Chapter 8 race and ethnicity

Ethnicity

Although its meaning has varied through history, today it generally refers to cultural characteristics such as language, religion, taste in food, shared descent, cultural traditions, and shared geographic locations.

Ethnic origin

AKA objective ethnicity. Refers to one’s ancestral background, ethnic characteristics of your ancestors.

Ethnic identity

How you personally identify your ethnicity, aka subjective ethnicity. Ex. some mixed people just align more with one of the halfs of their genes. May or may not align with ethnic origin.

You may be of Lebanese ancestral descent but identify as “Lebanese,” “Lebanese Canadian,” or “Canadian.” Ethnicity is not fixed but rather is flexible and permeable.

Your own ethnic identity may vary across contexts; when you are travelling outside Canada, you may identify yourself as “Canadian”; while at a family gathering, you identify yourself as “Japanese”; and when you are at school, you consider yourself “Japanese Canadian.” Furthermore, there are no singular definitions of any specific ethnic group. To be “Polish,” do you have to be born in Poland? Do you have to speak Polish? Do you have to enjoy eating pierogies? Must you include “Polish” as part of your subjective identity?

Race

Socially constructed category used to classify humankind according to physical characteristics such as skin colour, hair texture, and facial features. Very broad categories of people that are divided into that are biologically arbitrary yet considered to be generally based on shared physical characteristics.

Thus, whereas ethnicity is based on cultural characteristics, race is based on physical ones, like skin colour, hair texture, and facial features. You may think of “races” as including White and Black, or you may have heard people referring to themselves as “Brown.”

Origins of the concept of race

Historically, the concept of race has been traced by some scholars to the Biblical story of Ham, whose descendants (Black Africans) were “condemned to servitude” because of Ham’s sins (Arthur, 2007, para. 2). Others trace its origins to Britain’s colonization of the Irish, beginning in the 13th century.

Racialization

Race is interwtined with the concept of racialization by power and social inequity. This is the process by which groups come to be designated as being of a particular “race” and on that basis subjected to different and/or unequal treatment,

Racial meaning is attributed to social phenomena, giving rise to political, economic, and social implications.

With the Enlightenment, scientific thought elaborated on racial differences, and this furthered racialization at a global level by justifying the oppressive practices associated with European colonization.

Carolus Linnaeus thoughts about race

Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) developed the first scientific classification of race. He outlined four races: Americanus, Europaeus, Asiaticus, and Africanus.

Other racial classification systems followed, some indicating as few as 3 races and others as many as 30. Although the concept of race is based on physical traits, there are varying conceptions of how many “races” there are as well as precisely which physical characteristics are associated with particular races.

Is race even a real thing?

Furthermore, all human beings are more genetically similar than they are different, sharing more than 95 percent of their genes (Selita et al., 2020). There is no specific gene associated with “race”; there are only small genetic mutations that reflect the geographic mobility of early human beings as they expanded outward from Africa to other environments and climates.

How are race and ethnicity related?

Ethnicity and race are intertwined. Early uses of the term “race” often went beyond physical characteristics to include cultural ones (Stamper, 2019). Conversely, in society today, “race” is often integrated into conceptions of “ethnicity,” such as when someone looks at a person’s physical characteristics to ascertain their ethnic origins. Quite loose grey area it seems, but ethnicity has more science basis wheras race is just made up. Because you can be black but generations upon generations of your family have always lived in ukraine.

Visible minorities

Conversely, in society today, “race” is often integrated into conceptions of “ethnicity,” such as when someone looks at a person’s physical characteristics to ascertain their ethnic origins. Race is also integrated into the definition of visible minorities. The concept is credited to Black Canadian broadcaster, actor, and activist Kay Livingstone, who used the term as part of her advocacy work in the 1970s (Grant & Balkissoon, 2019; Yarhi, 2019).

The distinct experiences of French-Canadians and English-Canadians, of Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous people, and of varied religious groups were already institutionalized in certain government policies. Livingstone argued that the distinct experiences of non-Indigenous people of colour should also be recognized—that being non-White in Canadian society was associated with a range of political, social, and economic inequalities. In 1986 the term “visible minorities” was enshrined in the Employment Equity Act as “persons, other than Aboriginal [i.e., Indigenous] persons, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”

In 2012, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination for Racial Discrimination expressed concern that the term “visible minorities” is “homogenizing experiences” and “may pose a barrier to effectively addressing the socio-economic gaps of different ethnic groups” (United Nations, 2012, p. 9)—a concern that continues into the present day. The United Nations also contends that this problem is further magnified by the Canadian government’s failure to collect sufficient data on the educational and economic experiences of different racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, the term is “uniquely Canadian” (Grant & Balkissoon, 2019, para. 4), and some groups that are categorized as visible minorities in Canada are considered “White” in other countries (e.g., individuals who are Hispanic).

Racialized group

Today, many people use the term racialized group (or “racialized person”) instead, which draws attention to the oppressive social and political practices that emerge through the process of racialization, and which disproportionately affect people of colour

Ehtnicity and racialization historical significance in Canada and relevance today

Canada, like Australia and the United States, is a nation that exists in its current form only because of Indigenous Peoples as the original inhabitants of the land, several centuries of immigration, and the protection of refugees. Indigenous cultures have inhabited the land for at least 12,000 years, and oral histories claim “for time immemorial” (Blackstock, 2006–2007). When the first European explorers arrived, the geographically varied land space was already home to several distinct cultural regions. There were hundreds of tribes, languages, and dialects. Complex relationships existed among tribes, involving trade, cooperation, and/or conflict. With colonization, those nations were denied recognition; instead, through settlement by France and Britain and subsequent immigration from those nations and many others, the nation “Canada” was eventually created. With that history, ethnicity and racialization are concepts of particular relevance for Canadian society.

Is Canada diverse? Why?

Hundreds of years of immigration have made Canada an ethnically diverse nation

How many different ethnic origins are in canada? What percentages?

People in Canada report more than 200 different ethnic origins (Morency et al., 2017).

Around 5 percent of Canadian residents report an Aboriginal (i.e., Indigenous) identity; of these, 60 percent are First Nations, 36 percent are Métis, and 4 percent are Inuit (Statistics Canada, 2018). Nineteen percent of the population belong to a racialized group; of these, the majority are South Asian, Chinese, or Black (Morency et al., 2017).

How long have canada’s residents been here for? What about immigrants?

Most of the population (61 percent) are at least third generation in Canada, meaning that they, their parents, and at least one grandparent were born in Canada. Twenty-one percent of the population are foreign-born, having immigrated from another country. Those countries are increasingly likely to be non-European, with the top three source countries being Philippines, China, and India (Morency et al., 2017). It is projected that by 2036, between 25 and 30 percent of Canada’s population will be foreign-born and between 34 and 40 percent will be members of racialized groups. Almost half of Canadians will either be foreign-born or the first generation in their families to be born in Canada (Morency et al., 2017). Toronto is the city of choice for the largest proportion of immigrants and will continue to be. By 2036, between 77 and 81 percent of Torontonians will either be foreign-born or the first generation in their families to be born in Canada (Morency et al., 2017).

How is language in Canada due to immigration?

As a result of immigration, more than 200 languages are reported as “mother tongues” (see Chapter 3)
and/or as “languages spoken at home.” Due to longer histories of immigration to Canada, the most common mother tongues are English and French (Houle & Corbeil, 2017). Seventeen percent of the Aboriginal (i.e., Indigenous) identity population speak an Indigenous language. They report more than 70 languages across 12 different language families. The most common Indigenous languages are Cree, Inuktitut, and Ojibway (Statistics Canada, 2018). In the non-Indigenous population, the most commonly reported non-English and non-French mother tongues are Chinese languages, Italian, and Punjabi (Houle & Corbeil, 2017).

What is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act based on?

• reuniting families

• contributing to the nations economic development

• protecting refugees

Family class immigrants

have been sponsored by close relatives living in Canada, particularly spouses/partners, dependent children, grandparents, and parents.

Economic immigrants

are selected on the basis of some combination of educational attainment, occupational skills, entrepreneurship, business investment, and ability to contribute to the Canadian economy.

Refugees

are individuals who have been forced to flee from persecution. They may meet the criteria of the 1951 Geneva Convention, now institutionalized within international law: “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”

Immigrants and people who have been granted refugee status are known as “permanent residents” until such time as they may apply for and successfully attain Canadian citizenship.

Push and pull factors when coming to canada

The number of immigrants and refugees who have been accepted into Canada has varied over the past 150 years. This reflects “push” factors, which motivate individuals to leave their countries of origin (e.g., religious persecution), as well as “pull” factors, which include economic prosperity, the need for workers, and immigration policies that draw people to Canada. Yet the nature of immigration policy has been such that people from many countries have been excluded at different points in time (see Sociology in Practice).

History of Canada’s immigration policy and how it was influenced by racialization

Government policies are not only a product of the political party in power but also the larger sociocultural context. For much of Canadian history, that means immigration policies were shaped by norms and values predicated upon the inaccurate belief in a hierarchy of races (the larger more commonly held sociocultural idea at the time). It is important to note that European colonialism and Western scientific thought developed in parallel, so that each supported the other (Simmons, 2020). Consequently, scientific knowledge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a key element in racialization and came to inform government policy.

Canada became an independent nation (the Dominion of Canada) following Confederation in 1867. In the ensuing decades, societal resources were mobilized to build the nation and its culture. Because of racialization, that culture was deemed to be White, British, and Protestant (i.e., the dominant group in Canada at the time) (Valverde, 2008). Immigration policy reflected that view. While immigration from the United Kingdom (and other predominantly White, English-speaking countries) was eagerly promoted by the Canadian government, immigration from many other nations was restricted (Van Dyck, 2020).

Historical Canadian immigration regulations

Until the 1960s, race, ethnicity, and nationality were explicit elements of Canadian immigration policy. A Chinese head tax (1885), followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1923), were intended to halt immigration from China. A Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan (1907) reduced immigration from that country to a maximum of 400 people annually. The Continuous Journey Regulation (1908) prevented immigration from India. Hutterites, Mennonites, and Doukhobors were prohibited from coming to Canada, because of their “peculiar customs, habits, modes of life and methods of holding property” (Immigration Act, 1919). Black people (from any country) were discouraged from immigrating to Canada because they were considered “unsuited to the climate” (Immigration Act, 1910). Before, during, and after the Second World War, the Canadian government refused admission to Jewish people fleeing persecution. It was only in the 1960s, when a points-based immigration system was implemented (based on characteristics such as level of education and the nature of employment skills) that race, ethnicity, and nationality were removed as explicit components of Canadian immigration policy.

Largest number of immigrants to enter canada in one year

Immigration has waxed and waned over the years. It was especially high in the early 20th century, and the largest number of immigrants to enter Canada in a single year occurred in 1913, when 400,000 people arrived in Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, 2020). Immigration tends to decrease during times of economic decline (e.g., the Great Depression) as well as during wartime (e.g., the First and Second World Wars).

Canada allows in refugees

In 1951, the UN adopted the Refugee Convention, which recognized that refugees are different from immigrants and must be protected, in that refugees do not choose to immigrate but rather are forced to flee from their countries of origin. Eighteen years later, Canada signed the convention and implemented its first formal refugee determination system. Since that time, more than 500,000 refugees have settled in Canada.

Are immigrants important to Canada?

Much like the early 20th century when the federal government encouraged immigration in order to increase Canada’s population (or at least its White, English-speaking population), today the government has also established programs to increase immigration. With an aging population (and therefore a declining labour force) and an economy that is intertwined with globalization, attracting immigrants to Canada is essential. Immigration will “ensure that our economy continues to grow and can rely on a diverse and skilled supply of labour to compete globally” (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, 2020, p. 2).

Family experiences for immigrants

Although the nuclear family predominates in Canada, immigrants are more likely than non-immigrants to live in extended families, as are members of racialized groups (Statistics Canada, 2017, 2019a). First Nations (especially on reserves) and Inuit people (especially in the North) are also more likely than non-Indigenous people to live in multigenerational households (Statistics Canada, 2020). Traditional cultural norms, financial constraints, and the support provided by family in a racialized society are contributing factors to this pattern (Mazurik et al., 2020; Statistics Canada, 2017, 2019a).

Immigrants and family interdependence

Feelings of obligation toward one’s family tend to be stronger in certain cultures (e.g., Asian, Latin American) more than others (e.g., British, Northern European), and in families where the parents were born outside Canada. In these families, youth often spend more time with adults and therefore under adult supervision (Gazso & Kobayashi, 2018; McDaniel et al., 2019). Family interdependence is also reflected in the age at which youth move out of the family home. In Canada, home leaving is affected by macro-level economic conditions (e.g., the need for a postsecondary education) and demographic forces (e.g., the average age of the first marriage). But it is also influenced by factors that vary among and within ethnic groups—socioeconomic status, family connectedness, norms that govern the timing of life events, the degree of segregation of particular ethnic groups in urban centres, and the recency of immigration. For example, racialized young adults are more likely to co-reside with parents, as are those whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, and those with ethnic origins other than British or Northern European. Immigration status is also associated with co-residence. Young adults who are the first generation in their families to be born in Canada are more likely to be co-residing with parents. Furthermore, these effects decline the longer a family has been living in Canada (Mazurik et al., 2020).

Parenting practices within ethnic groups

Parents in some ethnic groups may engage in stricter or more lenient parenting practices than parents in other ethnic groups. This means that the impact of parenting practices on child outcomes may vary across ethnic groups (McDaniel et al., 2019). A large body of research has found that very strict parenting styles are associated with child obedience in the short term but in the long term are associated with rebellion, aggression, lower grades in school, and substance use (Baumrind, 1968, 1991). However, in recent decades, researchers have found that this association varies across ethnic groups and is not associated with negative child outcomes in families from many current immigrant cultures, such as Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and Korean (Ho et al., 2008).

Bicultural

Particiupating in two different cultures simultaneously.

One aspect of intergenerational relationships that is unique to immigrant families is the potential conflict that can arise between parents who attained adulthood in their nation of origin and their children, who may have come to Canada while still quite young or who may have been born in Canada. These youth are bicultural: they have been exposed to the family’s heritage culture within the home, yet they are part of the new, national culture when outside the home.

What are some adaption patterns bicultural youth use to respond to the demands of two different cultures?

• integration pattern

• ethnic pattern

• national pattern

• diffuse pattern

One of the largest studies on this topic was conducted some time ago, of 5,000 immigrant youth from 30 ethnic backgrounds who were living in 13 different countries. Four different adaptation patterns were identified (Berry et al., 2006

Integration pattern

youth identify with both their heritage culture and their new national culture

ethnic pattern

youth identify primarily with their heritage culture.

national pattern

Youth who orient themselves primarily to the new national culture

Diffuse

those who are confused about how they should be adapting to their bicultural experiences

How is peoples identiy impacted by larfer societal forces?

The nature of identity among bicultural youth is impacted by larger societal forces. Interviews with young adults of African descent living in Vancouver reflect the macro-level forces within which they negotiate their identities (Creese, 2019). Despite being born in Canada or immigrating as very young children, being Black marks them as outsiders. Research participants describe repeatedly being asked, “Where are you from?” based on their physical appearance alone. They point out how those posing the question accept only certain responses as legitimate. If they answer the question by saying, “Vancouver,” or “Surrey,” a follow-up question is usually asked, “No, where are you really from?” Within this context that “marks black bodies as outside the boundaries of the imagined community of Canada,” their identities develop in ways that correspond to three of the adaptation patterns described above.

Some participants demonstrate the integration pattern, identifying as both Canadian and African (or Ghanaian, Sudanese, etc.) (Creese, 2019). When asked where they are from, they might say that they personally are from Vancouver, but their parents are from Africa. Others reflect the ethnic pattern, identifying solely with their ethnic heritage and rejecting a Canadian identity. As one young woman explains, “As long as I keep getting asked where I’m from, I’m not from here, you know?” (p. 1483). Finally, some participants have the national pattern of adaptation, identifying solely as Canadian. When asked where they were from, they say Vancouver (or Surrey, etc.) and might refuse to provide additional information, like where their parents were born: “… I’m like, ‘does that matter?’”

Yet their ethnic identities are fluid, changing in varied social contexts. For instance, one participant identifies as “Canadian” when visiting relatives in Ghana, “Ghanaian” when spending time with other Black Canadians, and “Black” when talking to White Canadians. Despite having similarly racialized bodies and sharing certain experiences living in Vancouver, each individual has to “negotiate their identities as Canadian, as African and as black” (Creese, 2019, p. 1477).

ecnomic experienced vary with ethnicity

Economic experiences can vary considerably based on ethnicity. Economic variations are especially evident when we compare the average incomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons and of immigrants and Canadian-born persons.

Income disparity between indigenous and non indigenous

Income disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons is considerable. This is accounted for, in part, by differences in employment rates. Among those ages 25 to 54 (considered the prime working ages), the employment rate for Indigenous persons is 73 percent, compared to 87 percent for non-Indigenous persons (Statistics Canada, 2019b). Yet even among those who are employed, there is an income gap. Indigenous persons who are employed full-time have an average income of $26.00 per hour, compared to $27.41 per hour among their non-Indigenous counterparts (Moyser, 2017). There are significant differences among Indigenous groups, with First Nation persons having the lowest average income and Métis the highest (Statistics Canada, n.d.-a). However, level of education impacts the degree of income disparity. Half of the Indigenous population has a postsecondary credential, compared to almost two-thirds of the non-Indigenous population (Statistics Canada, n.d.-a). With postsecondary credentials, the income disparity declines considerably—and with a university degree virtually disappears, especially among women (Moyser, 2017; Statistics Canada, n.d.-a).

Average income of immigrants vs canadian born

Analyses of the average incomes of immigrant and Canadian-born populations finds that level of education has less influence on income disparity. At all education levels, immigrants earn less than the Canadian-born, especially immigrants of the family class rather than the economic class (Picot et al., 2019; Statistics Canada, n.d.-b). Income disparity is especially marked among those who have immigrated within the past five years. That disparity has increased over the past several decades, despite the fact that immigrants in the 21st century have higher levels of education and are more highly skilled than in the past and, in fact, are more likely to have postsecondary credentials than the Canadian-born (Hou & Bonikowska, 2016; Hou & Picot, 2016). People who are refugees also experience income disparities, having average incomes that are lower than those who are Canadian born or immigrants (Picot et al., 2019).

contributing factors of the income disparity between canadian born vs immigrants

Why does this income disparity exist, especially for immigrants, who are better educated than ever before, and are in fact better educated than the Canadian-born? Several contributing factors have been emphasized that are largely functions of the changing source countries for immigrants and refugees: degree of proficiency in one of Canada’s two official languages; real or perceived differences in educational systems (the recognition of foreign credentials); real or perceived differences in labour market experience; the level of support from the individual’s ethnic community; willingness to move within Canada to pursue alternative employment; preference among employers for Canadian work experience; and racial discrimination (Frank & Hou, 2017; Picot et al., 2019).

Dominant and minority ethnic groups

In ethnically diverse nations such as Canada, ethnic groups interact with one another. Based on a nation’s history, such as colonization and historical immigration patterns, power differentials emerge, resulting in dominant groups and minority groups. Dominant groups are those that have greater power and privilege. For example, when the British defeated the French on the Plains of Abraham in the 18th century, the British became the dominant group, and the colony was renamed British North America. Minority groups are definable groups that are socially disadvantaged and that experience unequal treatment (Wirth, 1945). Note that here “minority” refers to power, not to number. In other words, a group can be the statistical majority yet still be a minority group because of lesser power. For example, when the French colonized this land, they became the dominant group and Indigenous Peoples became minority groups. Today, racialized persons constitute the statistical majority in certain cities in Canada (e.g., Richmond BC), yet are considered “visible minorities” within government policy (Grant & Balkissoon, 2019). Interactions between dominant groups and minority groups can take a number of forms: assimilation, pluralism, and segregation and population transfer.

Assimilation

Assimilation occurs when a minority group is absorbed into the culture of the dominant group. Sometimes assimilation is voluntary, such as following immigration. Other times, it is coercive, such as with colonization.

Assimilation and immigration

Immigration is often associated with voluntary assimilation, where over the course of generations, people increasingly adopt the norms, values, and practices of the dominant culture; they stop speaking the language of their ancestors and give up cultural traditions. It was long assumed that assimilation was a linear process characterized by upward mobility for each successive generation. More recently, scholars have posited that the linear model is based on immigration patterns from the past—that is, on the experiences of White immigrants from largely European source countries. Source countries for immigration today are such that more immigrants, and thus their descendants, are racialized. For these groups, physical characteristics are an obstacle to full assimilation; to some extent, they will always be perceived as a distinct Other (Hiller & Chow, 2005). As one young woman stated, “It is quite confusing sometimes to be Chinese in a Canadian society, but also difficult to be Canadian with a Chinese look [emphasis added]” (p. 94). As a consequence, assimilation is more likely to be segmented than linear; some groups are assimilated to a greater extent than others (Hiller & Chow, 2005).

Colonization

Colonization involves the expansion of territory through the acquisition of Indigenous populations’ lands, as well as exploitation of those Peoples. It is associated with involuntary, coercive assimilation by colonial powers.

Early relationships between european colonizers and the indigenous population

When European colonization began in the 15th and 16th centuries, the fur trade established patterns of economic exchange between European traders and Indigenous groups, as well as intimate relationships between European men and Indigenous femmes du pay (“country wives”) (Goulet & Goulet, 2014). The children born of these intimate relationships were known as métis, a French term referring to “mixed blood”; over time, a distinct ethnocultural group emerged, the Métis Nation.

Conversion policy, why? And how did it lead to reserve system and Indian Act

By the late 18th century, agriculture was the principal economic activity of Euro-Canadians. With the decline of the fur trade, affiliations with Indigenous cultures were less useful.

Although the government of France had a formal Christian conversion policy as far back as 1632, the life in the harsh Canadian environment and the economic requirements of the fur trade meant that some cultural differences were tolerated.

As those economic alliances weakened, the conversion policy was emphasized.

series of policies followed, intended to convert every facet of Indigenous cultures. The reserve system, established in 1830, compelled communities to abandon their traditional activities, such as nomadic hunting and gathering. With subsequent policies, the goal became full assimilation and the eradication of every aspect of those cultures (known as ethnocide). Traditional ceremonies and celebrations were criminalized—even dancing was outlawed in Indigenous communities for 75 years. The Indian Act (1876) made all First Nations people wards of the federal government.

took less than a century for laws and government policies to render Indigenous Peoples almost completely dependent on colonial powers. The government policy that had the most devastating effect involved residential schooling.

What did the govt think was the most effective way to assimilate indigenous peoples into society?

In the government’s view, the key to assimilation was changing how Indigenous children were socialized. Schooling was considered the most effective means to this end.

Residential schools

A boarding school funded by the canadian govt used to assimilate indigenous children. Launched in 1831. funded by the government but operated by various Christian denominations.

At first, these day schools were located adjacent to reserves, and children lived at home.

However, the Davin Report (Davin, 1879) concluded that “the influence of the wigwam is stronger than the influence of the schools” and that assimilation would be better served by removing children from their homes and placing them in boarding schools. Although a few day schools continued to exist, residential schools predominated.

Did idnigenous parents have the right to keep away from schools?

Because all First Nations were wards of the government, parents had no choice but to send their children away to these boarding schools. By 1884, boarding schools were mandated for all First Nations children under 16, and agents from the Department of Indian Affairs had the power to fine, detain, or arrest parents who tried to keep their children at home. In British Columbia, where many First Nations children already participated in the public school system, children were removed from those schools and placed in residential schools instead (Barman, 2003). Over time, residential schooling came to characterize the lives of many Métis and Inuit children as well. By 1896, there were already 45 residential schools in operation, and a total of 130 schools existed over a period of more than 100 years. Around 150,000 Indigenous children attended residential schools (National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, n.d.).

How did children spend time in residential schools?

Until 1951, students in residential schools received only a half-day of academic instruction; the rest of the day was spent in manual labour. Instruction was not only academic (e.g., arithmetic) but also religious and cultural. So even after six or seven years in school, most children remained at a Grade 1, 2, or 3 level (Barman, 2003; Fontaine & Craft, 2015). Education beyond Grade 8 was prohibited for Indigenous youth.

How did residential schools create lasting affects on indigenous communities

• Inferior education was just one of the features of the residential school system that created a lasting legacy in Indigenous communities.

• Psychological, physical, and sexual abuses were common

• The first allegations of physical and sexual abuse were made in 1880. Of the 150,000 children who attended residential schools, 91,000 reported being physically and/or sexually abused.

• Psychological abuse was even more common. Students were called derogatory names and their letters home were censored.

• Funding formulas were such that residential schools received only a fraction of the government funding per student enjoyed by public schools; compounding this, many residential schools were operated for profit.

• Consequently, students were left hungry, schools were overcrowded, and buildings were unsanitary. In the early 20th century, two government reports documented horrendous living conditions resulting in student death rates of up to 47 percent in residential schools. Although abuse was prevalent in many schools, ethnocide occurred in all of them.

How did the residential schools try to assimilate the culutre out of the indigenous children

All aspects of the students’ traditional cultures were forbidden. When students first arrived at the schools, their hair was cut short, their clothing was burned, and their names were changed. They were to speak only English. Some schools used positive reinforcement for the use of English. For instance, students received a bag of buttons each week; each time they were caught speaking their mother tongue, a button was taken away, and at the end of the week, the remaining buttons could be exchanged for a prize. But other schools punished students for language transgressions—having to write lines, having their mouths taped shut, being given the strap, being deprived of food, and even having needles poked through their tongues.

How did this assimilation affect victims after they finished schooling? What is residential school syndrome?

When the required period of schooling ended, former students found themselves stranded between cultures. They had no traditional skills, but the inferior education they had received and the discrimination they faced meant they also had difficulty integrating into Euro-Canadian society. Having experienced severe neglect, abuse, and ethnocide, many former students developed a condition known as residential school syndrome (similar to post-traumatic stress disorder), which was characterized by recurring nightmares, painful memories, and intense feelings of fear or anger

Apologies

In the 1990s, several religious authorities formally apologized to Indigenous Peoples. The federal government issued a formal apology in 2008, followed by a restitution package for former students, a commemoration initiative, $125 million for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, whose mandate was to further analyze the long-term consequences of residential schooling and gather the stories of survivors. In 2015, the commission released its final report and a list of calls to action in areas such as justice, education, child welfare, and language (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015). Yet the intergenerational trauma caused by residential schooling and other aspects of colonization remain (see Sociology in My Community).

Cultural pluralism

Cultural pluralism is characterized by ethnic diversity being valued in society. Switzerland is considered a model of cultural pluralism: its French, German, Romansh, and Italian populations maintain their cultures and their languages; all four languages are “official” languages of the country. Canada is also characterized by cultural pluralism, which is reflected in its multiculturalism policy

segregation

minority groups are separated from the dominant group. Until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Black people were segregated from White people in the American South in a variety of ways. They were barred from many public places (e.g., restaurants) and had to sit at the back of buses and drink from separate water fountains. Their children were required to attend separate schools, and anti-miscegenation laws prohibited interracial marriage. The segregation of Blacks existed in Canada as well. As one example, in 1945, Halifax resident Viola Desmond was arrested for sitting in the “Whites only” section of a theatre; today, she is featured on the Canadian $10 bill.

population transfer

Population transfer forcibly expels members of certain minority groups from a country or limits them to a location. One example is the reserve system established for Indigenous Peoples that was discussed earlier. As another example, in the mid-18th century, more than 7,000 Acadians (an ethnic group of French descent living in the Maritimes) were expelled by the British, and all of their farms were burned to the ground. They were sent to France, England, and several American states. Thousands later returned to Canada, where they reside today in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia. During both world wars, members of ethnic groups defined as “enemy aliens” had their property seized and were relocated to internment camps. During the First World War, it was mainly people of Ukrainian descent who were interned; they were used as forced labour—for example, they cleared the forest for what would become Kapuskasing, Ontario, and they built roads through the Rocky Mountains. During the Second World War, it was mainly those of Japanese descent who were placed in internment camps.

Canadas three big bads in histroy

Forcible assimilation, segregation, and population transfer have their foundations in prejudice and discrimination. Both have long histories in Canada and throughout the world and continue to be problematic in the 21st century.

Three components of prejudice

Like all attitudes, prejudice has a cognitive component and an affective component. It is also linked to a third component, the behavioural component. These three components correspond to what we think, how we feel, and how we act

Parts of the cognitive component

The cognitive component of prejudice reflects what we think, with stereotypes as the foundation. Stereotypes are assumptions that members of a specific group are more similar than they actually are; they reflect our image of the typical example of a member of a certain group. Stereotypes can be directed at any type of group—truck drivers, professors, women, ethnic groups, religious groups, and so on. Just as we may overgeneralize by saying that trees are green (when, in fact, some trees have red or purple leaves), we may overgeneralize about the members of a social group; for example, we may think that women are poor drivers when, in fact, male drivers have more car accidents.

Once we hold a specific stereotype, we are more likely to notice and remember information that is consistent with it. In one classic study, participants were presented with photos and labels for people in certain social categories (e.g., a photo of a smiling, grey-haired woman with the label “grandmother”). Then they were given additional information about the person in the photo (e.g., “kind”). At a later point in time, they were asked to recall the information about that person. The researchers found that information was best remembered when it conformed to the stereotype associated with that label; for instance, it was easier to remember descriptions of “kind” when shown the photo of the grandmother than it was to recall “competitive.” Furthermore, in trying to recall information about a person in a stereotyped group, we tend to falsely remember information that is consistent with that stereotype; participants in the study would falsely recall “kind” as being part of the description of the grandmother, even if it hadn’t been (Brewer et al., 1981).

Parts of the effective component

The affective component of prejudice reflects how we feel. These are the emotions we attach to the stereotype. We may feel dislike toward a particular group that we stereotype as being untrustworthy or admiration for another group that we stereotype as being hard workers. Sometimes we aren’t even aware of the emotions we may be feeling.

Another classic study used the galvanic skin response (GSR) to overcome this problem (Poirier & Lott, 1967). GSR devices are attached to the skin using wires and sticky patches. They are then able to measure the electrical conductivity of the skin. Electrical conductivity increases when we are feeling strong emotions. Participants in this study completed a questionnaire that measured their level of ethnocentrism—that is, the tendency to see things only from the point of view of one’s own culture—as the standard for the “normal” way of doing things. They were then attached to the GSR device and told to wait for a research assistant to come in and assign them a problem-solving task. Researchers found that participants who were higher in ethnocentrism showed greater GSR when in the presence of a Black rather than a White research assistant; participants who were low in ethnocentrism did not show this pattern. In this study, ethnocentrism resulted in specific reactions to racial differences. Ethnocentrism can also contribute to the many forms of individual, institutional, and systemic discrimination discussed later in the chapter. Furthermore, we can see ethnocentrism when someone judges another culture’s food as “weird” or deems that people in England drive on the “wrong” side of the road.

It is the emotional component that makes prejudice so resistant to change. It is much easier to correct someone’s inaccurate cognitive beliefs (e.g., by presenting that person with accurate information that dispels their beliefs) than it is to change emotions (of which the person may not even be aware).

Behavioural component of prejudice

Prejudice put into action is discrimination—treating someone unfairly because of their group membership. Discrimination can occur anywhere from the individual level (e.g., not sitting next to someone on the bus because of the colour of her skin) to the institutional level (e.g., laws that treat certain groups unequally).

Individual discrimination

Individual discrimination can include avoiding contact with members of certain groups, making offensive jokes, using derogatory names, hurling insults and verbal abuse, using physical violence, and more. Sometimes individuals may act in discriminatory ways alone, but in other cases may belong to a larger subculture (see Sociology Online).

Hate crimes

are criminal offences that are motivated by hate toward an identifiable group. In the Criminal Code, hate crimes include public incitement of hatred, willful promotion of hatred, advocating genocide, and mischief in relation to religious property; other crimes (e.g., assault) are classified as hate crimes if they have been motivated by hatred against an identifiable group. The significance of hate crimes is that they affect not only the individual who has been victimized but also, indirectly, members of an entire community. Hate crimes are underreported in police statistics, in that victims may be hesitant to report their experiences. A victim’s decision to report an incident to the police is based on many factors, including the perceived seriousness of the incident, language or cultural barriers, the perceived sensitivity of the police, the presence of specialized hate crimes units, and the accessibility of victim services (Moreau, 2020).

Most police-reported hate crimes are based on race/ethnicity (44 percent), followed by religion (36 percent) and sexual orientation (10 percent). Hate crimes based on race/ethnicity are primarily directed at Black people (36 percent), and Arab/West Asian people (14 percent). Hate crimes based on religion are largely directed at members of the Jewish faith (54 percent) and Muslims (27 percent). Only 43 percent of hate crimes overall are violent; however, most hate crimes based on sexual orientation, or directed at Arab/West Asian, South Asian, and East/Southeast Asian people are violent in nature (Moreau, 2020).

Institutional/systemic racism

Institutional or systemic discrimination is embedded in policies and practices within organizations, such as through discriminatory hiring practices. Hiring practices may be intentionally discriminatory, where a business will not hire members of certain ethnic groups. But they may be unintentionally discriminatory as well; for example, for many years, the height restrictions for police officers were indirectly discriminatory against people of Asian descent, who are (on average) slightly shorter than people of British, western European, or northern European descent. Subtle forms of discrimination are also evident in some geographic place names. For many years, the Chinese community expressed concern over the name of a mountain overlooking Canmore, Alberta—“Chinaman’s Peak.” In the late 1990s, the peak was renamed “Ha Ling Peak,” after the first man to climb to the top.

Interactionist takes on prejudice and racialization

Interactionist theories attribute prejudice to the processes by which we come to understand different ethnic groups and judge them accordingly. Through direct interactions (e.g., with significant others) or indirect ones (e.g., with media), our understandings of certain groups may be based on stereotypes. The labels we then attach to members of those groups affect how we subsequently perceive and treat them—that is, we treat them in terms of the generic label rather than as individuals. We can see this in the way that social groups are portrayed in media (see Critical Thinking in Action).

frames of ethnicity that reflect racialization

Fleras and Kunz (2001) found that certain frames of ethnicity are widespread and reflect racialization. The first frame of ethnicity is invisibility, in that members of racialized groups are largely absent (e.g., as news anchors). The second frame is stereotyping, in that racialized groups are presented in ways that support stereotypes (e.g., the basketball player in a movie is Black). The third frame is socially problematic, in that racialized groups are portrayed as a threat to society (e.g., news stories about an Iranian man arrested for terrorism, but not a “White person of Swiss descent”). The fourth frame is adornment, which suggests overidealization (e.g., think of Tonto, the Lone Ranger’s trusty sidekick). The final frame is white-washed, where the experiences of racialized groups are portrayed as the same as those of non-racialized groups. This frame also includes films where White actors play non-White characters, like Scarlett Johansson playing Major Motoko Kusanagi in the Japanese manga adaptation film Ghost in the Shell.

conflict theories on prejudice

Conflict theories propose that the structure of society creates prejudice and racialization. For instance, Marxist conflict theories emphasize inequalities in the structure of societies under capitalism. Here, the powerful have a vested interest in maintaining prejudice in society. The economically oppressed will then be too distracted by fighting with one another over scarce resources to join together to fight against their oppressors (Olzak, 2006). Although powerful groups are able to maintain their power, in part by reproducing their ideology in social institutions (e.g., the education system), at other times, they use overt forms of coercion.

Dual/split labour market theory

Dual/split labour market theory also focuses on the economic sphere. It proposes that members of the dominant group develop prejudices against minority groups in order to protect their position in the labour market (Bonacich, 1972). The primary labour market consists of higher paid, more secure jobs with upward mobility. The secondary labour market comprises jobs that are poorly paid and insecure and that provide little opportunity for advancement—jobs that people in the primary labour market consider demeaning. Historically, members of minority groups have been overrepresented in the secondary labour market.

Critical Race Theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is the most comprehensive theory of prejudice and racialization. It references the economic, cultural, ideological, political, and psychological spheres.

Historically, it was influenced by the work of sociologist and NAACP founder W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963). It was developed as a distinct theory in the 1970s and 1980s by activists and legal scholars who were disillusioned with the limited achievements of the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century.

Derrick Bell is typically recognized as the intellectual founder of this theory (Crenshaw et al., 1995), which argues that racism is not aberrant but rather is the typical way that society conducts its affairs. Consequently, white privilege is embedded in the entirety of the social fabric, in every social institution. White privilege refers to the advantages and benefits in society which are based solely upon being White—or passing for White. Of course, people who are White may be marginalized based on socioeconomic status, sex, gender identity, disability, or a variety of other factors. But living in a racialized society, the colour of their skin is not one of the things they have to worry about (Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, n.d.-b). They easily find dolls for their children that reflect their child’s skin colour. When they look at the hero in the latest action movie or the stars of the latest romantic comedy, shop for a funny birthday card to celebrate a friend’s 50th birthday, take a children’s picture book out of the library for their children, or search for workout videos online, 9 times out of 10 they see their own skin colour. They know that if they are pulled over by the police, it isn’t because of their race and if they are browsing in a retail store, they are unlikely to be followed by store security.

Critical race theory contends that racism serves the interests of the (White) dominant class but also the interests of (White) working-class people (in that there are always other groups that face greater subordination than they themselves do). Critical race theory also emphasizes the unique voices of members of racialized groups because of their histories of oppression—voices that are in the best position to contribute to scholarly and activist discourses of racism (Delgado & Stefanic, 2017). Thus, most critical race theorists are themselves members of racialized groups.

Scholar and activist Cornel West refers to critical race theory as “the last gasp of emancipatory hope” for racialized groups (West, 1995, p. xii). Identifying himself politically as a non-Marxist socialist, he suggests that an analysis of racism requires the following: (a) an analysis of the metaphors and concepts that have been used in dominant European discourses (and resistance to them); (b) a micro-institutional analysis of the mechanisms that sustain those discourses in the lives of non-Europeans (and resistance to them); and (c) a macro-structural analysis of economic and political oppression (and resistance) (West, 1995; West, n.d.).