Peacekeeping Versus Multiculturalism

“What "multiculturalism" boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture”

Thomas Sowell

Does the country one’s ancestors hail from or which they themselves are born in really define who that person is? According to most people, “who you are” is turning into a more and more ambiguous issue concerning self-identity. Where people’s sense of belonging lie play a crucial role in determining the future of Canadians and the role they are to play nationally and internationally. The idea that one should focus on peacekeeping opposed to multiculturalism as a foundation in figuring out what makes Canadian distinct is illogical. Simply from a reasonable perspective one should realize that Canadians need to face internal affairs before looking to solve those abroad. Although many of the documents will argue, focusing on recognition in world politics is equivalent to saying the pressing matters at home do not matter, more specifically multiculturalism. When it comes to being defined, I would rather be known for the strength of the nation I come from and not it’s extending reach into overseas affairs. Canada should focus on multiculturalism as the basis in understanding the Canadian identity because it is the key stepping stone in uniting Canadians that can then go onto focus on such issues like peacekeeping.

The fact that Canada can lay claim to international prestige due to its successful role in the United Nations is not the reason of fault but rather we do this as a way to escape any troubles at home. In fact, the emphasis seems to be rather that Canada spends the limited resources we have elsewhere instead of solving the problems in healthcare, youths, economy, drugs вЂ" the list goes on. And yet as Barbara McDougall states, “Canadians have always seen peacekeeping as a reflection of Canadian values, as a way of promoting our international objectives вЂ" peace and security, respect for human rights and democratic freedoms, and a say in decisions that shape the world,” translates into blatant ignorance towards the very same issues at home because evidently those in other ailing countries are much more important. The goals are noble but the where and how methods of applying these attitudes are impaired. It seems that whatever problem the prevailing political party can appeal to is always the topic at hand. Canadians want peace and so we become peace delegates for the world. But when that problem is not at the top of the list, it is too quickly put on the back burner, to be addressed who knows when. This seems the case with Canada’s peacekeeping soldiers as Topolewski relates, “Other ventures and adventures and programs are more important to the voters…And so the obligation to maintain a national defense has instead become very much more like a luxury.” Peacekeeping seems to be the gem of Canadians that seems to becoming more and more tarnished as the times go on. Perhaps it was impossible to uphold the bar set in Egypt, 1956 seeing as they can not prevent fighting in Rwanda that is “genocidal in nature, and hundreds of thousands of people died over a period of a few months” . How is it possible to spin a positive light and say you are achieving anything when so many unnecessary deaths are occurring? Perhaps if the issues at home within Canada were firstly addressed so that a whole hearted effort may be made to prevent future occurrences like these from happening. Not to go unaddressed is Richard Sanders point of view indicating that “Our government makes proud statements about its restrictive arms trade guidelines while encouraging and assisting military producers to make deals that undermine international peace and security.” Incredibly, an individual is attempting to dismantle the very hinge in which it would seem every Canadian hangs upon by saying that “The belief that Canada is a major force for global peace forms the basis of a powerful myth that is integral to our culture.” The entire article focus’s on underground military dealings, especially with the United States, and the fact that “Canada is selling military hardware to foreign police and military institutions that are well known to be regularly and systematically abusing human rights.” Ironically it would appear that Canada is a contributing factor to the very problems they (failing to) solve.

Common sense dictates that a nation should not be a nation just because it can solve other worldly problems and has not yet succumbed to larger influences (the United States in particular). What would not only make this nation but also make it stand out, something that apparently Canadians always are striving for, is if we encourage and enforce multiculturalism as much as possible. Opposed to the Americans who have adopted the “melting-pot” idealism that stresses a uniform culture, Canadians appeal more the “mosaic” idea where each nationality is not forgotten but part of the bigger picture. Personally, I enjoy being part of a society that embraces other cultures rather than condemns them. Canada on its own is no doubt perfect in their multicultural attitude but our principles are something that should be definitely valued. Neil Bissoondath does not agree with these ideals because he chose to leave his homeland and start fresh in Canada. What is not understandable is that he is neither being asked to conform to Canada’s ways or stick with his old customs and yet he complains “Multiculturalism…left me with a certain measure of discomfort.” His views are conflicting in that he name calls the Multiculturalism Act “a program born of manipulative cynicism” and yet goes on to describe the document to contain “gentle and well-meaning generalizations” . In his constant attack on multiculturalism, his opinionated view is that “The Multiculturalism Act is in many ways a statement of activism.” If the activism he refers to is the attempt at change needed in Canadians views on multiculturalism, that would be one of the only things he gets right. Canadians needed to and have changed their views from being more racist towards a welcoming and accepting nation. He further goes on to elaborate how multiculturalism is not effective because all one ends up are amusement park-like functions combined cultural disdain replacing racism. Dick Field agrees that peacekeeping is a good idea but not when it is at the