Reflection 3

            When I think of a multicultural nation, what comes to mind is an ideal place that welcomes people from around the world to work or live. These people leave their original countries in hopes to make a better life for themselves. The country that welcomes these people is doing so with selfless intentions; it is a country that has the resources available to provide jobs and living conditions that are more suitable than someone’s original country, and for the sake of humanity and to also contribute to the economy, jobs are provided and immigrants are able to live their lives without fear of poverty or death. In his article entitled “Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity”, Bikhu Parekh describes the ideal circumstances of immigration in regards to immigrants being able to keep their culture in a new society. He says that immigrants have moral rights that are inherent; these rights do not go anywhere when someone leaves their country. The country that is bringing in the immigrants have obligations, including protecting and welcoming the newcomers, trying not brainwash the children in schools, and respecting the culture, even if it is unique. (Parekh, 1995) The term ‘multicultural’ should assume that when immigrants come from all over the world they are able to live in a culture while still living with aspects of their own culture. This is why it is called multicultural and not multiethnic. In saying this, it seems like multiculturalism is a perfect solution to problems in third world countries and countries that are torn apart by war and poverty; immigrants are able to live in a country where they can become citizens or become temporary workers, while at the same time not losing any cultural ties with their homeland.

            However, there are many people who may argue that multiculturalism is not as attainable as this ideal assumption. In the past few weeks in class I have learned a lot about the true aspects of multiculturalism in Canada; how hard it is for immigrants to come to Canada without being exploited, and the poverty rates of those who immigrated to Canada from another country.

            Last class we talked about Eva Mackey and how her definition of multiculturalism creates a discourse to put a positive light on multiculturalism. She provided this definition as a response to the Quebec separatists, Aboriginals, and minority groups in Canada who felt like multiculturalism in Canada was not something that needed to be focused on. Her definition of multiculturalism is: “Multiculturalism was developed as a mode of managing internal differences within the nation and, at the same time, created a form through which the nation could be imagined as distinct and differentiated from external others such as the United States.” (Mackey, 2002, p.50) Mackey’s definition creates a discourse for multiculturalism in Canada that is similar in some ways but differs from my previously stated view on what multiculturalism should aim to be. To review, discourse governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about. Discourses influences how ideas are put into practise and used to regulate the conduct of others. It rules in and rules out certain ways of talking about a topic. In this case, Mackey’s definition of multiculturalism creates a way of talking about multiculturalism that focuses on comparing Canada’s generosity to immigrants with other countries by looking at the multiculturalism that is present in the country. When she refers to multiculturalism as “a mode of managing internal differences within the nation,” (Ibid, 2002) I believe this may be the direct response to the Quebec separatists, Aboriginal groups, and minority groups by aiming to create a discourse that shows that, although Canada has its problems with these groups, it does the rest of the world justice by allowing immigrants to live and work here, resulting in multiculturalism. The second part of her definition creates a discourse that is actively talked about in Canadian society; Canada differs from other countries like the United States because of the multiculturalism it possesses.

            I think that instead of focusing on multiculturalism in this way, that is, multiculturalism as a way of differentiating Canada from other countries like the United States and multiculturalism as being a thing that Canada has done for the rest of the world, a discourse should be created that focuses on the lives of the other cultures in Canada and how improvements can be made based on the aspects of multiculturalism in Canada that do not benefit those who migrate here. This can be done by looking at poverty rates of minority groups in Canada and also looking at the Tamil discourse that is going on in Canadian society right now.

           

Works Cited

1.      Bhikhu Parekh, Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity. (1995)

2.      Eva Mackey. (2002). The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (pp.50-70). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.