Does Canada Live up to It's Multicultural Claim?

During our first class, students were tasked with brainstorming words that aptly describe Canada.  The most common and resonating word that sprung from this discussion was the term ‘multicultural’, which then inspired an exploration into the definition of multiculturalism in the context of Canadian society.  In the article, ‘Managing the House of Difference’, Eva Mackey provides a definition of multiculturalism and states that “‘multiculturalism’ was developed as a mode of managing internal differences within the nation and, at the same time created a form through which the nation could be imagined as distinct and differentiated from external others such as the United Sates” (MacKay, 2002 P.50).  Canada distinguishes itself from other nations by pledging an unwavering support for ideals such as freedom, democracy and multiculturalism.  However, I believe that under these norms exist mechanisms of hegemony, especially within the concept of multiculturalism in Canada.  To illustrate and explore this notion, I will highlight examples of British cultural hegemony in a multicultural society in MacKay’s article. 

My first example of British multicultural hegemony is under the subtitle Post-war transformations.  Due to the prosperity and growth after the Second World War, Canada was in need of laborers (Mackey, P. 53).  It was at this time that mass migration began.   The nation started to grow in its diversity and became the multicultural nation as we know it today.  However, there were preferred immigrants, and those that were not were weeded out through certain clauses “concerning  ‘unsuitability of climate’ and ‘inability to become assimilated’” (Mackey, P.53).  Another concern was to ensure that the immigrating population did not grow stronger than that of the British.  In 1964 that was just the case in southern Ontario.  Italians, Portuguese and Greeks flooded in to fill the labour market.  In order to correct this problem “a minister of immigration toured northern France looking to ‘balance’ the flow”. (Mackey, P.53). This demonstrates the mechanism in which the state supported and sustained British cultural hegemony in Canada.    

My second example is under the subtitle Making the Indians Ethnic.   “The celebrations of 1967 put great emphasis on the inclusion of Native people.” (Mackey, P.60).  ‘The Commission provided grants to Native communities for the travel and athletic programs, and for projects which focused on the “rich heritage of native customs, legends, stories, songs, and dances…displayed in pow-wows, potlatches, sports meets, pageants, exhibitions and ceremonials”’ (Mackey, p 60). This act created a way for the Natives to practice their cultural ways and be financially supported to do so.  Canada was looking to reignite the founding people of our Nation. 

However, to me it was simply another act of hegemony by the government and ‘elite’.  While providing all of the above, the government at the same time was scooping the Native children from their homes and community’s without the knowledge or consent of their parents.  The children were placed in adoptive white family homes in order to practice Canadian culture.  This was known as the 60’s scoop.  In the eyes of the nation, the government was including the Natives into our new multicultural country.  Little did they know that their children where being abducted and forced into practicing Canadian culture.  Is this what celebrating multiculturalism is?  Or was the 1967 celebrations a way for the government to appear benevolent to our nation?    

In conclusion I believe multiculturalism was introduced as a way for the government to maintain British cultural hegemony.  Primarily they made sure that the British where not out number in population or power by any other immigrating group.  But at the same time made sure that all immigrants felt wanted and accepted.  I believe had they not introduced multiculturalism the Natives and immigrating groups would have organized themselves together to take on the British.  However, making the moves they did, kept the country consenting to their ways.