ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 1996 TAG: 9604100020
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK I. SCHWARTZ
AS THE Republican Party struggles to suppress the nativist, isolationist and anti-immigrant elements aroused by Pat Buchanan's candidacy for the GOP nomination, it must be careful not to dismiss the legitimate concern among the party faithful that America is slowly yet inexorably losing its national identity. To appreciate the destructive consequences that can be wrought by a nebulous national character, Americans need look no further than Canada.
For America's neighbor to the north, this national identity crisis has manifested itself in a burgeoning sovereignty movement in Quebec, as well as less publicized, but equally troubling, native Indian independence movements in several other provinces. Perhaps most troubling, however, is the ethnic accentuation of recent Canadian immigrants, who have eschewed a Canadian identity in favor of their traditional ethno-cultural makeup.
This wasting national identity can be traced, in no small measure, to a 25-year campaign by the federal government to promote the zeitgeist of multiculturalism at all levels of the confederation. Initiated by the Trudeau Liberal Party in 1971 and subsequently adopted by all of the provincial governments to varying degrees, the policy has as one of its key objectives the providing of ``assistance to cultural groups to retain and foster their identity.''
This was followed in 1973 by the creation of a Ministry of Multiculturalism and, in 1982, by the addition of the following clause to Canada's constitution: ``This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.'' This has allowed the courts to consider the multicultural makeup of Canada when rendering decisions, and has been used as an ``interpretive prism'' in the balancing of collective (or multicultural) and individual rights.
In 1988, the Progressive Conservative government eagerly adopted the world's first multiculturalism law, which was supported by the three national parties. It sought, among other things, to assist in the preservation, enhancement and sharing of ethnic cultures, languages and ethnocultural group identities.
This preoccupation with protecting and encouraging diversity has created a society with a multitude of state-supported ethnic identities bearing no common thread. What is troubling about this is not the existence of these identities, which in fact are important to the nation, both in terms of the cultural enrichment such diversity brings and in terms of the economic wealth that results from the intellectual heterogeneity of a diverse population. Rather it's the manner in which they are supported - by state, rather than community funds - and the consequences of this funding policy.
Proudly described as the Canadian ``mosaic,'' in reference to the many disparate fragments of which the country is composed, and contrasted with the American ``melting pot,'' this policy is washing away all vestiges of Canada's already ill-defined national character and, in so doing, is endangering the fragile union.
The reasons are self-evident. The components of a national identity - a single language, a common set of values, the adherence to certain creeds and the common celebration of the country's history - are ties that bind the people of a nation. State-sponsored multicultural policies, on the other hand, encourage the development of separate, competing, ethnic identities. This serves to weaken the glue holding the components of a nation's identity together, thereby destabilizing it.
Unfortunately, Canada had an ill-defined national identity to begin with, owing to the centuries-long dispute between the French and English. The result has been, for instance, that the country has two official languages and that English Canada has its national birthday on July 1, whereas French Canada has its on June 24.
Already lacking a coherent national fabric, Canadians have seen the past quarter-century of state-supported ethnic accentuation fray much of what remained. The Canadian celebration of Thanksgiving is illustrative. This holiday is similar in all respects to the American Thanksgiving, with the exception that many Canadian ethnic groups do not view it as their holiday, likely because it has certain religious and historical overtones that differ from their particular cultural makeup. As a result, they do not observe it.
For Americans, Thanksgiving is the most traveled day of the year, no doubt owing to the fact that most Americans, regardless of their origin, celebrate it. For them, this holiday serves as some of the glue that holds the nation together, along with, among other things, a belief in individual freedom, in laissez faire and in limited and divided government. Canadians have none of these creeds.
Some government officials are now recognizing the devastating consequences this policy has wrought on the confederation. Recently, Jan Brown of the Reform Party suggested that ``every dollar spent on multiculturalism is a dollar spent on the breakup of Confederation.'' More importantly, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Future, a federally appointed body, declared that ``state-funded multiculturalism ... was an anthology of terrors: [causing] balkanization ... ghetto mentalities, [the] destabilization of Quebec ... reverse intolerance by immigrants for Canadian culture and institutions, and the devaluation of the very idea of a common nationality.''
Even if this were the majority view today, which it likely isn't given the policy's continued popularity in many circles and given the Liberal government's recently enacted legislation reaffirming multiculturalism, it might be too late to prevent the country's disintegration. Many French Canadians are now more determined than ever to have a country of their own as a result of their near miss in last October's sovereignty vote, and some Indian groups see the prospect of Quebec sovereignty as an opportunity to establish their own long-sought nationhood. This leaves the heavy lifting of promoting a united Canada to the balance of the population, a portion of whom have maintained their own distinct identities through direct state support. They might be hard-pressed to fight for a union, the characteristics and benefits of which appear uncertain.
Prime Minister Trudeau was fond of saying that Canada was a far greater nation than the sum of its parts. Ironically, as the architect of Canada's multiculturalism policy, he may have laid the foundation for disproving his maxim, as the first nation to enact such legislation may also be the first to collapse.
Mark I. Schwartz, a Canadian living in Washington, D.C., is author of several articles relating to law, economics, public policy and business affairs.
- Dow Jones & Co. Inc.
LENGTH: Long : 115 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: D.B. Johnson/LATimes.by CNB