Reading note on Multiculturalism and Citizenship: The Status of “Visible Minorities” in Canada by Beryle Mae Jones

     This reading is mainly focus on multiculturalism and multicultural and citizenship education from the perspective of visible minorities. Multiculturalism typically refers to the rights of immigrants to express their ethnic identity without fear of prejudice or discrimination due to the fact that Canada is a country of immigrants with a long history. It represents a desire to integrate into Canadian society. And Canada has implicitly and explicitly drawn on the conceptual framework which emphasize participation on mutually acceptable terms, transparency and accountability to strengthen multicultural imperatives.The so-called “visible minorities” have persistent impact on Canadian policy related to “ multiculturalism for all” and “citizenship for all.”

   According to Jones, the Canada’s concept of multiculturalism is rooted in the notion of ethnicity which emphasize on promoting harmonious ethnic relations as one of the three areas of social concern identified by the Multiculturalism Directorate. It did not surprise her that Multiculturalism Directorate decided to include immigrant women in the priority list of groups receiving assistance. Jones refers to visible minorities as the "other" ethnic groups which make relatively few demands for preservation of their culture when compared to the French or the Aboriginals. These "other" ethnic groups do not pose a threat to national unity and so, in her view, are likely to receive less attention. Jones builds an argument to generate a link between multiculturalism, citizenship, and curriculum from the ethnocultural minority perspective. She is guided by the need to create opportunities for all to participate in public life. Jones then identifies building blocks relevant for the construction of a regime of citizenship education. The first is the identification of sources of unity within the multicultural state. And the second is the approach to citizenship from a multi-disciplinary educational perspective, transcending the focus on constitutionalism and civics. The third is the development of an international component. And the last is the relevance of having voiced representation of ethnocultural minorities in the process of designing and delivering citizenship education. 

     Jones also deals with what she refers to as the paradoxes in multiculturalism and citizenship education, and consequent tensions such as ‘over concentration’ and corresponding de-emphasis on citizenship education, and those emerging from the articulation of group differentiated rights. 

     The question and limitation of this article, written from the standpoint of visible minorities in relation to the practice of multicultural and citizenship education, has to do with the concept of “visible minority”. Regarding the concept of visible minority, many has criticized on it and thought it is an artificial concept that has become unnecessary and counterproductive. As for the multiculturalism policy, whether the multiculturalism policy was over concentrated still need to be considered. Instead of focusing on the integration of immigrants marginalized by national, racial, religious or ethnic origins, it should address broader social inclusionary processes which influence inequity as a whole. 

       In my point of view, there is something almost racist about the assumption that whites are the standard against which anyone else is noticeably, visibly different. We should focus more on language and skill training, recognition of foreign credentials instead of just from visible minorities’ perspectives in general. It is for sure that forging bonds of understanding through mutual respect and trust between ‘whiteness’ and ‘non-whiteness’ is an effective way to promote multiculturalism. And democratic education should try to teach all students not only about their shared citizenship but also about their shared humanity with all individuals regardless of their citizenship.