« Does this look peaceful to you? | Main | Wordpress. Bah! »
February 22, 2007
The hypocrisy of diversity; or, the threat of Quebec is everywhere
Actually, I think it's a double-standard, but I prefer that title.
For years people have talked about "diversity" and equating it with a "Good Thing". I am not sure how well this Good Thing was defined in the beginning, and being a minority, it never really occurred to me that perhaps it should be presented as being advantageous to the white majority. It's clearly an advantage to me: I can exist and prosper here, theoretically. But for the white people? I suppose that having black or pink or brown dollars really is a very good thing, but beyond that, I am not sure.
With that in mind, I think that I now have a better idea as to why this vague "diversity" was tolerated for so long, and why it is under fire now.Diversity is fine as long as there are more white people than any other group: specifically, more than 50% white population.
Case in point: Some Chino Hills residents (really, click on that link; the money there is astounding, which could explain a lot of their worries) are worried about the arrival of an Asian supermarket and the resulting potential influx of Asian businesses, people and cultures in their once-lily-white community.
"It will turn into anther Rowland Heights," said Carolyn Matta, 67, referring to the unincorporated community 35 miles west of Riverside where the population is 55 percent Asian. "We're not going to be welcomed in our neighborhood."
Although you could dismiss this as the irrational fears of an old woman, I don't believe that you have to be a senior citizen to feel this way. In fact, many younger people in their 30s and 40s are feeling a little alienated and othered, or at least feeling the threat of such alienation. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care. I don't care not because I want some kind of revenge against white people, but because I like the idea of giving the opportunity of raising the profile and prominence of different kinds of people. If white people have to feel like a minority and different from the localized norm, then so be it. It has been that way my whole life, and my life isn't so bad. Hell, some white people need the lesson.
When tolerance and diversity programs were first put in place so that immigrants and other minorities could get a fairer shake in the world, those programs made and make sense because otherwise, the stakes are too stacked against them. White people are NOT like any other ethnic (which might as well read "other", "strange", "different" or in some contexts, "lesser") groups as long as they determine how all other groups will be treated. Besides, even in some select urban centres, the vast majority of North America is white. At the extreme, I see these Hispanic and Asian enclaves as being little Quebecs; they are the ethnic majority in a relatively small geography, encased as a minority within a much larger geography. They would clamour for special treatment within the larger national or continental community, while denying smaller groups within it the same dignity*. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Maybe that is what this Hérouxville stunt and the reasonable accommodation debates are really all about. The white monopoly on normal society and majority is population is threatened, and therefore things must change back to the good ol' days. Whatever those were for certain ethnic groups, including the white Quebeckers.
* There is no need to remind me of how lucky I am that the francophone majority allows me to live peacefully in English in Montreal. Like I said, diver$ity. And I don't mean to rail against white people or Quebeckers in general. I am simply trying to shed some light on certain legitimate non-white non-French perspectives. The whole mention of Quebec was simply a comparison in the extreme. Or was it really so extreme?
Posted by JonasParker at February 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Comments
Wow. There are a few interesting statements and opinions in there but I'm not quite sure I understand your point fully.
But seeing as I love to discuss ethnicity in society, let me add mine - especially as someone who grew up in one of the LEAST culturally diverse areas of the so called 'western' or 'developped' world.
As an anglophone, non-Canadian educated, Scots philosophy holding, protestant white person, should I also feel alienated within a city, which is largely not that? Should I seek out others of my kind? Should I seek special dispensation? Am I threatening? Do I feel threatened? I wonder if Canadians or Quebeckers feel a sense of dread with me around. You're a Canadian born and raised, right? How do you feel about me in your land?
Or should I feel less threatened or threatening because of the colour of my skin or religious (non)beliefs? Is it easier for me? Am I accepted more readily? Did you?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic or condescending - and I have no right to judge how you are perceived or any of the unjust negativity that you may have received to date, but this is a world truth that will never go away.
To go back to one of my original statements re: growing up in a singular culture with very little diversity - when I go back there, I am positively amazed by the 'accepted diversity' and growth of Edinburgh from that perspective. Yes, diversity does have to be accepted as it incorporates culture, tradition, art, music and not just genetics.
Here in Montreal, people don't understand how good they have it.
In my humble opinion.
Let's have a beer and talk about this further!
Posted by: Procrasto at February 22, 2007 11:07 AM
All I am really saying is that the current trend is for white majority people to say that they embrace cultural and other kinds of diversity, but only until their relative numbers dwindle. Then it becomes unreasonable and limits must be imposed.
This is reasonable to a point; the character of a place is made by its people; if the people change, the character will also change. But as a person that has historically had little to say about it anyway, I can't really say that I care about how the majority feels about this change.
Further, I do realize that just because you are white does not mean that you cannot relate to what I am saying. Montreal is slightly different from other major North American centres because of the distinctive divide between white cultures. But by and large, I don't think that you wouldn't really feel the same kind of alienation that I would feel in, say, Chino. See what I mean?
Posted by: Alston Adams 
at February 22, 2007 11:29 AM
I think you can't make an exact comparison between European communities and North America, although there are parallels. There is enough rivalry between ostensibly "white" nations within Europe to begin with -- heck, look at the UK where it seems there's rivalry depending on what end of the street you're from.
What all of that stems from is insecurity. I would say that Protestant cultures are founded on a constant sense of personal insecurity (sin, etc.) that leads to an emotional guardness, that expresses itself in a constant multi-level status debate (personal vs. group, group vs. other group). Catholic cultures seem a bit more unified, less atomized, but of course it is really just my own anecdotal observation here.
That said, most of "old school" Canada was settled , or at least owned and ruled, by Europeans of Protestant background so a subtle status question underpins a lot of our national and personal politics. Canada already has a fragile sense of cultural / national self as it is, so when something comes along to challenge that status, people push back. And it's true, I think people at best want that kind of Expo 67, food-court multiculturalism where the dominant paradigms or social groups aren't challenged, but we have a ripple of exoticism, of Other, as long as it stays over there.
Posted by: aj at February 27, 2007 11:43 AM
I see it as the legacy of our largely Protestant European heritage. I may be painting in broad brushstrokes here, but Protestant cultures are based on guilt and sin motivations; emotions are generally repressed, and this expresses itself socially as a constant game of one-upmanship, a status debate. Consider the fact that Europe, nominally a pretty Caucasian place, has had rivalries for centuries; most pronouncedly, I would think, in the UK, where status is practically a national obsession (who's dating who, who's in, who's out, who's up in the polls, who's down in the charts, who has a better front garden...) I mean forget about international rivalries, in the UK it's region vs. region, town vs. town, end-of-street vs. other end of street.
And while European nations have thousands-of-years-old senses of self, Canadians as such haven't been around as long and the term is subject to constant review. I don't agree with fear, but I can understand how white folk of a certain generation are pushing back against ethnic enclaves / ethnoburbs; it's strange. To some extent they are really lamenting their loss of privileged status / sense of 'normalcy'.
It is true, I think many want us to go back to a kind of Expo 67 / food-court definition of diversity; it's charming and safe and you can go visit it and then leave it behind and it doesn't threaten the status quo.
Posted by: AJ Kandy at February 27, 2007 11:52 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)