Critical Response #3 Will Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Odysseys” examines the shift from a homogeneity state to a heterogeneity state. As countries are increasingly becoming multicultural, states must adopt newer models of human rights that require recognition of this diversity. In this critical response, I will briefly summarize the differences between homogeneity and heterogeneity while providing an example in Canada that demonstrates this shift, while also discussing the challenges of internationalizing multiculturalism. A homogeneity state promotes a single identity while suppressing any alternatives. This ideal identity is constructed through the state actively creating nation-building policies that support the preferred national identity by imposing the dominant language and culture on its population. There is no room for any differences and anything straying from the norm is simply overlooked. In contrast, a heterogeneity state is diverse and embraces cultural diversity through the acceptance of its multiculturalism. It creates/amends nation-building policies in order to include their minorities. In Canada, an example of the switch from homogeneity to heterogeneity …show more content…
The history of colonialism and assimilation can still be seen within Canada with the Indian Act, which still places the Aboriginal community at a disadvantage. Under section 18, the land on reserves does not belong to the Aboriginals but they belong to the Crown. As a result, under section 89, any Aboriginal citizens living on the reserves are prohibited from using the land as any type of collateral. These sections prevent the development of Aboriginal sovereignty and allow for the state to continue staying in power. It’s an unfortunate reality that these sections will likely not change anytime in the future as it would mean the state has to willingly to give up its power and
The Indian Act is a combination of multiple legislations regarding the Aboriginal people who reside across Canada, such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Civilization Act was the Canadian government's attempt to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society in a passive manner, through a method they encouraged called Enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is basically a legal process that allows aboriginals to give up their aboriginal status and accept a Canadian status (Crey, n.p.). This process, while under the Gradual Civilization Act, was still voluntary, but became a forced process when the Indian Act was consolidated in 1876 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Enfranchisement Act introduced in 1869 was a major legislation that intruded with the private lives of the aboriginals. First, it established the “elective band council system” (Hanson, n.p.) that grants th...
Living in Canada, there is a long past with the Indigenous people. The relationship between the white and First Nations community is one that is damaged because of our shameful actions in the 1800’s. Unnecessary measures were taken when the Canadian government planned to assimilate the Aboriginal people. Through the Indian Act and Residential schools the government attempted to take away their culture and “kill the Indian in the child.” The Indian Act allowed the government to take control over the people, the residential schools took away their culture and tore apart their families, and now we are left with not only a broken relationship between the First Nations people but they are trying to put back together their lives while still living with a harsh reality of their past.
“In about half of the Dominion, the aboriginal rights of Indians have arguably been extinguished by treaty” (Sanders, 13). The traditions and culture of Aboriginals are vanishing at a quick pace, and along it is their wealth. If the Canadian Government restore Native rights over resource development once again, Aboriginals would be able to gain back wealth and help with the poverty in their societies. “An influential lobby group with close ties to the federal Conservatives is recommending that Ottawa ditch the Indian Act and give First Nations more control over their land in order to end aboriginal poverty once and for all” (End First). This recommendation would increase the income within Native communities, helping them jump out of
Fleras, Augie. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Repairing the Relationship.” Chapter 7 of Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 6th ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2010. 162-210. Print.
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
Canada prides itself on possessing a cultural mosaic, appreciating every culture within the country. The idea of the cultural mosaic strives to support an ethnically diverse nation, allowing communities to strengthen their social capital (Brown & Hannis, 2012). Unfortunately, Canadian history reveals a different story. The historical oppression of Aboriginals by the Canadian government, at a macro level, has left the entire Aboriginal culture with a sting of social stigma. Now, in an attempt to provide relief, the Canadian government has established various venues of support, addressing the issue of oppression against Aboriginal people (i.e. Thunder Bay Police Service Aboriginal Liaison Unit) (Brown & Hannis, 2012).
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
Her book focuses on the myriads of issues and struggles that Indigenous men and women have faced and will continue to face because of colonialism. During her speech, Palmater addressed the grave effects of the cultural assimilation that permeated in Indigenous communities, particularly the Indian Residential School System and the Indian Act, which has been extensively discussed in both lectures and readings. Such policies were created by European settlers to institutionalize colonialism and maintain the social and cultural hierarchy that established Aboriginals as the inferior group. Palmater also discussed that according to news reports, an Aboriginal baby from Manitoba is taken away every single day by the government and is put in social care (CTVNews.ca Staff, 2015). This echoes Andrea Smith’s argument in “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing” that colonialism continues to affect Aboriginals through genocide (2006, p. 68). Although such actions by the government are not physical acts of genocide, where 90% of Aboriginal population was annihilated, it is this modern day cultural assimilation that succeeded the Indigenous Residential School System and the Indian Act embodies colonialism and genocide (Larkin, November 4,
In its simplest definitions, the concept of multiculturalism having its roots in theories of cultural pluralism and diversity, can be defined as a normative response to manage the challenges arising from the ever growing multicultural make up of urban population caused by immigration or de facto plurality of cultures in both plural and mono cultural societies. The challenges of multicultural urban societies have been attributed to the politics of cultural differences characterized by the difference in value system of dominant mono cultural groups and specific communities containing multiple ethnicities and, also finding possible ways to co-exist among such differences. The politics of difference is largely reflected in sharing and constitution
Colonialism is not the only factor in the oppression of the rights and freedoms of the Indigenous peoples. It is also the bills and laws that have or attempted to have been passed by the government of Canada; effectively removing Indigenous communities from their deserved lands, in an attempt to further advance the non – Indigenous populations development in Canada.
In “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates” Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka challenge the understanding that failed multiculturalism in Europe will follow suit in Canada. Although Canada is not immune from the challenges that can come with multiculturalism, the way in which they tackle problems are country specific and do not necessarily reflect the practice or outcomes of other nations. As UK critic of multiculturalism Trevor Phillips, observes Canada to be ‘sleepwalking towards segregation’ (44) when the dynamics are far more complicated. TRANSITION SENTENCE REQUIRED
To begin, Aboriginal rights have, historically, been largely ignored in Canada’s past. Even before Confederation, there were efforts to assimilate the Aboriginal People into “Canadian” society; the prevailing thought was that the Aboriginal population was decreasing and it would be best for them to adapt the way of “normal” society. The most popular way to go about this assimilation was to take the children of Aboriginal families and send them to residential schools. These boarding schools were run by the federal government and attendance was mandatory. The goal was to raise the children devoid of any Aboriginal beliefs and teach them proper European ways – the children were punished if they spoke in their own language or followed their traditions and culture; every aspect of their life was stripped from their culture and Europeanised. They underwent emotional, physical and sexual abuse. All of these were serious violations of individual rights, and has been referred to as cultural genocide. The BNA Act of 1867, allowed the federal government...
Instead, multiculturalism places a wide range of claims of accommodation such as religion, ethnicity, language, race and nationality (Song, 2010). In the case of Australia, the acceptance of multiculturalism based on such far-flung claims has essentially resulted in the advent of politics of recognition among the minority groups seeking accommodation or integration in Australia. This is shown by Song (2010) who states that key among the claims fronted by Australia’s minority groups is self-government or at least some sort of recognition that affords such communities a form of autonomy. One key comparison is the aboriginal communities of Australia and those of Canada, whereby claims for recognition based on the uniqueness of ethnicity have left a bad taste in the mouth of white
Currently, Aboriginal peoples in Canada live in conditions of extraordinary poverty in a land of riches and wealth. Their are substandard and overcrowded, water often unsanitary and contaminated, population and in particular Aboriginal youth face staggering unemployment and rates of suicide, levels of health, income and education fall far below that of the rest of the country. With this being said after long years of oppression and discrimination, the Canadian government has made valiant efforts in the reconciliation of Aboriginal relations, however the resources and funds provided have proven to be insufficient, thus causing detrimental consequences.
In his article “The Failure of Multiculturalism”, Kenan Malik uses the diverse European culture to study and explain the irony of multiculturalism. He defines multiculturalism as “the embrace of an inclusive, diverse society” (Malik 21). Integration between cultures is practically inevitable, but several nations view this as a threat towards upholding their culture. Due to this, many countries have made attempts at properly integrating new people and ideas while trying to prevent the degradation of their own. This can result in unjust regulations and the reverse effect of an intended multicultural society.