| | Summary |  |
Visible Minorities and Immigrant Populations
Thursday March 27, 2003 - Breakout
Facilitator/provocateur Michčle Kérisit of the University of Ottawa said it was hard to promote discussion on Li’s paper because she agreed with it. She asked if history is important or relevant in understanding racist exclusion, adding that she had heard participants in past workshops ask why the deeds of their grandparents should affect them. She said deconstructing from a historical perspective is important to put the past on the shoulders of a nation, and to include the affected people in that nation’s history. Recognizing their suffering validates their inclusion.
Kérisit asked how differences can be spoken of without recreating inequalities. She pondered the use of the word “Canadians” in poll results, as a contrast with those who are “culturally different”. She asked if Canadians are only white, middle class and Christian, noting that “this puts the diversity discourse in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’”. Instead, “diversity” should be analysed in context of the diversity of Canadian citizenship, since it is how that discourse is created that is inclusive or not.
Studies say that despite equal qualifications, there are inequalities in pay. In fact, Kérisit said, there are gradients of inequality. Visibly different men born in Canada fare better than Aboriginal men, for example, and all other categories of women earn less than non-racialized females. Monolinguistic Francophones outside Quebec are also among the racialized.
Participants voiced the following comments and questions:
There may be a contradiction in Li’s arguing that it is harmful to have survey questions using the term “race”, while quoting research showing that people of colour have poorer outcomes. There is a problem to be addressed, yet Li would censor the tools research has to understand it. If the conventional approach to measuring Canadians’ views is inadequate, the question is how to replace it. Children in Canada today are brought up in a more diversified world than their parents were. They seem to have a natural inclination towards inclusion, suggesting that education and understanding might make a difference. But even as that progress is being made, access to the benefits of Canada is proven to be unequal.
Li said his key message was that there are subtle, elusive areas, such as opinion polls, in which race is articulated strongly and Canadians endorse and legitimize it by their silence. He said he shares a sense of optimism about the next generation, but on the other hand hears shocking taunts about race in school yards. In kindergarten, children will play with anyone, but only a few years later they have learned the meaning of race, indicating that someone must have taught them.
Participants commented that:
A study of residential segregation in Toronto showed that there is a racial divide even at higher income levels—people tend to stay in homogenous neighbourhoods. The conclusion, for better or worse, is that cultural differences remain when economic differences are resolved Canadians think they can get away with a strong, underlying sense of racism based on physical appearance because it has changed over the years. It used to be French versus English, English versus Irish. People assume that the concept of racism is constant, but it changes. Communities will increasingly define their boundaries in relation to people who are perceived as a threat. This raises questions about who benefits from racism, and about the kinds of courageous conversations that must occur.
Li said cities have always been segregated, but noted that there are many underlying contradictions—for example, people are happy to see Chinese households living in Chinatown, but become concerned when they move to the suburbs and buy strip malls. He clarified that he was not talking about racism so much as the acceptance of the use of race in assigning values to people.
Kérisit added that it will be interesting to see whether boundaries are hardened in reaction to globalization. An interesting research question would be: What do people do who are inclusive in their practices?
In response to another comment, Li said the term “visible minority” was made official by Judge Rosalie Abella in her report on employment equity. In the context of social inclusion, the term is used in a positive way. But it has been hijacked in opinion polls and other contexts, as a surrogate for something ugly.
Participants noted that:
The one fundamental thing we cannot control is our birth circumstance. Every minority is, in a different context, a majority. It is important to contextualize. When making policy, “diversity” means “mixed”. It may also be necessary to use “visible minority” in trying to uncover an earnings gap. Pollsters are like police interrogators, using a smooth approach if they want an answer that people are comfortable giving. The purpose is to obtain a form of measurement, not legitimize it. The term “visible minority” was created to refer to physical appearance. But the definition becomes muddled when it is used to identify culture and place of origin for employment equity purposes.
Li said he could understand a certain amount of sympathy for pollsters, but the issue is greater than that. He said Canadians can reject a sexist question, but have no problem with a racist question because it has been condoned for the last 50 years. Employment equity questions are not asked so that people can be counted in, but rather so they can be counted out. He said he has never seen poll results presented in a pro-active way.
In a final round of comments, audience members stated that:
There are legitimate forms of spatial segregation, such as those that preserve a culture. However, there is a disturbing trend to give newcomers no choice but to locate in the older suburbs. The other longer-term residents have left, so the problems facing a spatially segregated community become invisible. Many of the problems described are actually not specific to race or immigration, but trace back to income. Employers may not think of racial distinctions until they actually look at the company equity policy. If there is a problem it should be corrected, but only if there is a problem.
Back to Reporting
For more information about the conference, contact:
Sarah Zgraggen
The Willow Group
Tel: (613) 722-8796;
Fax: (613) 729-6206;
e-mail: szgraggen@thewillowgroup.com
|