Building a national identity on past heritage obscures our current multicultural reality.
The federal government’s latest effort to highlight the importance of our military history involves the creation of an $11.5-million fund to promote the War of 1812 as a critical moment in our nation’s history. This initiative is part of the Conservative government’s broader strategy to place greater emphasis on our historical linkages to the Commonwealth. We’ve seen this, over the past few months, with the redesignation of the “royal” title to our armed forces, and the return – and prominent display – of the portrait of the Queen of England to Canadian embassies abroad, and to our government buildings.
The Tories have released their plans for the bicentennial of the War of 1812, with $28 million set aside to help Canadians understand that Laura Secord is more than just a chocolate shop. Read more here.
The strategy is clear: The Conservative government wants to reconstruct a sense of national identity out of the remnants of our British colonial past. This distinctly English-Canadian version of “nationhood” does not adequately represent our country’s increasingly diverse population. Indeed, this strategy could backfire because some (notably those in Quebec, among First Nations’ peoples, and among non-English, non-British Commonwealth, descendants), could view it as a step backwards – a regression. Perhaps this signals what we have been witnessing in many countries in Europe: a rejection of multiculturalism.
This is not at all to dispute the importance of our military history and our undeniable connections to the British Commonwealth and the British Crown. These are important foundational elements of our country’s past. The pride and reverence that most Canadians feel for their military establishment is evident and demonstrated in the relatively large attendance at Remembrance Day ceremonies, and in the show of support for our fallen soldiers on the “Highway of Heroes.” The British monarchy also remains an important symbol of identity for many Canadians, as evidenced by the throngs of Canadians who greeted the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge during their recent cross-Canada tour. Even some immigrants to this country (particularly those coming from British Commonwealth countries) can be nostalgic for the pomp and ceremony associated with the British monarchy. These histories, these symbols, will remain an essential part of our identity.
Is Canada's embrace of the royals wise? Check out one expert's opinion here.
But the obvious question for many is: How and where do “new” Canadians fit into this particularistic version of our history? And where do the peoples of the founding nations fit into this? Certainly, descendants of the co-founding nations (like those in the French and aboriginal communities) have no stake in these British symbols. Indeed, an identity shift back to our British colonial past is likely to antagonize both French Canadians and aboriginal populations. With the Quebec separatist sentiment seemingly ebbing, it would seem foolhardy for the federal government to attempt to reframe the Canadian national identity by increasing the focus on our British colonial past. Would it not make more sense for Canada to use this golden opportunity to usher in a more unifying national narrative based on the true embrace of diversity?
As the 9/11 decade comes to a close, many of the increasingly diverse and plural societies of the western world have dramatically altered their approach to managing their diversity. These states seem to be moving to a model built less on the embrace of diverse cultural practices and beliefs, and more on an assimilationist (or “melting pot”) version of national identity based on a nostalgic craving for a past that is long gone. Currently, Canada seems to be following this same path.
Once upon a time, in the land of gold and royalty, there lived a man named Bared-Himself who was a tad too devoted to a certain Queen across the pond. Read the full story here.
Over the summer, formerly committed multiculturalist Holland decided to expressly reject multiculturalism. According to Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner, “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.” From this statement, it was clear that the “Dutch people” did not include immigrants. Similarly, British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have both explicitly declared multiculturalism a failure in their countries.
Is this a path our diversely populated nation wants to tread? When multiculturalism was first introduced in Canada as an official policy 40 years ago, it was intended as a means of bridging the many divides that marked our short history. It provided a framework that allowed our country to move past the antagonisms that marked the relationship between our three founding nations – Aboriginal, British, and French – but also to make a space for the exponentially growing cultural communities that had little stake in the three-nation model.
True, the initial multicultural idea can be criticized for not being deep enough. The late Dr. Ibrahim Abu Rabi, who was the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities’ Chair in Islamic Studies at the University of Alberta, used to say that the Canadian version of multiculturalism is untenable because it is based on “tolerance.” His point was that “tolerance” is not enough for building social cohesion in a diverse and plural state like Canada. For him, the best way to build a post-modern Canada would be to truly embrace difference and diversity, not simply tolerate these qualities.
Has the anti-Muslim tone of western politics become commonplace in Canada? Two Canadian Muslims discuss their view here.
As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of official multiculturalism in Canada this year, let us remind our politicians that Canada’s continued prosperity will ultimately rely on our ability to attract talented, entrepreneurial, and dynamic immigrants to replace the masses of retiring baby boomers. Few trends are as predictable as the coming labour shortage that faces western nations with aging populations and birth rates below the rate of population replacement. As a young country with a tri-national history, we cannot return to the British colonial identity of the past. Nor should we continue to repeat the patterns of fear and xeno-racism that have so noticeably damaged our ability to build a collective pluralistic identity.
Trying to return Canada to the “purity” of its British colonial past would be calamitous. Technically, it could be done, but, in the process, it would threaten to destroy the very unifying fabric it was intending to sew. The case for multiculturalism, on the other hand, is sound. We really have little alternative to it. It is the best and only path forward in an increasingly globalized world and an already diverse Canada.
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment