Tolerance vs. Diversity
Keep this in Mind while Reading this Post:
Now let me immediately begin this post by explaining about how this post IS NOT about wrapping myself in the flag. I think it is much more important to be critical of your country's policies and attitudes than to blindly follow them, so i dont fall into that flag waving bullshit. That being said, this post is largely in the spirit of praise of a Canadian policy. I think a lot of the world can learn something from Canada's attitude towards multiculturalism in the classroom.
The Arguement:
I'm a bit charged about this topic right now, so try and cope with the writing. Just in December of 2005 there were riots on a beach in Syndey (Crunella beach), and Lebanese beachgoers were the targetted victims. I'm not picking sides on this issue, because i know that some of the lebanese individuals did not act like angels. The riots were instigated by the poor acts of a few lebanese individuals. It was at this time I first heard the term "tolerance" to explain Australia's multicultural policy. It was something along the lines of John Howard (Australian prime minister) saying "these acts violate Australia's policy of tolerance". Now i dont think that tolerance is good word, or even a good policy to have towards multiculturalism.
I think tolerance indicates that people are only going to acknowledge the presence of other cultures because they have to, but they will not associate or even learn about the other cultures. This poses a problem because it does not breed acceptance. The drawbacks of "tolerance" were seen in the Crunella race riots.
In Canada, i think the policy towards multiculturalism goes beyond simple "tolerance". In Canada people are not told they cannot be muslims, or hindus, or jews, or christians. Instead what happens in Canada is that everyone is educated about the various types of people, opinions, and ideas that exist in Canadian society. They are taught about how everyone and every culture is unique. This breeds acceptance, and respect. Both of those terms go FAR beyond simple, tolerance.
I woke up this morning to read in the news that the Canadian supreme court had passed legislation allowing Sikh students to carry their Kirpan to school. A Kirpan (for those who dont know) is a dagger that Sikh's must carry as a part of their faith. Now many people who simply dont understand the Sikh religion and culture would be outraged that their kids are going to school with kids that carry weapons. They'd be even more outraged that the Canadian courts are allowing this to happen. BUT, for those who are educated about the topic know the the Kirpan is a strong symbol of discipline. My brother worked in a Sikh private school for a few years, and one time asked a student to see his kirpan, just to have a look. The student vehemently protested, saying "Mr.Gandhi, i cant take it out. Only if it is a life or death situation. Im not allowed to take it out." Clearly the student, in the face of his teacher, showed very strong discipline.
I think that by allowing Sikh students to carry kirpans to school the Supreme Court of Canada showed great wisdom. They showed great understanding and education about the topic. They have set a very very very good example for Canadian citizens on the topic of acceptance, understanding, and respect. These types of changes have to occur from the top down, and i think the Supreme court was conscious of that when they made their decision. Im very proud of their decision.
This reasoning is in stark contrast with the policy in France. The ideals are good, but the practicality is flawed in France. In France they want everyone to be the same, so that means: Muslim girls cannot wear hijjabs, jews cannot wear yamakah's, catholics cannot wear a crucifix in school. Religion has no place in school according to France. The problem with this is that it stints acceptance and respect of different cultures. A muslim is a muslim for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, so going to school cannnot change this. The good thing about the French system is that students are made equal before a public system, which is good...but they are denied their religion, which is bad. Inclusion (like the type in Canada) works much better than exclusion. Inclusion can teach students to respect their classsmates. This translates over into other areas of society as well. Once all people can respect and accept eachother we wont have some of the problems that we have today. I think it'll only be a few generations until we get there.
Thanks for reading (if you made it through), let me know what you think. There will be some pictures coming up soon, keep posted, and keep your minds active! Peace.
Now let me immediately begin this post by explaining about how this post IS NOT about wrapping myself in the flag. I think it is much more important to be critical of your country's policies and attitudes than to blindly follow them, so i dont fall into that flag waving bullshit. That being said, this post is largely in the spirit of praise of a Canadian policy. I think a lot of the world can learn something from Canada's attitude towards multiculturalism in the classroom.
The Arguement:
I'm a bit charged about this topic right now, so try and cope with the writing. Just in December of 2005 there were riots on a beach in Syndey (Crunella beach), and Lebanese beachgoers were the targetted victims. I'm not picking sides on this issue, because i know that some of the lebanese individuals did not act like angels. The riots were instigated by the poor acts of a few lebanese individuals. It was at this time I first heard the term "tolerance" to explain Australia's multicultural policy. It was something along the lines of John Howard (Australian prime minister) saying "these acts violate Australia's policy of tolerance". Now i dont think that tolerance is good word, or even a good policy to have towards multiculturalism.
I think tolerance indicates that people are only going to acknowledge the presence of other cultures because they have to, but they will not associate or even learn about the other cultures. This poses a problem because it does not breed acceptance. The drawbacks of "tolerance" were seen in the Crunella race riots.
In Canada, i think the policy towards multiculturalism goes beyond simple "tolerance". In Canada people are not told they cannot be muslims, or hindus, or jews, or christians. Instead what happens in Canada is that everyone is educated about the various types of people, opinions, and ideas that exist in Canadian society. They are taught about how everyone and every culture is unique. This breeds acceptance, and respect. Both of those terms go FAR beyond simple, tolerance.
I woke up this morning to read in the news that the Canadian supreme court had passed legislation allowing Sikh students to carry their Kirpan to school. A Kirpan (for those who dont know) is a dagger that Sikh's must carry as a part of their faith. Now many people who simply dont understand the Sikh religion and culture would be outraged that their kids are going to school with kids that carry weapons. They'd be even more outraged that the Canadian courts are allowing this to happen. BUT, for those who are educated about the topic know the the Kirpan is a strong symbol of discipline. My brother worked in a Sikh private school for a few years, and one time asked a student to see his kirpan, just to have a look. The student vehemently protested, saying "Mr.Gandhi, i cant take it out. Only if it is a life or death situation. Im not allowed to take it out." Clearly the student, in the face of his teacher, showed very strong discipline.
I think that by allowing Sikh students to carry kirpans to school the Supreme Court of Canada showed great wisdom. They showed great understanding and education about the topic. They have set a very very very good example for Canadian citizens on the topic of acceptance, understanding, and respect. These types of changes have to occur from the top down, and i think the Supreme court was conscious of that when they made their decision. Im very proud of their decision.
This reasoning is in stark contrast with the policy in France. The ideals are good, but the practicality is flawed in France. In France they want everyone to be the same, so that means: Muslim girls cannot wear hijjabs, jews cannot wear yamakah's, catholics cannot wear a crucifix in school. Religion has no place in school according to France. The problem with this is that it stints acceptance and respect of different cultures. A muslim is a muslim for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, so going to school cannnot change this. The good thing about the French system is that students are made equal before a public system, which is good...but they are denied their religion, which is bad. Inclusion (like the type in Canada) works much better than exclusion. Inclusion can teach students to respect their classsmates. This translates over into other areas of society as well. Once all people can respect and accept eachother we wont have some of the problems that we have today. I think it'll only be a few generations until we get there.
Thanks for reading (if you made it through), let me know what you think. There will be some pictures coming up soon, keep posted, and keep your minds active! Peace.
posted by zubin at 2:38 PM
2 Comments:
Yet another reason why I am proud to be Canadian!
In a world darkened by ethnic conflics, Canada stands as a model of how people of different cultures can live together in peace...
Bill Clinton said that...
It is a special country in which on the same street you can have people from all over the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home