The vehement push for collectivity and diversity is often destabilized by the prolonging dissociation of
those belonging to the majority group and those who belong to the minority group. The integration of the minority
group with the majority group is commonly referred to as diversification. However, failure to look past prejudice
results in continued divide and a collective consciousness that the separate groups will unceasingly remain. Source
one observes this false collectivity through a political comic discussing the irony and hypocrisy of anti-immigration
policies in North America. Given that the medium of source one is a political cartoon, the artists communicate his
message in two primary formats; textual and visual. Observing the cartoon left to right, the first place the reader’s
eyes are meant to go is the infamous “SAY NO to Mass Immigration” political campaign advertisement for the
People’s Party of Canada. Following this observation, the reader is made aware that the cartoon is likely intended
to oppose the People’s Party’s anti-immigration campaign. The next piece of textual evidence is a speech bubble
coming from an Indigenous man rhetorically asking “Where was that guy when WE needed him?” The Indigenous
man's question is intended to delineate the hypocrisy and double standard of having policies that prohibit mass
immigration using satire. To elaborate, the objective of any anti-immigration policy is to restrict the ability of
foreigners to make a living in the nation at question; whether that be to ensure availability of jobs for citizens or
protect the welfare and security of said citizens. Moreover, the Indigenous man puts emphasis on the word “we”
to emphasize the hypocrisy of these concerns deriving from an extensive history of European settlers immigrating
to Canada to expand their nation’s wealth. Thereby disregarding Indigenous health and safety in the process, and
collectively wronging the indigenous population. Furthermore, the Indigenous man in the cartoon is questioning
the right of the Canadian government to close its borders to immigrants in need when the nation begot from
immigration. These concerns are further emphasized by the artists deliberate use of facial expressions, body
language, and use of dimensions. Most evidently, the two Indigenous men bear disheartened and demoralized
expressions, emphasizing their indignation with the historical and continued marginalization of their people.
Additionally, in observation of the posture of the two Indigenous men, they express similar discontent and overall
dispiritedness with the fact of their culture being continuously stripped of its value on the land. In general, the
political cartoon was illustrated in an attempt to rebuke anti-immigration policies being advocated for by political
leaders, which is both detrimental to Canada’s image on the international stage and hypocritical considering it is a
Nation of social structures and cultures built on immigrants adding to its fabric.
If one were tasked with illustrating a Saudi Arabian woman or verbally describing them, they would
describe traits such as brown skin, full-body covering, hijab, and other stereotypical traits. In contrast, such a
generalized appearance doesn’t exist in Canada. As a result, the nation is often personified by a nationally
significant animal or flag. Source 2 is an excerpt from a speech by previous Prime minister Pierre Trudeau and is
explicitly focused on delineating this heterogeneity of Canadian society and how it’s diversity enhances the nation.
The excerpt begins with “There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian.” This sentence serves to introduce
the overall message of the excerpt to preface Trudeau’s belief that there are no defined physical traits of a
Canadian citizen. Furthermore, Trudeau’s use of “ideal” is key to articulating his message as all of different ethnic
groups are unique and may have opposing values. However, it is vital that people maintain respect and nondiscriminatory behaviour that cultivates Canada’s multicultural identity. For instance, after the tragic events of
9/11, racism and prejudice towards Muslims and people of colour in general became more commonplace and
Islamic clothing wear became regarded as a threat to public safety. As a result, many developed negative
preconceptions, sparking public bigotry and going to the extreme of demanding hijabs be removed in their
presence. These sovereign citizens had a preconceived image of an ideal Canadian and the hijab was not included
in this standard. The next section of the excerpt is written to expand upon the ideas presented in the first sentence
and identify the flaws and consequences of these prejudices. A vital point from the excerpt is Trudeau’s nonbelief
in there being an “All Canadian” person or identity. This belief is supported by the frameworks of the nation-state
being composed of many different European groups, Indigenous people, and many other ethnicities that became
prevalent throughout the nation by Pierre Trudeau’s first term as prime minister. Furthermore, Trudeau deemed it
necessary to preface the absurdity of the government or it’s constituents having a collective idea of what a true
Canadian may be. The excerpt concludes with the summarizing statement “A society which emphasizes uniformity
is one which creates intolerance and hate.” Trudeau’s progressive outlook on multiculturalism and its benefits
reflects Canada’s modern aspirations and some of the problems it faces today. For instance, given this evidence,
one would be doubt that Trudeau, a francophone, would support Quebec’s unconstitutional anti-religious wear
policy as it conforms its citizens meet the uniformity of what the government deems appropriate. Moreover, his
use of “intolerance” and “hate” rooted from uniformity reflects his growth as a prime minister as two years prior
to giving the speech in source 3 he proposed the policy named “White Paper.” This policy suggested that all prior
treaties with Indigenous people be abolished with the intention to reduce the divide between Canadians and
marginalization of First Nations. While Trudeau had the welfare of his people at heart, he received backlash for
attempting to homogenize the groups within Canada and evidently learned from this. In abstract, source 2
provides a historic, yet contemporarily applicable perspective on the benefits of multiculturalism in relation to the
detrimental effects of uniformity in a society.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” -Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, many
immigrants live by these words aspiring to make a better life for themselves in safe, opportune nations like
Canada. Jefferson is often credited for his many accomplishments in his time as the President of the United States,
one of which is the push for democracy and collective good. His use of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” indicates
Jefferson understood that happiness is not easily attained and requires pursuit, furthermore, he understood that
the United States was a land of collectively, capital-driven people working to achieve individual prosperity. The
“American Dream” is a national ideology in the United States that depicts the opportunity for prosperity and
success for those who make a living in the country; it is something pursued by millions around the world to revel in
the United States’ robust economy and availability of jobs. This drive to achieve the “American Dream” propels
skilled individuals every day to put their talents to use by immigrating to a more opportunistic land. Source three
analyzes the global pursuit of North America by comparing “Canadian foreign-born population by country/region
of origin” between 1971 and 2016. The different sets of data in source three describe a discrepancy between
different regions of origin of Canada’s total foreign-born population to compare and contrast the international
desire and ability of people to immigrate to Canada through the years. Moreover, the statistics explored in the
graph comparing the historic foreign-born populations of Canada, emphasize the disparity between European
immigration rates in history versus a modern figure. Equally so, it describes how Canada’s Asian foreign-born
population has experienced a significant positive incline. Based on the technological and societal developments
over time, immigrating to a new country to start anew and provide for one’s family is much easier and more
available than it was years ago. As a result, Asia’s large population has more opportunities to leave their homeland
and create a life and generate income somewhere else. The chart in source 3 taken as it self represents no evident
bias or implicit purpose as it is simply a visual representation of collected data, however, it can be used in
affirmation or opposition of an argument regarding immigration or diversity in Canada. In relation to subject of
immigration, the relative decrease in European immigrants - which has always been substantial in North Americarepresents an incline in Canada’s diversity of non-white majority groups. Furthermore, the focal point of the
comparison is the historically overpowering European foreign-born population being overtaken and minimalized
by a growth in the Asian foreign-born population in Canada. Moreover, the effect of the surge of Asians in Canada
may result in the development of Canadian society and promote collective, multicultural good. In summary, while
source three does not provide perspective it emphasizes the decline of European predominance in modern
Canada, thereby, the incline of a diverse spectrum of ethnicities in Canada.
The continued efforts of Western governance to protect the indiscriminate application of rights to it’s
people and furthermore, embrace the plethora of ethnicities that populate North America and is vital to the
continued global development of humanity, as many nations look to North America as an example for an ideal
society. For countries like Canada to continue to thrive on the international stage, it needs to look to all of its
citizens to support its continued growth. Moreover, to compete on the same level as it’s populous sibling nation,
Canada needs to continue to be cordially accepting of newcomers and immigrants who intend to work for the
growth and development of the nation’s economy. The first two of the three sources observe contrasting political
perspectives on immigration and the effects of resulting multiculturalism in society, in addition to how they can
impact the people of a nation. The third of the three sources explores a large discrepancy between populations of
European immigrants in Canada in 1996 compared to Canada in 2016. The information provided in source three
holds no perspective itself but can be used as evidence for an increase in multiculturalism and how that has
resulted in other successes in Canada. Moreover, it can be used as evidence for the ideas explored in sources one
and two. Source one is a political cartoon which observes an anti-immigration campaign advertisement being
viewed by two Indigenous men. The two Indigenous men remark on the irony and hypocrisy of political parties
promising anti-immigration legislation in Canada when the nation-state they are campaigning to lead was founded
by migrant colonizers who stole the land from the ancestors of the Indigenous men. Source one uses Canada’s
Indigenous population to compare Europeans migrating to Canada and intruding upon Indigenous land to large
groups of refugees and standard immigrants coming to Canada in search of opportunity. Furthermore, it works to
elucidate the importance of multiculturalism and the role it played in Canada’s history. Source two is an excerpt
from a speech given by Pierre Trudeau explaining how diversity has benefited Canadian society and to attempt to
deter this natural spread and sharing of culture takes away from Canada’s unique cultural identity. The excerpt is
evidently discussing the importance of multiculturalism as Trudeau repeatedly emphasizes the significance of
embracing differences to further develop Canada’s distinct identity and create respect between Canadians. As
previously mentioned, source three is a comparison of data collected in 1996 related to the Canadian population
of foreign-born individuals from certain regions. As described, source three is a comparison of statistics, therefore,
it does not contain any biases or perspective. Nevertheless, used in addition to the previous two sources, source
three describes a drastic shift in Canada’s immigrant population, transitioning from a surplus of White-Europeans
to the majority Asian-immigrant population modern Canada has. Taken altogether, the three sources share a
common premise of discussing the significance and impacts of immigration in relation to multiculturalism.
Furthermore, they primarily focus on how cultural pluralism has thrived and developed in Canada throughout
history.