A recent study suggests that the meaning of Canadian multiculturalism has changed from being a national identity for all Canadians to being a minority affair (Winter 2015). This argument relies on the concept of socioethnic leveraging whereby two minority groups are constructed against each other by a third dominant one (Winter 2015). In essence, it is a “dynamic set of triangular relations” where the “multicultural we” is constructed as the other against the dominant “us” (Winter 2015).
The literature synthesized thus far comprises of competing views on the ideology and practice of multiculturalism. Banting and Kymlicka have reviewed the global backlash against multiculturalism and determined that the Canadian record on integration is strong, despite the stresses and strains within Canadian multiculturalism (2010). Some of the failures within Canadian multiculturalism include the following (Banting and Kymlicka 2010):
• The lack of space for religious diversity within multiculturalism has not been explored.
• The relationship between multiculturalism between French-Canadians and Aboriginals still needs to be addressed.
• The complications in terminology, especially in the case where multiculturalism and Aboriginal issues overlap in matters of racism and discrimination, have not been amended. …show more content…
Richard Day criticizes Canada’s multicultural policies for being “propelled by a fantasy of unity based on the nation-state model” (Day 2000). He furthermore maintains that Canadian legislation, policies and practices of multiculturalism are “rooted in a European drive to manage and control diversity”, which will never allow Canada to move toward equality and reciprocity (Day 2000). He concludes that Canada’s “radical potential of multiculturalism politics” can only be realized when the fantasy of unity is abandoned (Day
The literature synthesized thus far comprises of competing views on the ideology and practice of multiculturalism. Banting and Kymlicka have reviewed the global backlash against multiculturalism and determined that the Canadian record on integration is strong, despite the stresses and strains within Canadian multiculturalism (2010). Some of the failures within Canadian multiculturalism include the following (Banting and Kymlicka 2010):
• The lack of space for religious diversity within multiculturalism has not been explored.
• The relationship between multiculturalism between French-Canadians and Aboriginals still needs to be addressed.
• The complications in terminology, especially in the case where multiculturalism and Aboriginal issues overlap in matters of racism and discrimination, have not been amended. …show more content…
Richard Day criticizes Canada’s multicultural policies for being “propelled by a fantasy of unity based on the nation-state model” (Day 2000). He furthermore maintains that Canadian legislation, policies and practices of multiculturalism are “rooted in a European drive to manage and control diversity”, which will never allow Canada to move toward equality and reciprocity (Day 2000). He concludes that Canada’s “radical potential of multiculturalism politics” can only be realized when the fantasy of unity is abandoned (Day