Differences are all around us. Whether we are completely conscious of it or not, we encounter differences in nearly every aspect of our daily lives. We can differ by ethnicity or language, by economic status, by political views, or even in opinion on any given topic. In many ways, it is by these differences that we define ourselves as individuals and as groups of individuals who share a common bond. In the article, “The Civilization of Difference,” by The Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, differences are examined under a political microscope in an attempt to see where we, as Canadians, are going based on where we have been. The author suggests that Canadians in particular have a unique relationship with difference. It is not only present in our daily lives lived in this culturally diverse nation, but it is also the foundation on which this country was built. Though it has not always been a tolerant and welcoming country, today Canada strives to be a leader in good will and human rights. The defence and protection of all people, regardless of who they are, is at the heart of what it means to be Canadian.
It is true that we humans have a need to identify with a group, to belong to a community. In her article, McLachlin suggests that it is often by process of exclusion that we find where we are included. By process of deduction and elimination I can learn who I am from who I am not. The African proverb that is used in the article rings true on many levels. “A person only becomes a person through other people” can on one hand mean that in comparison to others we can find who we are, but it can also mean that we find ourselves when we find belonging with others.
Finding an identity, a group to belong in can be both rewarding and destructive. Once we identify ourselves as being a part of one group, we are also saying that we are not a part of a different group and from that point it is a logical next step to look down on the other group as being not as good as our group. The other group appears less worthy than our group, making ‘different’ become synonymous with ‘bad’. It is also true that treating others badly has the effect of making us feel more powerful; the oppressive effects of this dynamic have been felt throughout history. McLachlin’s article focuses in a few of these examples, most notably Hitler’s regime where the ultimate goal was to completely eradicate everyone who was different. It is easy to see that this concept of identification through difference permeates not only just our history but also through our present. Virtually all conflicts are started over differences of one kind or another; it is the very nature of war.
So what do we do about this culture of difference which inevitably leads us to fight with each other? The text offers two possible solutions to this problem, each with their own set of virtues and drawbacks. Firstly, the idea of separating groups within autonomous nation states. Though it would give the members of the group security and the authority to self-rule, it is no way a guarantee of prevention of war. In fact, it may serve to deepen resentments because there would also be a territorial boundary to dispute, on top of the ethnic differences already in question. As well, this division along physical borders does nothing to account for immigration as you can’t ensure that all people from one ethnic background will stay living within the boundaries of their assigned territory. Furthermore, and in my opinion, segregation leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to hate.
Alternatively, the text suggests that promoting respect and accommodation within the nation state is what will ultimately lead us to tolerance and peace. This idea is contingent on a basic philosophical principle that all humans are created equal and that the core of one human is exactly equal to the core of another. It is a great concept in theory, but it may be far more difficult in practice. As well, it is always debatable that when two things are different, can they really truly also be equal?
In Canada, we have tried to embrace this notion of accommodation and respect within our borders. It has given us the legal language of protection as written in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to use in defending our differences against attack. As a nation, we have accepted this way of life making it implicit in what makes us Canadian.
Unfortunately, we have not always been so free to welcome those who differ. Though it is true that Canada was founded on the coming together of two cultures with different languages, and our Constitution was written to protect those very differences, we must also look at the dark side of Canadian history and the many cultures that faced terrible discrimination within our “tolerant” borders. For the purposes of this paper, the atrocities are too many to list with appropriate detail but McLachlin does a good job in her article of paying due attention to many, from the deportation of thousands of Acadians to the eugenics practice of sterilizing the intellectually handicapped. Even women, who make up 52% of the population have had to struggle to attain an equal status, only becoming legal “persons” in 1929. It is arguable that this inequitable treatment of women persists today, as evident in a 2oo6 study by catalystwomen.org (www.catalystwomen.org) which shows that only 15.1% of corporate officer positions are held by women. Employment and pay equity for women are far from being a reality.
On this point of discrimination in Canadian history, arguably the worst offense is that of the First Nations People, or Aboriginals. As the text points out, this was a clear case of “institutionalized discrimination” (300), whereby laws were created to give legal backing to practices that amounted to nothing less than theft. The treaty system was just a legal way to steal vast amounts of land from a culture that not only had no real concept of “ownership,” but for the most part also lacked the literacy skills needed to fully understand the documents they were signing. If that wasn’t bad enough, further laws were enacted that attempted to take away their culture and identity, the very spirit of the Aboriginal people. In 1857, the Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in the Province was created with the sole intention of converting the “savages” into “civilized” people, giving them new Christian names, and turning them into “non-Indians” under the law. The Indian Act of 1876 took this one step further when it outlawed traditional Native ceremonies, turning the Sundance and Potlatch traditions into illegal acts.
It is hard to imagine how alienating and emotionally devastating this theft of identity could be on an individual. To make matters worse, it must have been extremely confusing that the society that was trying to convert them to join its ranks, was at the same time excluding them from becoming full members with equal rights. In the text, McLachlin refers to this as the assimilation-exclusion model. Of this she says, “the simultaneous pursuit of exclusion and assimilation produced cultural displacement, marginalization, and tragic loss of identity and self-esteem.” (301). The effects of this treatment are still being felt and the resentment that it has left is far from over, despite the Federal governments attempts to make amends. In 1995, the Liberal government issued a Federal policy on Aboriginal Self-Government which essentially states that section 35 of the Canadian Constitution recognizes the inherent right of self-rule, giving back to the Aboriginal people the ability to govern themselves within the greater framework of this country. As well, some financial restitution has been paid to certain bands that have successfully sued the Canadian government for discrimination, theft of property, and abuse of power. Gains are being made in reparation of this relationship, but the pain and anger runs deep and likely will for many years to come.
In writing her article, Beverly McLachlin maintains an optimistic view of Canada as the defender of differences, the ambassador for diversity on the world stage—and I cannot agree more. We have an impressive array of distinctive cultures and ethnicities within our borders and are constantly welcoming, with open arms, immigrants from around the world. We are also a nation with two official languages, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was adopted in 1982 is more than a legal document, it is practically an instruction book on what it means to be Canadian.
Whether you were born here or just recently arrived, the culture of acceptance that exists in Canada is tangible and can be felt as both warm and welcoming. Though our country has experienced many internal challenges and our freedoms have been hard won, we have grown to embrace the differences that make us unique and doing so makes us proud. It is possible to suggest that the true Canadian identity is in its refusal to conform to just one. The Canadian way is as diverse as its occupants, as vast as its terrain, and that is just the way we like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment