The Globe and Mail explores Multiculturalism

In a series of video features, the first one available here, the major Canadian Daily discusses Multiculturalism and immigration. It's an interesting talk, and to at least some extent revolves around the same topics noted in previous posts on this blog, i.e. the dilemma of groupism, the problems of discrimination and essentialization and the challenges ahead. For those not familiar with the Canadian debate, it could be an interesting example of the public discourse. For those familiar, some of the questions and answers might contribute to further thought on the subject.

Pay special attention to Mr. Tarek Fatah. In the videos, he claims that Multiculturalism has failed in Canada, and that a shift is necessary towards a focus on race instead of culture. Some of the points he raises seem quite poignant to me, for instance the tendency for dominant groups to consider the most different practices of 'others' as cultural markers, as opposed to "eating ice cream and watching the ball game", which can result in segregation rather than integration. This observation forces us to ask how 'cultural difference' is defined, and who gets to define cultural difference.

Still, I'm not convinced that a shift to a focus on race will be the solution. Culture and ethnic heritage does matter, and the right to self-expression should not be underestimated. I feel that Mr. Fatah in this case builds something of a false dichotomy, where culture and race, which can both become grounds for objectification, discrimination, exclusion, or otherness (whatever you want to call it), somehow stand against each other. Indeed, he uses the modern connotations of race when dismissing that Ukrainians or other groups experienced discrimination when entering Canada in the early 20th century, omitting that Italians, Eastern Europeans and even French were, indeed, discussed in terms of their "racial difference" from the British. "Race", like other markers of identity, is not static.

It seems that Kymlicka's notion of building self-protection rights for individuals which allows them to retain cultural differences while not allowing groups to oppress individual members remains a potent idea. Alas, it was absent in this debate.