The enemy within and a suggestion on what to do about it
Please forgive me, I've just written this and it's late, and I currently do not have a spell check; I will proof read this and insert links later.
Mark Kelley, a favourite CBC reporter of mine, recently went to Europe to do a cover story on racism, "the islamic threat", and "the enmeny within." England and the Netherlands were the focus of his survey. Apparently British nationalism is strong in the midlands, and the dutch are implementing some of the most racists and ethnocentric immigration policies the world over. I knew these things were going on, mostly because i'm interested in these sorts of things, but it was interesting to see Kelley's 'naive Canadian' approach. Basically he posed questions, to both 'natives' and immigrants, like "I'm an innocent Canadian and I just can't understand how you all hate eachother so much." He acted shocked by their callous replies. It was a good story, sober, and well balanced -- but it was obviously doen with the intent of foreshadowing some earie possibilities in Canadian race and cultural relations. Europe over is cought in the grip of a general anti-muslim sentiment, and a general retaliatory radicalization of the muslim community. The whites don't like the browns, and the browns are being ghettoized -- instead of taking it lying down, the browns have taken to isolationism, finding internal solutions to their perdicament. In places like the midlands, the whites are also ghettoized, for other socio-economic reasons. But there have been multicultural innitiatives, open door immigration and the rest, for some time now. The whites weren't always mean, but this isolationism has forced a reality check -- "And now they're trying to bomb us! They have not excepted our invitation for integration. they refuse to even learn our language. Look at them in their little neighbourhoods -- they're planning our overthrow!"
This brings me to Canada, and the purpose of this post. The truth is (and Truth is a word I like to throw around :P -- treat my use of it lightly) these things are dialectical, and it takes two parties to hate eachother and construct the kind of negative race relations described. If the two continue to be so assanine, things will only get worse. I get the impression this is the direction Europeans are headed in, but what about Canada -- are we also destined to a similar bitter demise. As someone that grew up in a "multicultural" city like Vancouver and who now lives in the very "multicultural" city of Montreal, based on my own experience and observations, I believe that, unless something is done soon, we may be. The problem is integration. As clear as that word may seem -- it's loaded. In the case of many europe nations it meant something along the lines of, "we welcome you to assimilate." Meanwhile the newcomers came to the West for liberty and democracy, neither of which involve assimilating. In a liberal democracy, there is no need for assimilation, in fact there is no need for integration -- once I have my citizenship and vote, I am free to associate with whomever i please, whenever I please. Why should we expect these muslims to accept our so called "olice branch" for immigration -- but more importantly, is it even an olive branch?
"In a democratic community, where we both have equal worth, I accept you -- no I even invite you! -- to do as I do." What a titilating gesture... The problem is that despite centuries of debate concerning democracy, too much emphasis has been placed on articulationg constitutions, and economies, instead of communities and societies. This has a lot to do with the general historic conditions of its rise: power ralations, the bourgeoisie and the rest; but, I'm not goign to go into all that here. The problem is that a functional democratic state requires democratic communities -- and the olive branch aforementioned falls hopelessly short. The point is, that in a liberal democracy we all carry equal worth, and if we are going to forge community we have to do so with this in mind. In other words, their wacky customs are as valid (and interesting) as my wacky customs. That is as far as our constitution goes; I will have to carry the rest. If I am about to forge relations with this person, I should do so with the realistic expectation of them putting as much effort into understanding my wackiness, as I put into understanding theirs. This I believe is where we as a society and civilization, for some time, have fallen violently short.
So what can we do? There are many things we can do, but here I will at least present one. We can begin by implementing reverse innitiatives; or, innitiatives which work to teach 'us' as much about 'them', as our initiatives try and teach 'them' about 'us'. It may be necessary to implement these with the children first, or in the public education system, as I speculate many adults may be unsympathetic to my proposal (This is an ethical can of worms I'll cover another time -- should the State, the 'Society applied' be usurping us?). Finally, I think this is where Canada's saving grace lies. To orchestrate these kinds of initiatives in places like most European NATION-states, may be next to impossible; their vision of state and country is hopelessly bound up with notions of identity, history and ethnicity. However, in Canada we have the advantage of having no 'real' nationality. We are essentially only a cohesive entity on paper. Ask someone what it means to be Canadian, and they'll probably cite a bunch of values outlined in our liberal democratic constitution: our only common denominator (A few 'true' Canadians may cite Vimy Ridge, but they are mostly in the margins.). Do to our fragmented concept of nationality, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the kind of localized approach necessary for the success of such initiatives is possible -- as such initiatives must be orchestrated locally. This is because, depending on where you live, you will have different neighbours. These neighbours are the people you will be needing to form bonds with. I propose that in places like north Surrey, the community where I grew up, and where there is a significant Sikh population, classes be tought at an elementary level on punjab culture, religion, and language. Likewise, the curriculum should still include the usual primers in citizenship and western history. At the very least it will give the sikh children, and the "white" children something to talk about. Maybe in another community such as richmond, the initiatives should inculcate the mandarin culture instead. But not all intiatives need be 'orchestrated.' All of us, on our own time, and by our own motivations, can make efforts to learn about, and understand eachother. The adage is old, but relevant to the present more then ever -- you cannot know the plight of your neighbour until you've walked a mile in their shoes." Although it is obviously impossible to take this literally, we can at least take steps in learning about those shoes, and the miles they've covered. Once understanding* is established, I don't doubt that many a cohesive community will follow.
PS I've completely skipped over the Quebec problem, (no not the seperatism thing) the fact that they have some incling of a national identity. I am not that well informed, but I understand that this may also be the case for Newfoundland aswell. Is there such a thing as Newfie nationalism. I'll deal with my misgivings concerning Quebecois culture (I myself am Franco-Quebecois) another time.
* I've made a conceptual leap here, and I am aware of it. Some other time I'll take up just what I mean by "understanding" and its implications. Nonetheless, I feel that the jist of my train of thought is communicated.
Mark Kelley, a favourite CBC reporter of mine, recently went to Europe to do a cover story on racism, "the islamic threat", and "the enmeny within." England and the Netherlands were the focus of his survey. Apparently British nationalism is strong in the midlands, and the dutch are implementing some of the most racists and ethnocentric immigration policies the world over. I knew these things were going on, mostly because i'm interested in these sorts of things, but it was interesting to see Kelley's 'naive Canadian' approach. Basically he posed questions, to both 'natives' and immigrants, like "I'm an innocent Canadian and I just can't understand how you all hate eachother so much." He acted shocked by their callous replies. It was a good story, sober, and well balanced -- but it was obviously doen with the intent of foreshadowing some earie possibilities in Canadian race and cultural relations. Europe over is cought in the grip of a general anti-muslim sentiment, and a general retaliatory radicalization of the muslim community. The whites don't like the browns, and the browns are being ghettoized -- instead of taking it lying down, the browns have taken to isolationism, finding internal solutions to their perdicament. In places like the midlands, the whites are also ghettoized, for other socio-economic reasons. But there have been multicultural innitiatives, open door immigration and the rest, for some time now. The whites weren't always mean, but this isolationism has forced a reality check -- "And now they're trying to bomb us! They have not excepted our invitation for integration. they refuse to even learn our language. Look at them in their little neighbourhoods -- they're planning our overthrow!"
This brings me to Canada, and the purpose of this post. The truth is (and Truth is a word I like to throw around :P -- treat my use of it lightly) these things are dialectical, and it takes two parties to hate eachother and construct the kind of negative race relations described. If the two continue to be so assanine, things will only get worse. I get the impression this is the direction Europeans are headed in, but what about Canada -- are we also destined to a similar bitter demise. As someone that grew up in a "multicultural" city like Vancouver and who now lives in the very "multicultural" city of Montreal, based on my own experience and observations, I believe that, unless something is done soon, we may be. The problem is integration. As clear as that word may seem -- it's loaded. In the case of many europe nations it meant something along the lines of, "we welcome you to assimilate." Meanwhile the newcomers came to the West for liberty and democracy, neither of which involve assimilating. In a liberal democracy, there is no need for assimilation, in fact there is no need for integration -- once I have my citizenship and vote, I am free to associate with whomever i please, whenever I please. Why should we expect these muslims to accept our so called "olice branch" for immigration -- but more importantly, is it even an olive branch?
"In a democratic community, where we both have equal worth, I accept you -- no I even invite you! -- to do as I do." What a titilating gesture... The problem is that despite centuries of debate concerning democracy, too much emphasis has been placed on articulationg constitutions, and economies, instead of communities and societies. This has a lot to do with the general historic conditions of its rise: power ralations, the bourgeoisie and the rest; but, I'm not goign to go into all that here. The problem is that a functional democratic state requires democratic communities -- and the olive branch aforementioned falls hopelessly short. The point is, that in a liberal democracy we all carry equal worth, and if we are going to forge community we have to do so with this in mind. In other words, their wacky customs are as valid (and interesting) as my wacky customs. That is as far as our constitution goes; I will have to carry the rest. If I am about to forge relations with this person, I should do so with the realistic expectation of them putting as much effort into understanding my wackiness, as I put into understanding theirs. This I believe is where we as a society and civilization, for some time, have fallen violently short.
So what can we do? There are many things we can do, but here I will at least present one. We can begin by implementing reverse innitiatives; or, innitiatives which work to teach 'us' as much about 'them', as our initiatives try and teach 'them' about 'us'. It may be necessary to implement these with the children first, or in the public education system, as I speculate many adults may be unsympathetic to my proposal (This is an ethical can of worms I'll cover another time -- should the State, the 'Society applied' be usurping us?). Finally, I think this is where Canada's saving grace lies. To orchestrate these kinds of initiatives in places like most European NATION-states, may be next to impossible; their vision of state and country is hopelessly bound up with notions of identity, history and ethnicity. However, in Canada we have the advantage of having no 'real' nationality. We are essentially only a cohesive entity on paper. Ask someone what it means to be Canadian, and they'll probably cite a bunch of values outlined in our liberal democratic constitution: our only common denominator (A few 'true' Canadians may cite Vimy Ridge, but they are mostly in the margins.). Do to our fragmented concept of nationality, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the kind of localized approach necessary for the success of such initiatives is possible -- as such initiatives must be orchestrated locally. This is because, depending on where you live, you will have different neighbours. These neighbours are the people you will be needing to form bonds with. I propose that in places like north Surrey, the community where I grew up, and where there is a significant Sikh population, classes be tought at an elementary level on punjab culture, religion, and language. Likewise, the curriculum should still include the usual primers in citizenship and western history. At the very least it will give the sikh children, and the "white" children something to talk about. Maybe in another community such as richmond, the initiatives should inculcate the mandarin culture instead. But not all intiatives need be 'orchestrated.' All of us, on our own time, and by our own motivations, can make efforts to learn about, and understand eachother. The adage is old, but relevant to the present more then ever -- you cannot know the plight of your neighbour until you've walked a mile in their shoes." Although it is obviously impossible to take this literally, we can at least take steps in learning about those shoes, and the miles they've covered. Once understanding* is established, I don't doubt that many a cohesive community will follow.
PS I've completely skipped over the Quebec problem, (no not the seperatism thing) the fact that they have some incling of a national identity. I am not that well informed, but I understand that this may also be the case for Newfoundland aswell. Is there such a thing as Newfie nationalism. I'll deal with my misgivings concerning Quebecois culture (I myself am Franco-Quebecois) another time.
* I've made a conceptual leap here, and I am aware of it. Some other time I'll take up just what I mean by "understanding" and its implications. Nonetheless, I feel that the jist of my train of thought is communicated.
posted by Nicholas @ 7.6.06
1 comments
