Education, Ethnicity and Racism:
Education, Ethnicity and Racism:
A European-Canadian Perspective.
By: Chris Bagley
From: Currents Fall 1984 pp.8-12
© 1984 Urban Alliance on Race Relations
From: Currents Fall 1984 pp.8-12
© 1984 Urban Alliance on Race Relations
Introduction: European-Canadian Comparisons
Only in the 1950s did Canada develop an ideology of race and
ethnic relations which was distinctly different from that of the
white, Protestant English speaking group which had dominated the
Empire for a century.(1 ) Change took place because of new
patterns of migration; the assertion of power by migrant groups
from Southern and Eastern Europe and Ireland; and through the
assertion of Francophone consciousness. Today Canada in its
multicultural policies is a dramatically changed society, unique
in its policies which coincide with (but which have not created) a
society in which racism's impact seem, on the face of thing, less
dramatic than in many other ethnically mixed societies.
European comparisons make these Canadian developments seem even
more interesting. For example, at one time Dutch race relations
were regarded as the prime example of good practice: a very large
number of ethnically different refugees from Indonesia had been
successfully absorbed in the Dutch plural society, as had other
minorities.(2 ) Yet in only a decade race and ethnic relations in
the Netherlands deteriorated dramatically as large numbers of
black Dutchmen arrived from Surinam and the Antilles, and the
bonds of pluralism, coincidentally, began to crumble. The result
has been the development of an alienated, despairing and
rebellious black youth culture which could not be accommodated in
Dutch society.(3)
The Dutch situation and its deterioration is worth stressing for
it illustrates how a seemingly racist culture (as in the Canadian
case) or a non racist (as in the Dutch case) can change rapidly in
relation to structural factors independently of policy formation
and action by governments. Hubert Campfens of Wilfred Laurier
University illustrates this in his important comparative study of
the "integration of ethno-cultural minorities" in Canada and the
Netherlands.(4) In his conclusion, Campfens points to an
interesting paradox. Despite a strong tradition of central and
local government involvement in everyday affairs, Dutch public
policy has played a relatively small part in assisting the
integration of minorities. Yet in Canada, which lacks a tradition
of strong government involvement (within a laissez faire,
capitalist mode) both federal and provincial levels of government
have taken significant initiatives to foster elements of cultural
autonomy through both policy and fiscal support.
The reasons for Dutch inaction are related to moral confusion in a
declining capitalist society in which the structural cement
provided by religious bonds has decayed. The ground for Canadian
action can be traced to self-interest - a desire to palliate
potentially disruptive minorities following radical accommodations
to Francophone interest and to the desire to incorporate
minorities into a healthy capitalist economy. Canadian
multicultural policy has developed in ways which obscure the lines
of class and economic exploitation within a complex and seemingly
attractive mosaic of vertical rather than horizontal
stratification.(5) Paradoxically too, the accommodation of the
cultural aspirations of diverse ethnic groups in Canada seems to
be paralleled by a decline in ethnic commitment, as evidenced by
an increase in inter-racial, inter-ethnic and inter-religious
marriage.6
In truth, Canadian ethnic policies work because the population has
been highly selected in terms of its commitment to the social
relations required by capitalism. Canada is generally liberal in
its treatment of the aspirations of ethnic and cultural
minorities, but is racist in its policies towards "illegal"
citizens.(7) Moreover, one ethnic group - the aboriginal peoples -
are rigidly excluded from this multicultural policy, since Native
cultural aspirations are fundamentally threatening to the
capitalist aspirations of the white settlers, and those they have
chosen to assist them in the exploitation of Canada's resources.(8
)
For legal immigrants to Canada, committed to economic advancement
within a capitalist frame work, Canadian social structure offers
many advantages. In this, Canada differs profoundly from Britain,
where ethnic minorities are treated with discrimination rather
than accommodation, despite their assimilationist aspirations.
In Britain, and to some extent in the Netherlands the frustration
of legitimate aspirations of ethnic minority groups by a racist
social structure has led to profound states of alienation.(9) We
can best illustrate this by the comparative study by the Jamaican
social geographer, Elizabeth Thomas-Hope.(10) Thomas-Hope compared
the adjustment and satisfaction with achieving the goals of
migration of similar groups of Caribbean migrants to Britain,
Canada and the United States. She interviewed several hundred
Caribbean respondents in London and other centres in U.K.; in New
York, Hartford and Boston in the U.S.; and in Toronto and Hamilton
in Canada. The highest levels of satisfaction with achieving the
goals of migration were reported by West Indians in the U.S.
centres, closely followed by those in Canada; but levels of
satisfaction were dramatically lower in respondents in the
U.K.
The goals of migration were quite simple: to advance
occupationally and materially, and to achieve both for themselves
and their children. These goals were most easily met in Canada and
the U.S. which are"open" capitalist societies, used to
accommodating the upwardly mobile aspirations of migrants in
largely non-racist ways. Britain has no such tradition, and
continues to discriminate against black people in jobs, housing
schools and colleges The racism of the blue collar and many white
collar segments in Britain is profound and deeprooted, and British
people have still not accepted the reality that a significant
minority of the British population consists of the previously
exploited colonial peoples, who now have the affrontery to compete
directly with the indigenous population in the job and housing
market.(11) This discrimination extends to the second and third
generation of Caribbean settlers in Britain, in profound contrast
to the United States (and to some extent Canada) where second
generation Caribbean migrants are largely absorbed into the black
middle class, from whom they are indistinguishable.
In Britain, alienation and the knowledge that educational
achievement is unlikely to bring success has led to two contrasted
outcomes for minority youth. On the one hand, significant sectors
of black youth have retreated from educational goals, and are
labelled as "deviant" by teachers and the educational system;(12)
on the other hand, significant numbers of Asian youth have become
ritualistically attached to education and enroll in yet further
courses to postpone the ultimate (and usually unsucessful) job
search.(13)
At an official level, British policy has passed through a variety
of phases. The first phase (beginning around 1960) involved an
unsuccessful assimilationist policy coupled with harsh immigration
restrictions which specifically discriminated against people of
colour and kept families divided, through a rigid immigration
system. The second phase (since 1970) made the immigration system
still harsher, but began to develop a "multicultural" policy which
involved a limited and largely ineffective palliative directed to
the accommodation of minority aspirations.(14) But the central
problems of racism and racial discrimination have not been
addressed in British society, and with the advent of massive
structural unemployment problems of racism have become
significantly worse.(15 )_The facile use of the terms
"multiculturalism" and "pluralism" have ignored the gross
imbalances of power between ethnic groups. A description of the
separateness of ethnic groups as a plural condition without
reference to imbalances of power is to mask the racism inherent in
such a situation: the most extreme example of this is the South
African case,(16) but the separation and gross equality of
aboriginal people in Canada comes uncomfortably close in
similarity. We have recently proposed the concept of
"interculturalism" rather than "multiculturalism" to accommodate
this problem (taking due account of problems of power
imbalance).(17)
We have become profoundly dissatisfied with the trivialization of
the idea of multiculturalism by many British educational writers
and practitioners: "multicultural education" has become for many a
synonym for minor curriculum accommodations to the needs of some
ethnic groups, without beginning to address the problems of
racism, and the need to educate all ethnic groups (including
whites) for intercultural living in a non-exploitive world.
The Canadian Experience
We have argued that marked differences in the emerging social
structure of Canada have meant that problems of race and ethnic
relations are generally not so profound (or rather are different)
from those observed in a number of European countries.
Canada, as a successful capitalist economy has an openness in its
accommodation of immigrants (including ethnic minorities) who have
been specially selected for their combination of professional
experience, education, youth, linguistic ability, and their
willingness to fit in with a social structure based on
individuality and individual enterprise.(18)
Educational institutions in Canada, as the servants of the
economy, generally socialize ethnic minorities, without overt
discrimination, to undertake successful roles in a free enterprise
system. Such a process of selection through careful immigration,
education, socialization, and training for successful
participation in a capitalist society has served the needs of the
selected immigrants well, but it is not in an absolute sense fair
or unbiased. The Canadian system leaves unchallenged the world's
most profound system of stratification, that between rich and poor
countries.(19) Recruiting certain of the educated class from
countries of Asia and the Caribbean is, for Canada a policy of
self-interest, not of enlightenment. The recruitment of Vietnamese
refugees is a case in point. Canada smartly entered the camps, and
recruited younger, healthy, educated people who spoke French or
English Canada's "generous" quota of immigrants was rapidly
filled.
The ideologies of Canadian social structure are implicit rather
than explicit. The ruthless self-interest of Canadian capitalism
is rarely discussed, and multicultural and immigration policies
are either rarely analyzed, or are seen as autonomous and even
enlightened aspects of policy development, without reference to
their wider economic and social policy connections. Coy phrases
such as "visible minorities" replace the harsher British emphasis
on "racial minorities". Yet the question of who is a "visible
minority" remains undefined and undiscussed in Canada. Is one a
visible minority because of the possession of non Anglo-Celtish
surname? If not, why not? Does minority status depend on the
accuracy with which the average Canadian can pick you out in a
crowd? Are children of mixed parentage "visible minorities"? If
"visible minority" is a synonym for being black, why not say
so?
Other issues fail to reach the multicultural agenda in Canada. We
have little data on the educational achievement of ethnic minority
students in Canada. The writer has been unsuccessful, for example,
in persuading School Boards to identify students by ethnicity in a
comparative study of self-concept and achievement.(20) The nature,
extent and social and psychological correlates of prejudiced
beliefs in young people, and the extent of which these might be
changed by curriculum methods of school organization is largely
unexplored in Canada.(21) And we have no reliable or valid data on
discrimination against ethnic minorities in Canada.(22)
The most perplexing issue which is not on the agenda of Canadian
ethnic relations is the massive exploitation of the conquered
aboriginal nations,(23 )the denigration and suppression of their
culture, and an oppressive educational system which fails to
address the cultural, affective or cognitive needs of Indian and
Metis children.(24 )
Conclusions
In sum, Canada has apparently been relatively successful in
absorbing certain highly selected immigrant groups whose
aspirations fit in with the goals of a capitalist society,
oriented to the fulfillment of individual needs for material
advancement. However, full evidence to evaluate this proposition
is lacking, largely because fundamental research and policy
questions are not posed. Such radical questions, about Canadian
ideologies on ethnicity, the exclusion of poor people from Canada,
and the continued colonial exploitation of a dominated and
excluded people within Canada, are not asked. The failure to ask
these questions, we suggest, is an ideological matter, and relates
to the presently unmasked nature of Canada's capitalist
institutions. This silent ideological agenda may account too for
the imprecise nature of multicultural policy in Canada, and the
vagueness of official terms used to describe minority groups.(25
)
The aggressive and exploitive nature of settlement in Canada has
been to the profound advantage of the white settlers, and the
non-white minorities absorbed, through "multiculturalism", into
the exploiting class. The exploitation of the
land and natural resources has been to profound disadvantage of
the original inhabitants: their exclusion from both prosperity and
autonomy, the denial of their land claims, and a continuation both
directly and indirectly of a policy of cultural genocide against
the aboriginal people is in our view the major but unaddressed
issue in Canadian "race relations". It is no accident that the
Ministry of Multiculturalism has no concern with, or
responsibility to support aboriginal culture.
