March 31, 2003 UNBC students hold a “Die In” as a protest to the war in Iraq. Photo By Becky Booth Multiculturalism or Anti-racism? The difficulties of living in a multicultural nation By Sharon Smith The subject of Multicultural education versus Anti-racist edu- cation has always been contested by academics and activists alike. They were seen as two incompati- ble schools of thought. Typically, the focus of Multicultural educa- tion is celebratory in nature, focusing on the promotion of cul- tural diversity and educating the public on cultural customs, tradi- tions, and lifestyles. The focus of Anti-racist education is usually more political, and examines the conditions that lead to disadvan- tage. Critics of both methods have valid arguments, and these argu- ments deserve close considera- tion, especially since the goals of each are fundamentally the same. Multicultural education has been criticized for essentializing ethnic- ity and culture, that is making assumptions that we know who or what a person is on the basis of what ‘identity group’ they seem to belong to. Multicultural educa- tion is also accused of confusing history with culture. Simply put, critics believe that promoting multiculturalism simply rein- forces stereotypes, and doesn’t address the institutionalization of racism. This criticism is valuable because we need to avoid the objectification of culture. Objectification can be prevented by ensuring the education is con- textual, (not only celebrating a certain aspect of culture, such as clothing, but explaining where, when, and why somebody might wear that particular piece of cloth- ing). It is also important to acknowledge that all people and cultures undergo change. Not only that, but it’s important to acknowledge that racism exists in the first place, and is present not only in everyday conversations, beliefs, and attitudes, but is also entrenched in our societal institu- tions. There are three major criticisms of Anti-racist education. Anti- racist education is often accused of: 1) being too ‘negative’, 2) of ignoring other forms of prejudice that often accompany racism (such as sexism and classism), and 3) of simply being ‘colour-racism’, (focusing on racism between ‘blacks and whites’, and ignoring everybody else). These criticisms are valuable because, while it is important to speak frankly about racism, it is also important not to create a sense of hopelessness, since hopelessness leads to inac- tion. It is also important to acknowledge that different people may experience racism in differ- ent ways. For example, women experience racism differently than men and are often faced with dou- ble oppression (sexism and racism). Lastly, reducing racism to a dichotomy of ‘blacks and whites’ is not helpful. Not only does racism exist between all dif- ferent ethnicities and cultures, but it can also exist within a particular ‘identity group’ as well (such as discrimination based on how light or dark a person’s complexion is). The question remains in the minds of many: which approach is necessary to affect positive change in the world. My question is why do we have to choose? Activists in the field do not often subscribe strictly to one method or the other. Anti-racist education often includes information and celebration of cultural practices, and Multicultural education often addresses institutionalized racism. While it is important to critically examine educational methods and awareness cam- paigns, we should not become too caught up in the dichotomy trap. If there is a genuine interest in the betterment of this world, there needs to be less infighting about which approach is necessary, and more cooperation and action. Engrained in our society is the tendency to turn everything into an ‘either-or’ situation: is it mullti- culturalism or anti-racism? The fact is people on both sides of this debate want the same thing: the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Why Must Be Full of By Dan Turner For a quite a long time there have been many, many, many things that I must say just keeps on annoying me. I managed to relieve some of the stress by writing a few editorials describing my strain, and that helped. However, recent- ly there has been so many painful events that I have actually moved passed the highest state of anger and annoyance that a normal per- son could bare by so much that I am now at a pure state of eternal bliss. So while I am now complete- ly apathetic to all events that tran- spire, I feel I must inform you all of what is going on so you to can see the ridiculousness of this world. US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci. On Tuesday the Ambassador addressed Canada’s business community and said the US was “disappointed” with Canada’s position on Iraq. Not only was that comment a blatant disregard of diplomatic protocol, but it was a ridiculous statement to begin with. Canada is a sovereign nation and can make its own deci- sions without being assaulted by the American Administration. He also mentioned that the US would “be there for Canada” as part of their family. Well with all that they have done for us, including soft- wood lumber, I for one am glad we're not their enemy. America. Our oh so friendly neighbour to the south has sent us another wonderful message to us, letting Canadians know that America is here for us. After being blasted by Europe and Canada for highly subsidizing their wheat producers, the US Commerce Department has decided that while their subsidies are ok, Canadian farmers under the Wheat Board isn’t fair and has slapped us with a 4% duty...for now! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. When will the hypocrisy end? Stephan Harper. The Canadian Alliance Leader has repeatedly called on the Federal Government to join the Americans in attacking Iraq. He makes the case that we have sold out to France and Russia at the expense of our traditional the World Idiots? allies the US and Britain. Well Stephan, wouldn’t joining the American unilateral action in Iraq be selling out to the US? And frankly 66% of Canadians agree with the PM that Canada is a sov- ereign nation and can make it’s own decisions. Stockwell Day. Yes, surprising- ly he is still around and he is mak- ing quite the accusation. He has said and I quote, “There is a New World Order that is reshaping the global alignment of nations. Canada has abandoned its tradi- tional allies: the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Spain, and is now joining the likes of France, Germany, Russia, Syria, Communist China and Cuba.” The Alliance Foreign Affairs Critic is simply telling Canadians that no matter what the situation or the stakes involved, we should blindly follow the Americans where ever they go. Personally I would never abandon my sovereignty, just to be part of an exclusive club of war- ring nations. Ralph Klein. The Alberta Premier recently wrote a letter to Paul Cellucci stating that he sup- ports the US-led invasion. He was later shocked and appalled that the Prime Minister’s Office pub- licly rebuked him, saying Klien does not speak for Canada. I don’t see what the problem is, provincial governments have no jurisdiction in foreign affairs and what Klein did was inappropriate. I guess those are the antics that you get from a premier who blamed the ice age on “dinosaur farts.” America, for the second time. Are these people on glue?!?! They seem to believe that because the citizens of the sovereign nation of France doesn’t go all along with the United States, a foreign coun- try, on a path to war that the French people are unpatriotic. Yes definitely glue. And I really don’t want to know what they were so blatantly high on when they thought up “Freedom Fries.”