Multiculturalism in Canada

The National Post has been doing a series of articles about some of the biggest political mistakes in Canada. Barbara Kay wrote an article about multiculturalism being Canada's biggest mistake. I composed a letter in response and this is what I wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for the provocative article. It appeared to me in a timely fashion as I was contemplating the subject.

Perhaps multiculturalism is a mistake but I don't think it's been a matter of much choice. Canada had multiculturalism thrust open it from the beginning with its to founding cultures, English and French. Canada was wise to adopt both cultures for its governance. If it hadn’t it truly may have been a 'clash of civilizations', one that would have torn the country apart. Similarly, it has been wise of Canada to allow the cultural differences of others to survive and continue because stymieing them could have led to social unrest. Instead Canada has learned to cultivate them all, maximizing their potential.

In contrast, had multiculturalism been practiced in Yugoslavia and its different cultures been treated equally it probably would not have been torn apart as it was. Tito, who ruled the country with an iron grip, forced everybody to coexist, but mainly his ethnic group ruled the country. Subsequently, after he died, the country and Tito's cohesion fell apart.

You deny that multiculturalism has made the country richer. Dynamically it has, economically and in overall human relations. It has made Canada an exceptional country and an admiration of the world. People who have experience multiculturalism in other parts of the world find it blends best in Canada because of it unique situation and of it first having two founding cultures that prepared it for more.

People think that in multiculturalism each separate culture carries on as it wants. That misconception is why people are bothered by it. But in all fairness, the people who come from other countries culturally assimilate more to Canada's way of life than Canadians do to theirs. For instance, they adopt Canada's laws, we don't adopt theirs. For the most part they adopt the countries values and practice its philosophies of democracy and capitalism. In fact, multiculturalism helps expand democracy because it encourages diversity, putting pressure on democracy to live up to it reputation of being an all-inclusive governing system. For democracy to remain legitimate and vital it require many masters, which multiculturalism tends to be. The demands of multiculturalism rejuvenate democracy.

Some people think multiculturalism doesn’t make common sense because it defies a ‘centre’. Yeats said of a civilization, if the centre doesn’t hold things fall apart. He would have viewed multiculturalism as having not center. However, he said that in a less sophisticated world, a world that was still chiefly racist and xenophobic, and less understanding of diversification. Today, with human rights at the center of world politics, racism has subsided and the world is more diversified. The championing of multiculturalism has been one way of combating racism and promoting human right, with the freedom to choose and keep one's identity. Canada, with its multiculturalism, is at the forefront of this brave new world.

Robert Fulford, another writer at the Post, wrote an article entitled "What divides us makes us Hegel". He was writing about the division that has existed between the English and the French. As he says, that division has paradoxically made Canada possible and exceptional. Canada wisely did not pick one founding member in favor of the other for its governance. Instead it has worked to reconcile the division between the two and in so doing has developed and incrementalized its governing skills and operational philosophies. Multiculturalism has further heightened this exceptional about Canada because it encourages Canada to constantly reflect and refine its skills. Multiculturalism has kept Canada politically alive and awake.

In multiculturalism Canada has been an example and a laboratory to the world. Canada is really a harbinger of the world to come, or the one that is already hear because of globalization.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Barbara Kay was kind to write back but she thought I had the wrong end of the stick. She said that she isn’t against biculturalism, the origin of this country, and that I had it confused with multiculturalism. However, I made the connection because Canada’s biculturalism in many respects laid the ground for the later acceptance of multiculturalism. In other words, biculturalism morphed in multiculturalism. She also contrasted Canada with the US. She wrote. “ As for making a country great, what greater country is there than the US, made great by the melting pot and forced integration? If you consider Canada great now, imagine it 10 times greater, which is what forced integration would have done.”

All I can say is that the US and Canada are different places. I don’t think integration, per se, was forced on Americans. It happened sort of naturally, like multiculturalism happened sort of naturally in Canada. Each country made different choices. People went to each country for different reasons. Moreover, the US is more densely populated than Canada so cultural differences there, personified, would have been more frictional and perhaps worse. One thing that has makes the US different is a common patriotism, crossing all cultures lines. Canada didn’t go that route. But I think Canada is better prepared for a globalized world because of its multiculturalism. And today we notice how different the makeup of the US is becoming with more people choosing to keep their own cultural identities.