Multiculturism in Canada

British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a speech to European leaders earlier this year that the multiculturism has failed in Britain. This prompted me to review my thoughts and consider to what extent it has succeeded in Canada.

I immigrated to Canada from India via UK, Libya and the US. I married a white woman of British parentage in England forty five years ago and we have lived in a prosperous neighbourhood in Calgary for thirty six years. We have brought up three daughters here who are totally integrated Canadians. It is my observation that multiculturism in Canada among first generation immigrants amounts to different cultures existing together with very little mingling or cross fertilization. Surely, it was not the intention of politicians who encouraged immigration from the third world that different communities will work together whenever unavoidable but live in their own enclaves. But this is the situation that exists at present.

My social circle is that of educated and bright professionals in their fifties and sixties. I know several people of Indian origin but will count only one of them in my social circle. And he makes it only because his Irish wife is a close friend of my wife. My preference for the society of invisible majority is entirely due to the cultural indoctrination by my wife. My major interests are opera, classical music and English literature; tastes shared by very few of my ex-countrymen. My wife being English is a minor factor.

It may seem strange but it is true that I am the only visible minority resident in the “village” part of our community. It is not due to any racial prejudice among sellers or real estate agents; there is none. It is entirely because the prosperous members of former Indian, Chinese, African and other communities have congregated in specific areas. What worries me more is the lack of cultural cross-fertilization. A proof of this, if one were needed, is that I am usually the only visible minority representative in the parties we go to. As far as I can tell all my friends are completely unbiased racially but even when working together with people of different cultures, they do not make the jump to social togetherness. There are rare cases when this takes place. The problem in Western countries where Asian and African immigration has been significant is that the cases of social interaction are not common enough.

A big positive in Canada is that by and large people of different cultures work together with very few problems. In spite of the tendency to congregate in the same areas, there is no exclusivity and people with different cultures live happily in the same neighbourhoods and apartment blocks. Asian restaurants are patronised by invisible majorities as are McDonalds and Dairy Queens by visible minorities. While there are aggrieved individuals who feel that the race has held them back, there are very few who would feel that they have been pushed to the back of the line. The cases are rare where a minority candidate was refused a job when she was better qualified although they are equally rare when she was offered the job when merely equal. This is a tremendous step forward compared to thirty five years ago when two friends advised me against setting up the consulting practice because they feared that the prospective clients would be prejudiced against me. Fortunately, the prejudice for and against neutralized each other over the long term and I made a reasonable living. Today, this question would not arise at all.

While first generation immigrants are relatively aloof, second generation is coming closer. There is considerable interracial socializing and frequent cohabitation and marriages among younger generation. This is a very encouraging sign on the landscape. In the sixties of last century we had to overcome many impediments. These seem to have almost disappeared among white collar and professional families although still present to a variable degree among blue collar and less educated groups. The young integrated families generally adopt the Canadian way with some adaptation in food habits but they maintain congenial relations with family and friends on each side. In my observation, such relationships are stronger than homogeneous relationships if only because there is a stronger will to overcome problems when they crop up.

There is a flip side to this integration, however. If the overtures of a young visible are rebuffed at school or playground, the sense of rejection is acute and sometimes leads to antisocial behaviour. The ex-Jamaican gangs in Toronto and the ex-Indian gangs in Vancouver have their origin in this rejection. In most of these cases the parents are working long hours at making a living and are not able to help their kids settle in a strange environment and often are too busy or untrained to spot the problems when they arise and act on them. This is why school and social welfare agencies have to be watchful and attempt to deal with such situations before they become serious. The problem in UK was that the extremist religious groups took over disenchanted young people when schools and social agencies turned a blind eye. Fortunately, the extremist organizations are not as active in North America as in Europe. We need to stay vigilant that they do not get a foothold among disenchanted immigrants by encouraging the twains to meet rather than develop separately.

Comment:

The New Yorker is reputed among the literary circles as an outstanding magazine. Almost every piece in the weekly publication is a testimony to its excellence, not only is it a joy to read, invariably it is thought provoking even if one may disagree with the conclusions.

David Brooks contributed a superb essay “Social Animal” in the issue of January 17, 2011. It is a delight to read and an example to learn from to all budding writers in all genre’. Brooks cites numerous studies to show that the happiness springs from listening to the deep subconscious and from the empathy for fellow humans. While no one will dispute that these are the keys to happiness, unfortunately they are the source of misery as well. We share in the happiness and the misery of the loved ones through our “Emotional Intelligence”. Since most humans share their misery more often than their joy (perhaps there is more misery than joy in an average life) a high coefficient of emotional intelligence is likely to make us more miserable than happy.

As for people in seventies who had unhappy childhood being three times more likely to be solitary, perhaps they would rather spend the remaining few good years in their lives doing what they love and not what their ‘friends’ wish upon them.

Monica’s Comment:

“eGuru Swami Dharyanand taught me that the only purpose in human life was to make other life forms feel better every time there was a contact. I do not know how much I succeeded in my efforts in promoting general well-being; I do know that the stresses induced by sharing the strains in the lives of the loved ones take their toll. It takes a special kind of selflessness and humility to tolerate tantrums, snappy retorts, derogatory comments and unfair accusations with a smile and not be tormented by simmering resentment. I am taking a virtual course from the Swami to learn how these qualities can be inculcated.”