“Where do I belong?” - a response to Cynthia Chambers piece, submitted to the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, February 2006. ( is the original document so that anyone outside of our class can read it and follow my response:)
I felt a definite reaction to Cynthia Chambers reflection and thoughts on the Canadian identity, how she interprets being Canadian, and the role it plays in today's society, specifically for those who are marginalized or under represented. I admit her style and presentation meanders quite a bit with her allusions to her past, memories and experiences, and initially it left me impatient and close minded. However, as I try to sort out my own thoughts and reactions, I now I realize they form a vital part of her argument, and that very presentation of past events IS her argument. I'll preface the rest of my comments that their entirely my opinion, based solely upon things I've observed, and I will speak in generalities, and I hope not to offend anyone by making sweeping statements.
While Canada to many is a relatively young country, it seems even younger and harder to define for families comprised mostly of recent immigrants. This is the overwhelming majority in most urban centers and larger cities. My own parents are both first generation Canadians, and our sense of history within Canada and identity doesn't stretch much further than my living memory. Canada is unique among most developed countries, not just because of how multicultural we are becoming, but rather because we are an increasingly multicultural country built upon a tradition and history celebrated and defined mostly by recent European immigrants (recent as in the past two or three hundred years). The structures, the communities, history and cultural norms stretch only as far back as early settlers, French and British colonialists, (and later ethnic groups like Irish, Germans, Italians, etc) which is a very weak connection for most current Canadians. Our common values, symbols and places of congregation hold no ties to older communities, specifically those of the indigenous peoples of Canada. Countries in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world have a visible connection to their identity as traced through history, whereas ours is a transplanted image, a vision crafted almost overnight by the whims of the people who took control of what is now Canadian land. I'm not trying to wade into those murky waters of reconciliation and the wrongs done to Canada's indigenous peoples, I'm not qualified and to be honest, I'm ignorant on the intricacies therein. But I do know that our superficial knowledge of those issues, of the realities lived by people like Cynthia Chambers, shows the very nature of the Canadian identity. It is something we collectively chose and fashion based upon the whims of the majority of the people who are entitled to have a voice, and that identity washes out and sometimes even erases those of the other real Canadians, the people who are pushed and shoved to the sides, or separated, dissected and rewritten as we see fit. Cynthia Chambers form of Canadian identity could not be expressed in any other way than a personal history. Her identity cannot be exemplified by one historic treaty, or symbol, or leader, or cause, because the reality for people in her situation, is that their identity was molded, dictated and imposed by what 'we' felt Canadian should be. Now the real importance of her experience and what it shows about being Canadian is that as a Nation we are obsessed with being politically correct and “welcoming” to everyone. Or at least, we are obsessed with keeping that public perception alive and well. Her warning for us not to gloat just yet comes a little late, as most Canadians, especially internationally, see themselves as models for multicultural integration and human rights. I was taught, all throughout school and into University, about how inclusive we all were, how great Canadian culture and traditions were and how special we are. Of course we should be fostering attitudes of integration and equality among students and children, and try to approach differences in a positive, welcoming environment, however telling everyone how great we are at it does breed a kind of willful blindness among ourselves. But of course while all that was going on, there was definitely intense racism and classism going on throughout all my classes and with students. It really wasn't children from African or African-American families that were being targeted anymore, it was either rural children being picked on by urban/suburban students from wealthier families, or newer immigrants, South Asian mostly, Pakistani, Indian and Sri Lankan, who were being attacked, ridiculed and ostracized by everyone else. But I never thought of us as racists, or mean, or even bullies, because in class, we all stated how much we accepted everyone, and new people were all equal, but on the playground, that was never the case. And so, what I see, through Chamber's piece, and throughout my own experiences in schools in rural Caledon, or an inter city school like Bramalea Secondary, is an identity that is only visible as the vast majority of Canadians with a voice and with entitlement create, and that for the rest of the people who are not represented, they have to exist with a transient, almost oral identity that only comes into being when someone stops and reads about their reality, about their experiences and gives it merit. Which is an entirely offensive situation and idea. Alright, I'm getting a little worked up on this, and I've definitely strayed off topic and gone on a tangent, but I am trying to wrap things up. I feel in some ways all I really did was poorly summarize her points that she illustrated in her conclusion, so I will add one thing. While I feel that this whole notion of a Canadian identity needs to be seriously reworked, and taken down from the images we've selected as “Canadians” while disregarding important elements of our history and peoples, I do feel that it doesn't mean we have to ignore what has been selected, or ignore the new, incoming influences, cultures, peoples and views. I think the settlers and recent immigrants are integral parts of this nations history, I just think they control a disproportional amount of the Canadian identity and modern reality. I also feel that new members to Canadian society are not being presented with a nuanced understanding of how our country was developed, how it evolved to the point where it is now, and what options there are for the future, for better or worse. We have a reluctance as Canadians to critically assess ourselves and really open those painful or shameful elements to daylight. As a final note, I wonder how Cynthia's perspective has changed in the past decade, with everything that's continued to happen in Canadian politics and how the world is shifting globally. Would love to see a follow up piece by her and see if she rethinks anything she's said, or has developed those ideas further.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories |