the Canadian
approach to diversity was then to encourage people. Culture “leaned on the established authority
of history, language and race” (Day 2000, 154) Europeans fought hard to secure
their place on the map and to establish this authority. Canadian sociologist believed that, “coercive
assimilation could cause mental illness and death” (Day 2000, 155). Therefore, it was not desirable to force
people into assimilation which is why the, “Native peoples of Canada were
finally granted cultures of their own” (Day 2000, 155). As for the concept of ethnicity, Robert
England, ”proposed a strategy that involved the preservation and tolerance of
difference, plus evolution/ training to find ‘common denominators’ between the
various ‘elements’ of Canadian society” (Day 2000, 155). Through this, unity would be achieved. A variation of customs was then seen as
acceptable, and Canadians also made sure that there were no “social or
political consequence” (Day 2000, 156).
The speaking of a common language, sharing of a common opportunity,
common memories, pain, story, legends, tradition and songs formed the Canadian
ethnicity. Through these commonalities
of custom and habit, “a certain standardization of logical process [in thought
would emerge]” (Day 2000, 157). Robert England
considered language to be a great assimilator.
England argued that, “We cannot compel people to accept our standards,
our customs or our ways…. It must be a
task of emancipation” (Day 2000, 157).
They were more concerned of the threat of anarchy and they sought to
maintain social order by incorporating races (Day 2000, 157) into the
society. Where Europe sought to control
diversity by force, Canada used propaganda to persuade people into a national
culture which then created unity.
REFERENCES
Day, Richard
J.F. (2000). Multiculturalism and the
History of Canadian Diversity.
Toronto: University of Toronto
Press
Purewal,
S. (2020). Politics of Multiculturalism. Surrey:
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
No comments:
Post a Comment