Nation of migrants

[mia_konsgen]

Thobani writes that “multiculturalism constructs communities as neatly bounded, separate cultural entities, unchanged by the process of migration and dislocation” (149). However, the very condition of the migrant is to be changed forever, never again fully belonging to the place of origin nor that of destination. Nimo and Swap address these hardships in their song “Blood Brothers.” Nimo goes to America for better opportunities because “there’s nothing here in India” and he doesn’t “want to remain poor.” The song explores the emotions and expectations surrounding migration, Nimo’s relationship with his homeland, and leaving behind family. Even before leaving India, Nimo is already accused of not remembering his religion, as in ‘what are you going to America for?’ The song ends with Nimo wanting to spare Swap all the hardships endured just to ‘make it’ in America, discouraging him from coming too.
Very similar themes are addressed in Amarasingam et al.’s piece, which finds that Canadian multiculturalist policy is a double-edged sword. While some say it enables them to maintain their cultural identity while feeling accepted, others say it leads to the formation of ‘racialized cliques’ and fails to address racism. Among interviewees, there is a sense that ‘cultural expression’ should be “quiet,” and alarmingly, they feel the acceptance multiculturalism affords is conditional on good behavior, leading to self-imposed policing to represent a model minority. This shows the limits of the freedom and acceptance multiculturalism claims to offer.

Thobani explains that multiculturalist policies are a response to an international legitimacy crisis dating back to the 1960s, which put the very notion of white supremacy under attack.
In Canada, this crisis was “sparked by the increasing demands of francophones in Quebec; the continuing struggles of Aboriginal peoples for self-determination; the class and gender-based political movements of the period; and the increasing demands of people of colour for full citizenship.” In Quebec in particular, this led to a different ‘brand’ of multiculturalism which placed French at the fore: ‘interculturalism.’ Canada’s multiculturalist policies attempt to mask a weak sense of national identity, and “in the absence of a strong sense of what Canadian national identity and citizenship mean, people consolidate their social relations along ethnonational lines” (Amarasingam et al., 133).

Having lived in Canada for the better part of my life, I still cannot say I have ever found an answer to what it means to be Canadian other than being a migrant among migrants in ‘a nation of migrants’ as Amarasingam et al. put it. One never really integrates into ‘Canadian society,’ which is rather a vast expanse of territory made up of micro-ethno-societies. But then the very idea of a homogenous sense of national identity is problematic, in that it is about as natural and real as the borders that have made up any nation-state throughout history. To this day, history classes in French schools often perpetuate the patriotic myth of a widespread French resistance, presenting Nazism as almost exclusively limited to Germany and Germans, with the exception of a ‘few French collaborators here and there.’ The case of France illustrates the need of western states to distance themselves the scientistic theories about race and biology associated with Nazism, going even so far as to deny any responsibility. Multiculturalist policies for western nation-states were a way of doing just this, in addition to distancing themselves from the American ‘melting-pot’ (particularly for Canada). This scapegoating of a ‘traditional’ overtly racist minority to carry the burden of the horrors of Nazism and its likes enables the new multicultural-tolerating majority to see itself as progressive and actually representative of the nation. This is how we end up with the world we live in today: western nation-states that pretend to be tolerant of and open to other cultures when in fact the only reason they are (to an already limited extent) is for their own benefit and profit. In some ways, I would say this insidious masquerade is much more dangerous and terrifying than overt racism and misogyny, because it requires the ‘other’s constant vigilance in distinguishing who can be trusted. (this sounds like a conspiracy theory, sorry)