What is a “melting pot” and what is a “tapestry”? Which term do you think is most applicable to Canada and why?

Having read Seymour Wilson’s article “The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism” (1993) and reviewed the DANC 1500 Lexicon, respond to the following questions:

* What is a “melting pot” and what is a “tapestry”? Which term do you think is most applicable to Canada and why?

* What is Canada’s official policy “multiculturalism” meant to achieve? In what ways do you think multiculturalism, as a policy, is helpful and/or unhelpful? What does it celebrate? What does it suppress?

* Of the other vocabulary in the Lexicon, what terms do you think are relevant to Canadian culture and why?

* If you were to update Willson’s article for readers in 2023, what ideas, concepts or contexts might you add or correct?

Respond in your own words, using a 12pt font, double-spacing and university standard language and grammar. Minimum 750 words / maximum 1000 words. Word (.doc or docx) and PDF files accepted.

Requirements: 750-1000

The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism Author(s): V. Seymour Wilson Source: Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Dec., 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 645-669 Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politique Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3229490 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3229490?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/termsCanadian Political Science Association and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politiqueThis content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism* V. SEYMOUR WILSON Carleton University Cultural pluralism is now thoroughly entangled in our history, it is a rising force in our contemporary life, and it will most assuredly be central to our future destiny as a nation. David R. Cameron There is clearly room enough for all of us in this mythical canoe of Canada, providing we reopen our minds and respect each other’s dignity in our diversity. – Keith Spicer Introduction This address centres on a subject which, until very recently, was sur- prisingly neglected in political science, but which, nevertheless, has resonated in Canadian political life since its inception: the changing di- mensions of societal pluralism in our country, particularly the dynamic interplay between cultural pluralism, racial pluralism and liberalism and what such changes portend politically as dusk settles on this cen- tury. Its relative neglect in the study of Canadian politics is particularly troubling to me, given my own understanding of political phenomena and how we, as social scientists, approach their study.2 *Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton Uni- versity, Ottawa, Ontario, June 1993. 1 I am grateful to my colleagues, Rhadda Jhappan, Sharon Sutherland, John Meisel, O. P. Dwivedi, Alan Cairns, Ted Hodgetts and Yasmeen Abu-Laban for their valu- able comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, and I absolve them of re- sponsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation. 2 I have always found Samuel P. Huntington’s conception of our approach to the study of political phenomena acceptable, with a few qualifications and caveats added to that understanding: “Political scientists attempt to explain political phe- nomena. They view politics as a dependent variable, and they naturally look for V. Seymour Wilson, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6 Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, XXVI:4 (December/d6cem- bre 1993). Printed in Canada / Imprime au CanadaThis content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

V. SEYMOUR WILSON As political scientists it seems we have not been particularly com- fortable dealing with cultural and racial pluralism and their effects on political life. In this country we approach the study of societal pluralism almost exclusively from our perspective on Quebec nationalism, de- spite the varied nature of the subject matter.3 No doubt this may be due to the neglect of the subject in the Western tradition of political thought. As Kenneth McRae has so compellingly, if not comfortingly, argued, “Western political thought in general has shown little understanding or respect for the cultural diversity of mankind and has made scant allow- ance for it as a possible concern of government.”4 McRae’s general indictment masks a multitude of historic reasons why this relative neglect has been sustained until recently. For some in our discipline cultural and ethnic considerations in politics have either to be relegated to the ragbag of historical curiosities, or at least be sub- sumed as secondary to class interests. Ethnicity is an “apolitical force” the explanations of politics in other social processes and institutions. This tend- ency was reinforced by the Marxian and Freudian intellectual atmosphere of the 1930s and 1940s. Political scientists were themselves concerned with the social, psychological, and economic roots of political behavior. Consequently social change, personality change, and economic change were, in their view, more fun- damental than political change. If one could understand and explain the former, one could easily account for the latter” (Samuel P. Huntington, “The Change to Change,” in Roy C. Macridis and Bernard E. Brown, eds., Comparative Politics: Notes and Readings [4th ed.; Georgetown: Dorsey, 1972], 408, emphasis added). For a partial critique of this pervasive conception of political phenomena, see Alan C. Cairns, “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism,” this JOURNAL 10 (1977), 695-725. 3 Howard Palmer rightfully complained in 1982 that “Political historians and polit- ical scientists in Canada have shown very little interest in ethnic relations, other than their concern with the all-pervasive question of conflict and accommodation between English and French” (see H. Palmer, “Canadian Immigration and Ethnic History in the 1970s and 1980s,” Journal of Canadian Studies 17 [1982], 45). Re- cently, Abu-Laban and Stasiulis expressed almost the exact sentiment: “While immigration and ethnic diversity have been mainstays of Canadian life, these fea- tures have not always found widespread legitimacy among either ruling or popular groups” (Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Daiva Stasiulis, “Ethnic Pluralism under Siege: Popular and Partisan Opposition to Multiculturalism,” Canadian Public Policy 18 [1992], 365). 4 Kenneth D. McRae, “The Plural Society and the Western Political Tradition,” this JOURNAL 12 (1974), 685. This criticism is tempered by the fact that since the mid-1970s several leading Canadian political scientists, including McRae, have attempted to redress this imbalance through their addresses and writings. The footnotes which follow throughout this piece give testimony to these attempts. See also David J. Elkins, “Facing Our Destiny: Rights and Canadian Distinctive- ness,” this JOURNAL 22 (1989), 699-716; “The Sense of Place,” in David J. Elkins and Richard Simeon, eds., Small Worlds (Toronto: Methuen, 1980), 1-30; “The Horizontal Mosaic: Immigrants and Migrants in the Provincial Political Cultures,” in ibid., 106-30; and Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and “The Poli- tics of Recognition” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). 646This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Abstract. Cultural and racial pluralism have increasingly become a “riveting real- ity” of contemporary Canadian society. Various dimensions of this reality are explored and critical observations are made about the contribution of Canadian political science to an understanding of the phenomenon and its impact on our political life. The increas- ing polyethnicity of Canadian society has pressured our decision-makers into articulat- ing both a vision and a policy of multiculturalism. However, since the early 1980s both vision and policy have come under siege. The motives of the critics of multiculturalism are questioned, and an endorsement is made of policies which continue to seek answers in pursuit of the democratic ideals of procedural justice, human equality and mutual re- spect. Resume. Le pluralisme culturel et racial devient de plus en plus une <realite fas- cinante> de la societe contemporaine canadienne. Diverses dimensions de cette realite sont explorees et des observations critiques sont formulees quant a la contribution des sciences politiques canadiennes a une meilleure comprehension de ce phenomene et de ses consequences sur notre vie politique. La polyethnicite croissante de la societe cana- dienne a contraint nos technocrates a elaborer une vision et une politique claires en ma- tiere de multiculturalisme. Toutefois, depuis le debut des annees quatre-vingt, cette vi- sion et cette politique sont toutes deux assi6eges. Ce texte interroge les motivations des critiques du multiculturalisme et exprime son appui pour des politiques qui cherchent toujours des solutions favorisant la poursuite des ideaux democratiques de la justice de procedure, de l’egalite humaine et du respect mutuel. so far as class-based actions are concerned. The primacy of the “eco- nomic base” and “class considerations,” not ethnicity, have remained the “crucial variables” for the analysis of political life.5 Traditionally, sociologists have paid more attention to ethnicity than have we. But even within our sister discipline the study of ethnic- ity has suffered from a disciplinary mobilization of bias which places too much influence on a form of economic determinism that makes it difficult for us to appreciate the significance of society’s symbolic or- der.6 Further, Canadian political science’s traditional concentration on the institutional forms of federalism distorts our view of ethnicity by di- recting our attention to territorially concentrated ethnic/national groups that can be accommodated by provincehood or a third order of govern- ment.7 This bias has led us to pay too little attention to dispersed metro- politan ethnicity, an emerging demographic reality destined to have im- portant implications for Canadian social and political life: for the last 5 John Cater and Trevor Jones, “Asian Ethnicity, Home-Ownership and Social Re- production,” in Peter Jackson, ed., Race and Racism (London: Unwin, 1987), 190-211; and Alan C. Cairns, “Political Science, Ethnicity, and the Canadian Constitution,” in Douglas E. Williams, ed., Disruptions: Constitutional Struggles, from the Charter to Meech Lake (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1991), 169. See also Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). 6 Raymond Breton, “Multiculturalism and Canadian Nation-Building,” in Alan Cairns and Cynthia Williams, eds., The Politics of Gender, Ethnicity and Lan- guage in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 27. 7 Alan C. Cairns, “Political Science, Ethnicity and the Canadian Constitution,” 161-80, and “The Past and Future of the Canadian Administrative State,” Univer- sity of Toronto Law Journal 40 (1990), 319-61.This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

V. SEYMOUR WILSON two decades, for example, 90 per cent of Canada’s heterogeneous influx of immigrants went to the country’s eight largest metropolitan areas. To put it in David Cameron’s evocative phraseology, this “riotously multi- cultural” change in Canadian society will continue apace, with important implications for Canadian political life in the coming century.8 To the extent that we, as social scientists, study cultural or racial pluralism, we have concentrated on group-centred or ethnocentric theories, whether the group in question be the polis, or the nation, or a collectivity of mythical group conceptions of racial superiority. In the United States this group bias has led to “the melting pot concept.” In Canada, while we must avoid such a metaphorical phrase to character- ize our ideal society, there is a strongly held belief in some quarters that we should make ourselves into a “smelting pot,” that is, two major cultural groupings, English and French, both assuming totemic signifi- cance in subsuming all the other cultural and racial groupings compris- ing the Canadian mosaic. This is the perspective whose evolution I trace and against which I propose to contend. Since the 1960s these metaphorical conceptions have been under severe criticism in both societies. Black Americans, for example, re- sented the melting pot metaphor.9 White Americans did not have to worry about the pot for, after all, they constituted the pot. Black Ameri- cans have, however, been in the frying pan, or in the fire, for well over 300 years, with very little relief in sight. The depradations that have been so long visited upon the lives of black people found their reflec- tions, both in the past and the present, in this metaphorical conception and in the historical sleight of hand that limited and even eradicated the histories of a deprived race of people. From this perspective the melting pot concept of an inclusive society has come to be viewed as a mere camouflage for the perpetuation of an exclusive community controlled by and rooted in the assumptions of cultural domination and white patriarchy. Pluralism, or more accurately, E Pluribus Unum, that lip- service celebration of liberal democracy, turns out to be not what its proponents had implicitly assumed, that is, the defence of difference, but its denial. A similar indictment can be levelled against much of the contemporary opposition to the official policy of multiculturalism, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, a theme to which I will return later. Stripped of its rhetoric “the smelting pot” metaphor in Canada has many characteristics of cultural domination, and for the visible minorities in the population, is nothing more than racism and a perpet- 8 David R. Cameron, “Lord Durham Then and Now,” 1989 Morton Lecture, Trent University, Journal of Canadian Studies 25 (1990), 5-23. 9 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), esp. chap. 2, “History the Weapon,” 45-72; and N. Glazer and D. P. Moy- nihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963). 648This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism ual inferior status in our country. Canada now has an impending ren- dezvous with its polyethnic nature-the extent to which the extraordi- nary ethnic variety of recent flows of immigration, has altered, and will continue to alter, the old playing field on which the comfortable con- ceptions of the two “founding groups” could play itself out, and in- deed complacently overlook the real founding peoples conveniently sidelined on reserves. Culturally distinct groups other than French or English have con- sistently argued, since the days of the Royal Commission on Bilingual- ism and Biculturalism in the 1960s, that instead of cultural and ethnic differences being dismissed as incompatible with national goals, they should be endorsed as an integral component of a national mosaic, a re- flection of the Canadian ideal, and a source of enrichment and strength in a plural Canadian society. Ralf Dahrendorf expressed this notion in a different context: “The rediscovery of ethnicity was a step forward in the process of civilization. It meant an incipient understanding that common citizenship rights are not in conflict with cultural distinctions, but, on the contrary, give them new scope.”‘0 Dahrendorf’s statement cannot be dismissed as a somewhat ro- mantic reaction, for it seriously seeks insights into some of the most in- tractable problems facing mankind. The rediscovery of ethnicity is set against an environmental background which Jean Laponce described almost 33 years ago as “an endless and world-wide struggle among cultures,” a Sisyphean search to obtain some “equilibrium among races or languages.”” Now, after centuries of ebb and flow when cul- tural homogeneity was idealized if not realized, cultural and racial di- versity is approaching near universal proportions.’2 Polyethnicity is the nation-state form of the future, and in Canada we are destined to be more, not less, ethnically and racially diverse than we now are. Gone, it appears, are the days when ethnicity in the democratic capitalist West could be handled by the policies of cultural homogeneity and domi- nance, exclusion and coercion. As Clifford Geertz so graphically stated, “it seems shatteringly clear [that]… the world is coming at each of its local points to look more like a Kuwaiti bazaar than like an English gentleman’s club.'”13 The management of ethnicity within the practice of universal democracy is going to be a central task of the Canadian state as we enter the twenty-first century.14 10 Ralf Dahrendorf, The Modern Social Conflict: An Essay on the Politics of Liberty (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988), 309. 11 J. A. Laponce, The Protection of Minorities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 1. 12 Clifford Geertz, “The Uses of Diversity,” Michigan Quarterly Review 25 (1986), 105-23. 13 Ibid., 121. 14 Cairns, “The Past and Future of the Canadian Administrative State,” 358-61. 649This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

V. SEYMOUR WILSON Within this context political science’s role lies in devising and as- sessing the institutional means to accommodate this management. Ear- lier in this presentation I had resorted to hyperbole in making my point about the relative neglect of the changing dimensions of societal plural- ism in the study of Canadian political life. Two areas of the discipline exonerated of these charges of neglect are immigration and refugee pol- icy and the study of electoral behaviour at all three levels of gover- nance. The works of David Corbett, Freda Hawkins, Reg Whitaker and Gerry Dirks on immigration and refugee policy, Elliot Tepper on ethno- demographic change and the electoral studies of Jerome Black, John Wood, Jean Laponce and Thomas Flanagan, among others, readily come to mind. Another excellent demonstration of that role for political science can be seen in the October 1992 issue of the International Po- litical Science Review which deals exclusively with the resolution of ethnic conflict.15 I think most of us would agree with the view that a discipline, at least to the initiated, is known more by the questions it asks than by the answers that it provides: for questions indicate goals or aspirations that answers may not reach. Jean Laponce’s earlier work in the 1950s is a classic in this genre, because the fundamental questions posed at the very beginning of the book, and the framework derived as a result of those questions, still remain very germane to political science’s interest in, and relevance to, ethnicity. Laponce’s earlier work, and the central themes in Cameron’s 1989 Morton Lecture’6 all have an interesting affinity in that they articulate some fundamental lessons for our discipline, namely, that state tasks are never given for once and for all, that they are constantly evolving, and that cultural lag is always a danger in the conduct of state business. For political science this translates into the danger of disciplinary lag. But lag is not an option we can entertain. Given the nature of the state tasks involved, a responsible community of social scientists should have something to contribute. It means, further, that we cannot escape the obligation to predict, and a function of prediction is to sharpen and to broaden moral choice. This admonition is of particular relevance for us as political scientists as we increasingly turn our attention to cultural and ethnic diversity within our society. 15 International Political Science Review 13, 4 (1992). 16 “I am fond of Ernest Renan’s definition of a nation-‘une plebiscite de tous les jours’, a daily plebiscite. For me, it calls to mind the importance of time, and the importance of the affirmation and re-affirmation of a will to perpetuate a common existence. The act of living together one day after another, solving problems, mak- ing things work, is after all how most free societies hang together” (Cameron, “Lord Durham Then and Now,” 22). 650This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism Polyethnicity and Multiculturalism: Reality, Vision and Policy The concept of multiculturalism is a label for many things in Canada: it describes our polyethnic and racial mosaic; it articulates a vision of cul- tural pluralism which many feel is suitable for the Canadian reality; and it denotes a policy of the federal government first introduced in 1971.17 It is, as Kallen indicated, useful to clarify these different shades of meaning although all the various dimensions of the concept cannot be neatly differentiated from each other because they overlap. That Canada has been, and is increasingly, a more polyethnic and racial mosaic there can be no doubt. The social fabric of this country, from the very beginnings of white settlement, has always been com- posed of a polyethnic weave. “Other ethnics” have a long history of settlement: German settlers, for example, outnumbered the British among the original United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada.18 Black, Chinese, Irish, East Indian and Jewish settlements go back, in some cases, over 200 years. These groups, however, were small in numbers and perceived as marginal to the Canadian mainstream. At our very beginnings as a nation, Canada’s Fathers of Confeder- ation proclaimed a “new nationality.” Our political elite visualized it to be a pan-Canadian nationality, or what George-Etienne Cartier called a “deep racial diversity”-a composite, heterogeneous plural society transcending differences of ethnic origins and religion among its citi- zens. But this idealized vision of a code of ethnic relations was, from the very beginning, leavened by the nation’s migration policy which re- flected a dialectic between the desired population increase and the im- pact of immigration on the racial and ethnocultural composition of the country. At first this created no real challenge to the policy-makers. The “preferred” immigrants from northern and western Europe presented 17 Evelyn Kallen, “Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality,” Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (1982), 51-63; and J. Buret, “Multiculturalism,” in J. H. March, ed., The Canadian Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.; Edmonton: Hurtig Pub- lications, 1988), 1401. 18 Elliot L. Tepper, “Demographic Change and Pluralism,” in O. P. Dwivedi et al., eds., Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy (Guelph: Department of Po- litical Studies, 1979), 20-52; and Joan Magee, Loyalist Mosaic: A Multi-Ethnic Heritage (Toronto: Dundur Press, 1984), 25. The foreword to this book by the National President of the United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada made this revealing admission: “. . . the myth that these political and war refugees were English ‘blue blood’ still persists after 200 years. Almost the exact opposite is true, of course … these exiled Americans were as diverse ethnoculturally as they were in their faith, their livelihood and their economic status. To understand and accept thesefacts is a basic first step towards grasping the elusive Canadian iden- tity … of the 7000 or so that made up the ‘critical mass’ that came to the future Ontario there is no question that the English or British element was a minority” (emphasis added). 651This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

V. SEYMOUR WILSON no problems in cultural assimilation. As Lupul has observed, these “settlers” were co-opted very quickly by the Anglo-Celtic mainstream of Canadian society. Praised for their parliamentary traditions, their eagerness to give up their mother tongues, their education, literacy, hard work, thrift, cleanliness and temperance, and their Protestant reli- gion, the Nordics were from the outset the weakest advocates of cul- tural diversity. They blended well and they did not upset the population mix. They put behind them life in the old country very quickly and for most their term as white ethnics was very brief, lasting no more than the first immigrant generation and almost never past the third.19 Overriding the dialectic was a further ineluctable fact: the coun- try’s population must grow in order to defend its vast habitable spaces in the west and to exploit its bountiful forest and mineral re- sources-all prerequisites for the development of nationhood and a healthy, prosperous economy. These were the overriding consider- ations which drove our Canadian gatekeepers to adopt, first, the 1890s policy of peopling “Canada’s empty prairies” with the “less preferred stock” of Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and, sec- ond, to institute the post-Second World War controlled immigration policy of the “non-preferred stock” of Portuguese, Greeks and Ital- ians-those brawny immigrants who supplied the engine power for the rapid urbanization of much of southern Ontario in the 1950s. But the almost insatiable demand for balanced population growth to ensure the needs of economic prosperity and national integrity could not be denied. By the 1960s and 1970s polyethnicity in Canada became much more complicated. Demographic studies began revealing that over the past generation Canada’s population has been growing at a steady but decelerating pace from about 19 million in 1961 projecting to about 27 million by 1991. There were two factors in.the projections, both of which were disturbing to the political decision-makers and their advisors. One was the rate of natural increase, which accurately indi- cated a precipitous decline from 26 births per 1,000 population in 1961 to approximately 14 births per 1,000 by 1991. Linked to this decline in the rate of natural increase was the other factor of note-an aging pop- ulation. Both factors operated to reduce future population size unless countered by immigration. If we depended solely on natural increase, we would be faced with zero population growth or actual decreases in the early years of the twenty-first century. Incremental expansion of the population rests, in part, on net immigration, and that too had been de- creasing, particularly from the traditional sources of immigrants.20 Vol- 19 Manoly R. Lupul, “Multiculturalism and Canada’s White Ethnics,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 15 (1983), 103. 20 M. V. George and J. Perreault, Population Projectionsfor Canada, Provinces and Territories: 1984-2006 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1985); Warren E. Kalback and 652This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Wed, 30 Dec 2020 20:55:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism untary and involuntary (refugee) immigrants began increasing from third world countries: what the then minister responsible for multicul- turalism, John Munro, called “the real minorities” began emerging as a significant element in the immigration influx.21 Before 1967, 80 per cent of Canada’s immigrants used to come from Europe or from coun- tries of European heritage; by 1991 almost 75 per cent came from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Currently, Asian-born per- sons represent almost half of the immigrants who came to Canada be- tween 1981 and 1991.22 And, to all these immigrants, Canada is not some woebegone spot, some way-station on the route to an economic Valhalla elsewhere: the census reports that 81 per cent of immigrants who were eligible to become Canadian citizens had done so by 1991. Polyethnicity in all its racial dimensions, has within the past three dec- ades become a “riveting reality” in Canadian life. As one commentator recently put it to me, “We Canadians are creating a ‘bouillabaisse soci- ety’ of the North-a stew rich in ethnic and racial variety.” A “bouillabaisse society,” however, need not be multicultural. In many countries throughout the globe polyethnicity is forced to coincide with a dominant cultural homogeneity and cultural and racial diversi- ties are officially denied. Multiculturalism rejects this as a solution to cultural and racial diversity: it calls, first, for the action of societal deci- sion-makers to recognize a social reality (polyethnicity) within their midst, and secondly, to articulate both a vision and a policy devised to achieve some basis for tolerance and mutual respect. No other basis as a substitute ever lasts, and, as we are all painfully aware, the rendering of accounts is almost always horrifying and is never forgotten. What is truly revolutionary is this attempt to devise a democratic vision by employing the policy instruments of the nation-state in the re- construction of the symbolic order and the redistribution of social sta- tus among racial and ethnocultural groups in Canadian society.23 And Wayne W. McVey, The Demographic Bases of Canadian Society (2nd ed.; Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); and Shirley B. Seward, “Policy Context of Immigration to Canada,” in Charles M. Beach and Alan G. Green, eds., Policy Forum on the Role of Immigration in Canada’s Future (Kingston: Queen’s Uni- versity, 1

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.