Reading Note #4: Introduction - Integration and Inclusion of Newcomers and Minorities Across Canada

*apologies for the late post - the week this posting was due I was having difficulty accessing Blogger and just remembered I never went back to post    

        This introductory chapter by Biles et al.,  (2011) focuses on the integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada. Like most introductory chapters in any volume, this reading provides reasons as to why the authors believed this study was of merit as well as snippets of what would follow in the chapters that follow. One of the central arguments of this is that “the challenges involved in integration, belonging, and inclusion cannot be shouldered by newcomers alone” (p. 1). Canadians play a “vital role” in facilitating newcomer integration, immigration and inclusion though. Integration, the goal for newcomers, is not spontaneous and requires crucial government action and community cooperation. In order for governments to properly and effectively help new immigrants and minorities integrate, they must be aware of local conditions and learn about the real, lived-experiences of individuals who are trying to integrate and belong.

            There were a couple “strengths” of this article that stood out to me and justified this as a useful/worthwhile reading in my mind. Firstly, immigration (and diversity) continue to be a reality in Canadian society. Not only that, a push for attracting the “best” and most “desirable” immigrants remains. Though Canada has been considered a desirable nation to migrate to in the past, it is imperative that Canada (and Canadians) find ways to motivate these migrants to stay (and contribute to society) after they arrive. Understanding that efforts on our part can and do have a large effect is important and right to emphasize. Secondly, I fully support the notion that integration and inclusion efforts must come from all levels of government, individual Canadians and communities. I think all too often, the burden is still placed on newcomers to “figure things out” and they are blamed when they do not “succeed”. This attitude has led to a lot of hostility towards newcomers and migrants in the past and has only been detrimental to sustaining a unified nation. Though I enjoyed this article overall, I did long for some more discussion about specific provinces and municipalities and how they have handled integration/inclusion. The authors discussed the changes in settlement patterns, highlighting that the traditionally popular cities are no longer the hot spots but I feel like more discussion about this would have been appreciated. Much of the literature that exists on immigrant settlement patterns focus largely only on popular locations. Consequently, I feel like I know very little about how the Maritimes, for example, has dealt with immigration inclusion and integration in the past. Do they have different attitudes or approaches? Are migrants hesitant to move there because there is a history of poor integration efforts and perhaps even racist attitudes towards newcomers? Certainly studying the places where migrants normally move to is important, but I think it is equally important to consider locations that have been less desirable in the past or have become less desirable because this might shed some light on what these locations have done “wrong” in the past.

            In terms of this reading’s usefulness to my teaching practice, I think it is a great reminder that a lot can (and should) be done by teachers when it comes to helping to integrate and include our newcomer/minority students and their families. There are so many resources that exists within communities (working at the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa has reminded me of this!). Unfortunately, many new immigrants, non-native English speakers and minorities are not aware of these resources who would likely be able to help with their integration into a new community/country because no one is thinking to share this information explicitly with them. The one question that really came to mind while reading this article in terms of government intervention and facilitation of integration is whether some interventionist tactics are too assimilationist? Are there aspects of living that are more important to help immigrants integrate? In my opinion, there are certainly aspects of integration that we push for that are more for our benefit (and comfort) than for the benefit of newcomers so I think there is room to question some integration motives.

Biles, J., Burstein, M., Friederes, J., Tolley, E ., & Vineberg, R. (2011). The integration and

inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

The Imaginary Indian by Daniel Francis - Reading response #6

The imaginary Indian

by Daniel Francis

In this introduction, D. Francis narrates his personal experience while visiting Head-Samshed-In in southwest Alberta. He starts by describing and illustrating the current small sized museum and the vast prairie views from the clifftop across. The author continues describing how his attention shifted from the display in the museum to the people who were working in it. D. Francis observed how the staff did not represent his concept of Indian, or what he was taught an Indian should look like. After spending an entire afternoon learning about the buffalo, he left the museum knowing that he had changed his perception about what an Indian is.

He continues his introduction by citing Charles Mair’s historical events from 1899. Mair had travelled to the far Northwest in order to negotiate with Native people and was profoundly disappointed to find “a group of commonplace men smoking briar-roots.” D. Francis illustrates this example in order to compare and contrast Mairs’ experience with his own experience. He highlights the similarities between both events even though they were about a century apart. He then recognizes that Indians, as we think we know them, do not exist.

Francis resumes his book introduction by describing historical events when Europeans first arrived in America and established contact with indigenous cultures. He outlines how the concept of “Indian” is the invention of the European, and how the idea and the image of the Indian is a white conception.

In The imaginary Indian, the author wants to clarify that the book is meant to reflect on the images White Canadians created of Native people and not about what Native people are. The main argument in his book being that there is no such thing as a real Indian.

The book examines where the Imaginary Indian came from, how Indian imagery has affected public policy in Canada and how it has shaped, and continues to shape, the myths non-Natives tell themselves about being Canadians. D. Francis claims that Europeans have tended to imagine the Indian rather than to know Native people. He concludes his introduction by underlining how as part of the legacy of the Imaginary Indian we lack a terminology with which to clearly speak about certain topics involving Indians, Natives, and Euro-Canadians.

The Imaginary Indian can be used as a way to promote understanding about non-native perceptions in Canada. As educators, we can use this reading to better understand the historical processes through which constructions are assembled and become powerful. My question for this reading would be, how could we as educators begin accurately portraying and facilitating a different perspective of native people?

Reference:

Francis, D. (1992). Introduction. The imaginary Indian the image of the Indian in Canadian culture (pp. 1-9).  Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press

Francis, D. (1992). The imaginary Indian. Vancouver: Arsenal Press.

This introduction outlines the key argument of the book, i.e. “Indians, as we think we know them, do not exist. In fact, there may well be no such thing as an Indian” (p. 4). Even more radically speaking, “there is no such thing as a real Indian” (p. 5). What there is, rather, is an image of the Indian, an imaginary Indian. The purpose of the book is hence to trace the construction of the image of the Indian that Canadians have constructed since the middle of the 19^th century.

Francis begins with two anecdotes. The second reports about the poem Charles Mair who travelled in 1899 into the far Northwest to be part of a team negotiating with the Indians. Although he was very well informed and had few (negative) prejudices about Indians, he was surprised to discover even in the remote regions “men with well-washed unpainted faces, and combed and common hair; men in suits of ordinary store-clothes, and some even with “boiled” fi not laundered shirts” (p. 3). The second anecdote is a century apart. Going to a world heritage site where Indians lived and cultivated their animals for over six millennia, the author witnessed - with a similar surprise as Mair - Indians in charge of a museum that showcased the lives of the Indians over the past centuries. Francis argues that the experience was  “an encounter not just with an important place in the history of the continent, but also with an idea, my own idea bout what an Indian was” (p. 3).

The two anecdotes are evoked to challenge the claim that every generation claims a clearer grasp of the reality than its predecessors. This is not true with regards to Indians, because “the Indian is the invention of the European” (p.4), and because “the image of the Other, the Indian, was integration to this process of self-identification” (p. 8). The author maintains that Indians were not known as much as they were imagined, and this was/is prevalent not only among politicians, but also among authors and even businessmen. That’s why the book does not seek to better understand the natives, but “to understand where the Imaginary Indian came from, how Indian imagery has affected public policy in Canada and how it has shaped, and continues to shape, the myths non-Natives tell themselves about being Canadians” (p. 6).

I found this introduction super interesting and I am indeed interested in reading the book. The book answers some of the questions that I personally ask about how Canadian decision making institutions understand immigrants and use this knowledge as the basis of their decision making processes. How do we understand the Other? Is there an Other indepdently from our perception, i.e. does the Other impose its reality on us or do we impose our reality on the Other? I think these are important questions that the author seeks to answer and, I believe, these are also important issues that teachers need to discuss with their students in class.

If I could be picky about a claim in the argument, perhaps it would be whether the passage of time has not contributed to our understanding of the Indians. I have to objections to this for two reasons. The first is what it means to understand? I believe that understanding is a process that results from, as Gadamer would say, the fusion of two horizons: the first being the horizon of the observer, which is constantly changing, and the other being that of the Other, which is likewise constantly changing. So while there is no ultimate point for understanding, understandings of the same phenomenon intrinsically change across different times and contexts. The second objection is that temporal distance usually helps negative prejudices that are destructive to more genuine understanding to lose their vigor and to be replaced by those that are more acceptable. I believe the more is written about Indians, the more negative prejudices will lose their authority and the more of the reality of the Other will be reflected in the discourse of our common knowledge.

Macintosch, L. B. & Loutzenheiser, L. W. (2006) Queering citizenship. In G. Richardson & D. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education. (pp. 95-102). New York: Peter Lang.

In this article, Macintosh and Loutzenheiser discuss the complex power relations inherent in how the notions of citizen and citizenship are addressed in curricula and classrooms. The authors suggest that one way of reading about citizenship is through sexuality and explore schooling as a way of investigating how teachers can initiate dialogues with the purpose of facilitating the inclusion the sexually marginalized youth. They believe that queer theory is useful “for engaging citizenship as it pertains to marginalized populations and issues of queer students” (95). Accordingly, they argue “queer theories and queering of theory offer educators sites of contestation through which to open up pedagogical and curricular potential and unsettle heteronormativity in schooling” (p. 98).

As for the why of queer theory, the authors highlight the theory’s non-conventional and provocative approach to identity: it “purposefully disrupts the notion that identity is fixed or immutable” (p. 96).  It can therefore be used as a critical tool to explore the complications of identity formation. This critical dimension in reflecting on how to include identities with different sexual orientations is important, for “uncritical inclusivity reifies the Other and reinforces the status quo” (p. 98).

The authors assert that if education is a democratic public sphere, the private lives of students should remain inconsequential for their participation. However, the heteronormativity of education assumes that belonging to either sex is the condition for the disconnect between the private and the social. Since the queer students do not neatly fit into this binary, their private is made public and an issue, if not a condition, for their inclusion in education.  This is where queer theories can shed critical light on how educational content, guidelines, and teaching approaches can liberate students’ bodies as a condition for inclusion. “The promise of queer theories lay in the disruption of heteronormativity, in disclosing the power of naming, and n the possibilities embedded in a curricular understanding based on an embrace of partiality and fluidity” (pp. 100-1).

When reading the article, I understood the authors’ use of queer theories not only as a lens to read the multiple ways of reading the way queer students experience schooling, but also a framework to approach identity in citizenship education in a larger sense. While queer theory might suggest the sexual dimension of identity, its purposeful disruption of identity notion can equally shatter the hegemonic racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural dimensions of identity. In so doing, it can assimilate more individuals in the democratic space of education, leaving the differences in identities as the private sphere and as such inconsequential for individuals’ participation in the realm of the social.

What I wished to see in the article was to mention some of the challenges that a queer-friendly teaching approach would look like. This is not a criticism, however, as this is a separate topic and the space of an article like this might not allow for it. In connection to such challenges, I notice that Catholic boards run many schools in Ontario. Are these schools open to queering citizenship education? How about parents? If they are sending their children to religious schools, would they be willing to incorporate issues related to queer theory in the educational curricula? How about teachers? Are teachers trained to incorporate issues related to mutable and dynamic identities into their teaching materials? Are they well versed about queer theories? I think these pragmatic challenges are worth considering when implementing queer theories in education.

Said Al-Badri's Reading Note # 6: Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the plains: Disease, the politics of starvation and the loss of aboriginal life

Summary:

            This chapter is a conclusion of Daschuk's (2013) book, titled Clearing the Plains: Disease, the Politics of Starvation and the Loss of Aboriginal Life, which aims to examine "the ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND political forces that shaped the medical histories of First Nations people in western Canada" (p. 181). Thus, his book outlines "the origin of the health inequity between Indigenous and mainstream Canadians in western Canada that persists into the twenty-first century" (p. 181). While Daschuk (2013) was studying the history of aboriginal health, two different stages emerged.

            The first phase was the period of introduced severe infectious diseases that spread very quickly between unhealthy populations, bringing unique morality to the societies influenced by such diseases (Daschuk, 2013). Daschuk (2013) argues that as the global economic system extended to western Canada, dangerous epidemics swept through the region. Daschuk (2013) emphasizes that "[m]icrobes cannot be isolated from commerce" (p. 181). Although illness struck every community in the area, the impacts of early outbreaks varied according to various factors, such as population density, geographical location and mobility, frequency of contact with outsiders, and access to imported goods (Daschuk, 2013). Daschuk (2013) stresses that every First Nations community in the west was basically shaped by acute contagious disease. Additionally, Daschuk (2013) points that the people of eastern Canada developed strong immunity as they had longer experience with diseases. Thus, compared with the indigenous people of western Canada, these eastern people were more likely to recover from these serious epidemics (Daschuk, 2013). Daschuk (2013) uses the Assiniboine as an example to explain how acute contagious diseases, such as smallpox, badly affected these people and highlight the lessons the Assiniboine extracted from their experience with this epidemic. Although the Assiniboine, who were among the most well-known and densely populated First Nations on the eastern plains, dominated southern Manitoba for 500 years, smallpox wiped out most of their population (Daschuk, 2013). However, as the Assiniboine realized that this disease spread through crowded communities, they started to leave certain regions and intensify their occupation of others (Daschuk, 2013). Moreover, Daschuk (2013) holds up the Niitsitapi of southern Alberta as an example to demonstrate how the global economy contributed to the spread of diseases. Daschuk (2013) points out that "Variola was delivered to the western plains along an equestrian trade network that unwillingly served as a disease vector between the Pueblos of the American southwest and Alberta" (pp. 182-183).

            Prior to Canada's acquisition of the area, the aboriginal people of western Canada had considerably changed their territory and economic orientation (Daschuk, 2013). These indigenous people signed treaties with the crown (Daschuk, 2013). The relationship between First Nations and the Dominion of Canada symbolizes the emergence of the second phase of health and disease discussed in Daschuk's (2013) study. First Nations leaders regarded these treaties as "a bridge to a future without bison", a "renewal of the social safety net", "assistance in the conversion to agriculture", "medical aid", and "famine relief" (Daschuk, 2013, p. 183). However, Daschuk (2013) argues that these contracts were inequitable treaties used to damage the economy of indigenous society by, for example, exterminating bison herds. As a result, these native people lost their independence and power (Daschuk, 2013). Given the loss of bison and the difficulty in converting to agriculture, poverty and famine swept western Canada. This food crisis aggravated a number of subsequent diseases such as tuberculosis (Daschuk, 2013). At the beginning of the famine in the west, Canada did not have the people or infrastructure to provide enough food for all indigenous people of western Canada. Although the government managed to get life-saving supplies of food to the region in months, the Conservative Party, elected in the fall of 1878, used food as a way to control the native population (Daschuk, 2013). Therefore, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were on reserve and had to rest upon the government as their only source of rations (Daschuk, 2013). Unfortunately, I.G. Baker, the main supplier of food to the area, took advantage of the situation as it supplied, in collaboration with some government officials, poor or rotten food to the hungry to boost its profit (Daschuk, 2013). Additionally, Daschuk (2013) argues that as this malnourished population living on reserves had no other source of food, their reliance on provisions provided by the government made them exposed to the predations of officials who abused their power. For example, women were particularly in danger of sexual abuse by those who managed the flow of food. For some women, prostitution became the sole way to provide food for their families (Daschuk, 2013). As a result, sexually transmitted diseases spread across the region. In addition, to fight the indigenous people revolution in 1885, Canada implemented the pass system and further cuts to DIA spending which worsened the suffering on reserves and confined the population to the government (Daschuk, 2013). Furthermore, the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway brought a large number of acute contagious diseases, such as the fatal epidemics of measles, whooping cough, and influenza, which dropped the demographics of various regions, like Saskatchewan (Daschuk, 2013). However, Daschuk (2013) argues that "[o]fficials began to interpret the chronic bad health of the indigenous population as  a condition of their race, claiming that tuberculosis was largely hereditary" (p. 185). Daschuk (2013) argues that the belief in the inherent vulnerability of indigenous people to disease completely marginalized the aboriginal population. Instead of curing these serious epidemics by improving the indigenous people's living conditions which were the main reason for such diseases, Canada gave out antibiotics to all patients which led to the resurgence of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis (Daschuk, 2013). Additionally, Daschuk (2013) highlights that the poor living conditions on reserves contributed to the emergence of new "unnatural" epidemics such as AIDS, diabetes, and suicide. Daschuk (2013) concludes this chapter by stating that "the decline of First Nations health was the direct result of economic and cultural suppression" (p. 186). Moreover, Daschuk (2013) emphasizes that "[t]he gap between the health, living conditions, and other social determinants of health of First Nations people and mainstream Canadians continues as it has since the end of the nineteenth century" (p. 186).

Assessment, critique and questions:

            I personally found Daschuk's (2013) chapter an interesting read as it discusses the medical histories of First Nations people in western Canada. As an international student who came to Canada last year, I have heard many people talking about First Nations population. However, I was not too sure about who the aboriginal people are and how they live, because we do not have any indigenous population in Oman. Thus, I have become very curious to find out about the history of First Nations people. Reading Daschuk's (2013) chapter, I have gained considerable knowledge about the health of aboriginal people. I was shocked to see the health inequity between Indigenous and mainstream Canadians in western Canada, as well as how Canada used disease and starvation to "clear the plains". Additionally, It was very interesting to know that although "Canadians see themselves as world leaders in social welfare, health care, and economic development, most reserves in Canada are economic backwaters with little prospect of material advancement and more in common with the third world than the rest of Canada" (Daschuk, 2013, p. 186). I personally believe that this reality is in direct contradiction to how people around the world perceive Canada.

            I think that Daschuk (2013) did a great job in this chapter because he examined the history of First Nations health in western Canada through the ecological, economic, and political lens. Moreover, Daschuk (2013) identifies two distinct phases that help the readers understand the medical history of these indigenous people. I personally believe that these two stages of health and disease illustrate the experience of suffering that aboriginal population has lived since the end of the nineteenth century (Daschuk, 2013). Additionally, Daschuk (2013) uses examples of First Nations communities in the west, such as the Anishinable, the Assiniboine, and the Saulteaux, in order to support and add an element of authenticity to his arguments. Daschuk (2013) concludes this chapter by emphasizing the rationale behind his book. Daschuk (2013) clearly states that the "[i]dentification of the forces that have held indigenous communities back might provide insights into what is required to bridge the gap between First Nations communities and the rest of Canada today" (p. 186). On the other hand, I think that Daschuk's (2013) chapter sounds like a one-sided representation of the history of First Nations health in western Canada as Daschuk (2013) does not use any scholars' perspective on this topic to support his own arguments. Moreover, Daschuk (2013) does not cite the work of any researchers in his chapter, thus I personally think that his conclusions might not be conclusive. Additionally, Daschuk (2013) do not reveal the limitations he might have encountered during his study. However, the fact that Daschuk (2013) merely draws on data about a limited number of First Nations communities in the west, such as the Anishinable and the Assiniboine, indicates that the author was unable to collect data about the other aboriginal communities. Reading Daschuk's (2013) chapter, the following questions came to my mind:

1.      Why did Canada try to "clear the plains" from First Nations people?

2.      Wasn't it possible to establish the Canadian government while saving the aboriginal life?

3.      Why didn't Canada consider saving the life of indigenous people and then using this population as a means to boost the country's economy?

4.      Do you agree with Daschuk (2013) that there is still a "gap between the health, living conditions, and other social determinants of health of First Nations people and mainstream Canadians continues as it has since the end of the nineteenth century" (p. 186)?

5.      Do you agree with the "[o]fficials [who] began to interpret the chronic bad health of the indigenous population as  a condition of their race, claiming that tuberculosis was largely hereditary" (Daschuk, 2013, p. 185)? Is it scientifically proven?

6.      Did the Canadian government intend to use disease and starvation as a way to "clear the plains"?

7.      Do First Nations people still experience inequities in the health care system?

8.      Do the current Canadian government ensure that both First Nations people and mainstream Canadians have the same rights and responsibilities?

9.      Are the living conditions on reserves improving nowadays?

Reference:

Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the plains: Disease, the politics of starvation and the loss of aboriginal life. Regina: University of Regina Press.