40.1.garcea

3RVWXODWLRQVRQWKH)UDJPHQWDU\(IIHFWVRI0XOWLFXOWXUDOLVPLQ&DQDGD

Joseph Garcea

Canadian Ethnic Studies, Volume 40, Number 1, 2008, pp. 141-160 (Article)

Published by Canadian Ethnic Studies AssociationDOI: 10.1353/ces.0.0059

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Victoria (22 Sep 2014 03:57 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ces/summary/v040/40.1.garcea.html

JOSEPH GARCEA

Postulations on the Fragmentary Effects ofMulticulturalism in Canada

AbstractThis article has two central objectives: first, to provide an overview and analysis of ten postulationsregarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy and policy articulated during thepast forty years in books and academic journals within the Canadian literature written in English;second, to provide some suggestions regarding the importance policy makers should attach to thesepostulations and the type and degree of attention that they should devote to them. The ten postu-lations can be grouped into the following four general categories: multiculturalism segregates thepopulation in Canada; multiculturalism is problematical for the Canadian, Quebecois, andAboriginal culture, identity, and nationalism projects; multiculturalism perpetuates conflictsbetween and within groups; and multiculturalism hinders equity and equality in society and theeconomy. The article concludes that those postulations should not be dismissed as insignificant.Instead, efforts should be made to determine which, if any, point to real problems and which pointto perceived problems, assess their tractability, and select the appropriate policy reforms to dealwith the real and tractable problems. In doing so, policy makers should ensure that neither the effi-cacy nor the morality of the Canadian management of diversity is adversely affected. Among otherthings, this includes ensuring that the virtuous aspect of the prevailing Canadian political cultureto build bridges, rather than walls, among cultural groups is perpetuated.

RsumCet article vise deux objectifs centraux : en premier, fournir une vue densemble et une analyse dedix prsupposs concernant la source de fragmentation que sont la philosophie et de la politiquedu multiculturalisme prsentes au cours des quarante dernires annes dans des livres et jour-naux universitaires publis en anglais au Canada; en second, fournir quelques suggestions sur lim-portance que les dcideurs devraient attribuer ces prsupposs, ainsi que le type et le degrdattention quils devraient leur accorder. On peut regrouper ces dix prsupposs dans les quatrecatgories gnrales suivantes : le multiculturalisme provoque une sgrgation au sein de la pop-ulation canadienne; le multiculturalisme pose un problme la culture et lidentit canadiennes,qubcoises et autochtones, ainsi qu leurs projets nationalistes; le multiculturalisme perptue lesconflits entre les groupes et en leur sein; et le multiculturalisme entrave lquit et lgalit dansla socit et lconomie. Cet article conclue quil ne faudrait pas rejeter ces prsupposs commetant insignifiants. Il faudrait au contraire faire un effort pour dterminer lesquels, sil y en a, met-tent le doigt sur un problme rel et lesquels le font sur ce que lon peroit comme en tant un. Ilfaudrait aussi valuer leur rsolubilit et slectionner les rformes de politiques appropries pourtraiter les problmes rels et rsolubles. Ce faisant, les dcideurs devraient sassurer quil ne soitport atteinte ni lefficacit, ni la moralit de la gouvernance de la diversit au Canada. Parmidautres choses, ceci inclut le fait de sassurer que soit perptu laspect vertueux de la culturepolitique canadienne courante qui cherche construire des ponts plutt que des murs entre lesdivers groupes culturels.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 141

142 | Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

INTRODUCTION

Multiculturalism has been the subject of substantial debates in Canada during the

past four decades (Wilson 1993; Abu-Laban 1994; Sugunasiri 1999; Fleras and Elliot

2002). Such debates have intensified during the most recent decade largely as a result

of the attention devoted by the media to, among other things, the large influx of

immigrants and refugees who are members of visible minorities, the claims for and

responses to what is now being termed reasonable accommodations, and the actual

and potential acts of terrorism. The debates have focused primarily on what Fleras

and Elliott (2002, 108) have referred to as the dialectics of multiculturalism regard-

ing five sets of positive and negative effects of multiculturalism public philosophy

and public policy (i.e., divisive vs. unifying, essentializing vs. hybridizing, marginal-

izing vs. inclusive, hoax vs. catalyst, and hegemony vs. counter-hegemony), the

myths and fallacies of multiculturalism (Burnet 1979; Peter 1981, Fleras and Elliot

2002, 112-116), and what have been described as real and perceived contradictions

related to multiculturalism (Saul 2005).

One of the central questions in such debates has been whether multiculturalism

contributes either to harmony and integration or conflict and fragmentation within

the Canadian polity. The question applies to the effects of both the public philoso-

phy of multiculturalism (i.e., the normative framework that values the co-existence

and perpetuation of diverse cultures)1 and the public policy of multiculturalism (i.e.,

the actual policy and program initiatives undertaken by various orders of govern-

ment designed to deal with the co-existence and perpetuation of diverse cultures)

(Kallen 1982).2 That question has generated a set of postulations proffered by pos-

tulators who believe that multiculturalism philosophy and policy have fragmentary

effects within the Canadian polity.3

This article has two central objectives: first, to provide an overview and analysis

of the postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy

and policy articulated during the past forty years in books and journal articles

within the Canadian literature written in English; second, to provide some observa-

tions regarding the importance that policy makers should attach to those postula-

tions and the type and degree of attention that they should devote to them.

This article is based on a content analysis of a select set of publications on

Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy written between

1965 and 2005 largely by social scientists and a few other prominent authors and


| 143Joseph Garcea

analysts. The goal was to identify some, rather than all, publications that articulated

various postulations. Thus, the dozens of publications profiled in this article consti-

tute only a representative sample of a potentially larger set of publications that artic-

ulate the various postulations. The publications were selected through a combination

of a library and web-based bibliographic search and a scanning of the bibliographic

references contained in the publications located through the library and web-based

bibliographic search. The key words used for the searches were Canadian multicul-

turalism and criticisms of Canadian multiculturalism. The postulations that are

the focus of this article were identified through a content analysis of the select set of

dozens of publications that dealt with the fragmentary effects of Canadian multicul-

turalism public philosophy and public policy. More specifically, they were identified

by grouping comparable arguments regarding the fragmentary effects of multicultur-

alism public philosophy and public policy, and then producing a descriptive title and

description of the postulation embodied in each group arguments.

Before providing the overview and analysis of the postulations, three important

caveats and some information regarding the methodology are in order. First, the dif-

ferences between some of the postulations are relatively subtle; indeed, some of the

postulations are interrelated and overlapping. Nevertheless, for analytical purposes

it is useful to discuss them separately. Second, the identification of the commenta-

tors who articulate those postulations is selective or exemplary, rather than compre-

hensive or exhaustive. Third, it should not be assumed that all of those who

articulate any of the postulations are necessarily against multiculturalism either as a

public philosophy or as a public policy. Indeed, as noted in a subsequent section of

this article, some of them are supportive of either or both of those, but they want to

see some clarifications or correctives to those that they perceive as problematical in

achieving any one or more of the desired goals.

OVERVIEW OF POSTULATIONS

Postulation 1: Multiculturalism promotes the creation of segregated racialand ethno-cultural enclaves The first postulation is that multiculturalism policy, in combination with immigra-

tion policy, creates segregated racial and ethnocultural enclaves within local com-

munities (Brotz 1980; Ogmundson 1992; Paquet 1988; James 1996; James and Shadd

2001; Stoffman 2002 and 2004). The postulators maintain that whereas immigration

policy facilitates the concentration of the bulk of immigrants with similar racial or

ethnocultural backgrounds into a few major cities and, in some cases even a few

neighbourhoods therein, multiculturalism policy promotes and supports the cre-

ation of ethno-specific secular and religious institutions to serve the needs of each



major ethno-cultural community. They add that some racial and ethno-cultural

groups are able to achieve and maintain a substantial degree of institutional com-

pleteness that, in turn, accentuates segregation and social distances between mem-

bers of those groups and members of other groups.

This postulation was cogently articulated and popularized by Neil Bissoondath

who suggested that multiculturalism has the effect of ensuring that ethnic groups

will preserve their distinctiveness in a gentle and insidious form of cultural

apartheid and will lead an already divided country down the path to further

social divisiveness (1994, 82-83).

Those who proffer this postulation suggest that such distancing contributes to

the fragmentation of the populace and that possible negative effects include matters

discussed in subsequent sections of this article. The most notable of such effects are:

the diminishing of the fundamental unity of the Canadian state and society (Brotz

1980, 44); the growth of ethnocentrism and segmentation and the resurgence of

racism under a different name (Paquet 1988, 10-11; Sugunarisi 1999, 57-75, 109-114);

and ultimately the disintegration of the Canadian polity (Ogmundson 1992, 52).

Postulation 2: Multiculturalism creates multiple social and political iden-tities and divided loyaltiesThe second postulation is that multiculturalism creates multiple social and political

identities and divided loyalties. This postulation was originally articulated in the

mid-1960s by John Porter who suggested that one of the key problems with Canada

was its fragmented social and political structures. Such fragmentation, he argued,

creates a strong emphasis on ethnic differentiation that, in turn, creates dual loyal-

tiesone to the various groups and one to the countrythat prevent the emergence

of a singular Canadian identity (Porter 1965, 558).

Porters postulation was echoed in the early 1990s by several authors who sug-

gested that multiculturalism contributed to the emergence of multiple nationalities,

divided loyalties, and the fragmentation of Canadian identity. Bibby argued that,

contrary to what its proponents argue, multiculturalism does not really achieve the

stated goal of harmonious existence (1990, 7-8). Gairdner concurred with this and

went so far as to suggest that multiculturalism, along with bilingualism and immi-

gration, contributed to the silent destruction of English Canada (Gairdner 1990,

389-420). Ogmundson argued that, contrary to what its advocates suggested, multi-

culturalism policy was not needed to reduce social inequalities (1992, 50-51), and

added that, since Canada has a balkanized culture and a paucity of nationalism, the

federal government must concentrate on building a singular national identity and a

stronger primary loyalty to the country. Many critics of multiculturalism go even farther

in postulating that multiculturalism has undermined national unity (McRoberts


| 145Joseph Garcea

1997, 131) and that multiculturalism does not square as well as multinationalism

with Canadian federalism (McRoberts 2003, 105).

In recent years, this particular postulation regarding the effects of multicultur-

alism on identities and loyalties has also been articulated by other analysts. Howard-

Hassmann for example, notes that despite many salutary effects of Canadian

multiculturalism policy in conveying the message that this is a progressive and wel-

coming country, it tends to encourage individuals to think of themselves, and iden-

tify themselves, in terms of their ancestral ethnicity and renders it difficult to instill

a sense of Canadian identity in the population at large (1999, 525). She adds that

the heavy influence of what she terms group-based illiberal multiculturalism

espoused by some newcomers tends to accentuate the existence of members of eth-

nocultural groups with attachments to their ancestral origins from other countries

and negates the existence of members of ethno-culturally hybridized group, which

she refers to as ethnic Canadians, who do not have such attachments. She con-

cludes that what she terms liberal multiculturalism, which focuses on a broader set

of diversities and the rights of individuals, rather than groups, is much more rele-

vant and constructive for the evolving nature of the Canadian policy, than the illib-

eral group-based version.

In a similar vein, Mirchandani and Tastsoglou (2000) note that, ironically, mul-

ticulturalisms drive towards tolerance actually contributes to fragmentation by

profiling and accentuating group differences. Similarly, Barry suggests that multicul-

turalism contributes to the politicization of group identities (2001, 5) and creates

a majority-minority duality and enhances the notion of otherness (11-15) that

leads racial and ethno-cultural groups and their members to develop and act upon

their group identities within the political sphere. Barry criticizes proponents of

Canadian multiculturalism philosophy and public policy such as Kymlicka (1998)

and Tully (1995), whom he disparagingly refers to as an itinerant band of like-

minded theorists, for their unwillingness to acknowledge that the development of

such group identifies and the actions that flow from them are problematical, rather

than salutary, for the Canadian polity.

Postulation 3: Multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetuationof a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian moral centre The third postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetua-

tion of a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian moral centre. This position,

initially articulated by Porter (1965), has been echoed during the past two decades by

several analysts (Bibby 1990; Bissoondath 1994; Roy 1995; Esses and Gardner 1996;

Gwyn 1996; Granatstein 1998; Kay 1998). The general concern among these analysts

is that multiculturalism inevitably leads to the emergence of multiple and divergent



normative frameworks that are likely to intensify intolerance and conflict. Several of

them have noted that two problems stand in the way of the production and perpet-

uation of a singular Canadian civic culture. The first is that multiculturalism fosters

a reluctance to identify and proselytize a singular set of Canadian values and norms.

The second is that within the multiculturalism paradigm there is no imperative for

ethno-cultural groups to espouse one set of Canadian values or practices and to

assimilate. Instead, it encourages and supports the efforts of a wide range of such

groups, with different cultural and religious backgrounds, values, and practices to

maintain and perpetuate their distinct cultures (Esses and Gardner 1996). This, they

argue, creates a normative relativism that compromises efforts to develop a set of

widely shared set of norms and values (Porter 1965; Granatstein 1998).

According to Bibby, for example, multiculturalism has compounded the fragmen-

tary effects of contemporary liberalism ideology by privileging individualism, plural-

ism, and relativism over hegemonic social and political norms shared by the majority

of the population. Bibby thinks that pluralism establishes choices and that relativism

declares those choices valid. He maintains that excessive relativism has slain moral

consensus and has stripped us of our ethical and moral guidelines, leaving us with

no authoritative instruments at the national level with which to measure social life

(1990, 14). He makes it clear that he is not opposed to individualism, pluralism and

relativism, but to what he considers the excesses that they have spawned (10).

This postulation is also evident in an article by Gregg in which he argues that the

secular humanism and liberalism that underpin immigration, settlement, and multi-

culturalism policies in Canada have resulted in an increase in the number of people

without allegiances to the Canadian nation or state or with due appreciation and

respect for the prevailing values, some of whom are willing to undertake radical polit-

ical action, including actual or attempted acts of terrorism comparable to those wit-

nessed in many countries prior to, on, and after 9/11. Gregg suggests that there may

be some validity to suggestions that Canadas multiculturalism experiment may have

gone wrong, and that the time has come to review it and possibly reform it (2006, 47).

The postulation that multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetuation

of a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian, or at least a western, moral cen-

tre is also articulated by Kay. In explaining the backlash against multiculturalism, he

notes that one of the major problems is that the accommodation of the distinct val-

ues of various minority groups leads to an unacceptable and problematical normative

relativism that confronts and challenges the moral and social fabric of the country

(1998, 31). He adds that the prevailing view is that whenever there is a conflict

between any such values and fundamental liberal principles like freedom of speech

and equality before the law, those values are not acceptable within the parameters set

for multiculturalism (32-33). He concludes by siding with conservatives who suggest


| 147Joseph Garcea

that there is, and that there must be, a limit to the degree of tolerance and accom-

modation for values that are not commensurate with western cultural values that

prevail in Canada and other liberal democracies.

Postulation 4: Multiculturalism hinders the development and delivery of asingular civic education The fourth postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the development and deliv-

ery of a singular civic education (Brotz 1980). Granatstein (1998) maintains that the

irrational and unexamined assumptions of what he terms multiculturalism mania

contributes to fragmentation within Canada in two ways. First, multiculturalism has

seriously compromised the content and quality of teaching many important aspects

of Canadian history. Second, the propagation of multiculturalism has produced a

misallocation of governmental resources needed for the integration of newcomers.

He argues that resources that are being devoted to supporting multiculturalism poli-

cies and programs should be devoted both to turning immigrants into citizens as

quickly as possible and also to educating both those seeking Canadian citizenship

and those who already have it about Canadas history, its shared civic culture, and the

importance of the perpetuation of that civic culture to provide the social and polit-

ical glue needed to secure not only a singular Canadian identity but also the optimal

degree of solidarity and unity.

Postulation 5: Multiculturalism hinders the construction of a shared civiccitizenship or intercultural citizenshipThe fifth postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the construction of a shared

civic citizenship or intercultural citizenship. This postulation is articulated by several

academic analysts who believe that there is a fundamental difference between the

multiculturalism and interculturalism paradigms, and who favour the latter over the

former. Hutcheon, for example, states that the latter should be privileged over the

former because there is a dark side to multiculturalism (1994, 1). She argues that

whereas multiculturalism emphasizes the retention of group identities and differ-

ences that foster social distance and segregation, interculturalism emphasizes the

breaking down of such identities and differences as all citizens (longtime as well as

new) are nourished by an ever-expanding general culture (ibid.). In a similar vein,

Gagnon suggests that Canadas multiculturalism model is more problematic than

Quebecs interculturalism model. He argues that in Canada social fragmentation is

the result of accepting the existence of cultural groups as distinct and self-contained

entities without any expectation that they may contribute to the overall direction

of the larger society in an evolutionary interplay of ideas (2000, 21). He adds that

the principal virtue of Quebecs interculturalism model is its ability to establish a



balance between the requirements of unity by providing everyone with a shared

identity (i.e., as francophone Quebecois) and the recognition, understanding, and

appreciation of different cultures.

The hindrance that state-sponsored multiculturalism policy has posed for a

shared civic or intercultural citizenship has also been articulated by others. Day

(2000, 3-4), for example, suggests that this state-sponsored attempt to design a uni-

fied nation has paradoxically led to an increase in both the number of minority enti-

ties and in the amount of effort required to manage them. To overcome this

problem, he proposes what might be termed a libertarian or anarchical laissez-faire

multiculturalism model wherein the policy role of the state would shift from the

proactive management of multiculturalism to a passive or even non-existent one.

This would entail the abandonment not only of the current multiculturalism policy,

but also of what he depicts as an unrealistic and unhealthy fixation with a type of

group harmony and unity that is simply not attainable. He summarizes his libertar-

ian or anarchical laissez-faire position as follows (225):

Instead of the nation-state being wielded as a tool to build a pre-designed nation, theCanadian states role would be to create a space of free play. It would be seen not as aguardian of a perfect, yet fragile order, but as providing a minimal field of structure outof which almost anything might emerge, and where even this minimal role would nothave essential content, but would itself be subject to ongoing revision. Not a static, solid-ified order, but a dynamic and fluid chaos.

Postulation 6: Multiculturalism frustrates the aspirations of Quebecoisnationalists and Aboriginal nationalistsThe sixth postulation is that multiculturalism frustrates the aspirations of

Quebecois nationalists and Aboriginal nationalists. The postulators posit that

Canadian multiculturalism has created uneasiness and even resistance among many

nationalist Quebecers and Aboriginals because it recognizes the existence of a mul-

tiplicity of groups and views all groups as essentially the same in terms of claims and

rights (McRoberts 1997; McRoberts 2003, 105).

The criticism of the adverse effects of multiculturalism for the aspirations of

Quebecois nationalists has been articulated by analysts such as Breton (2000),

Gagnon (2000), and Gagnon and Iacovino (2002). They point out that while some

of the Quebecois nationalists share the view that multiculturalism has an adverse

effect on the national and linguistic duality valued by Quebecois who subscribe to

the two founding nations theory of Canada, others share the view that multicul-

turalism is contributing to the loss of community within the Quebecois nation

because the existing communitarianism is being superseded by excessive individual-

ism, cultural relativism and deepening diversity.


| 149Joseph Garcea

A substantial critique of the adverse effects of multiculturalism on the Quebecois

nation and to some extent also on the Aboriginal nations has been provided by

Gagnon. In his view, the multiculturalism paradigm is flawed because, while seem-

ingly respectful of differences on the surface, [it] is actually homogenizing (in a fed-

eral context) due to its failure to distinguish between ethnic minorities and

national communities such as the Quebecois nation and the Aboriginal nations

(2000, 20). He concludes that any benefits that the Canadian government hoped to

achieve by establishing this comparability or parity between immigrant ethnic com-

munities and national communities is more than offset by the antipathy that it cre-

ates among Quebecois and Aboriginal nationalists who are inclined to view

multiculturalism as a Machiavellian strategy designed to negate two conceptions of

those communities within the Canadian polity which they value very highly. The

first is the negation of their respective conceptions that they are distinct nations and,

in the minds of some of them, even relatively sovereign nations within a multina-

tional Canadian polity. The second is their respective conceptions of the fundamen-

tal nature of federalism within that polity, which for Quebec nationalists is the

dual-nation federalism model in which the English and the French are the two

founding nations, and for Aboriginal nationalists it is the treaty federalism model

in which Aboriginal nations are also party to the original and continuing compacts

that led to the construction of a Canadian polity.

Postulation 7: Multiculturalism facilitates the importation and perpetua-tion of ethnic and religious conflicts from other countriesThe seventh postulation is that multiculturalism facilitates the importation and per-

petuation of ethnic and regional conflicts from other countries. Those who articu-

late this postulation suggest that liberal immigration and multiculturalism policies

in recent decades have accelerated and increased not only the diversity of Canadas

population, but also the level of inter-group and intra-group conflicts via political

and cultural transnationalism. Field (2003, 397), for example, maintains that such

conflicts exist because ethnic groups bring with them legacies of conflict from their

countries of origin. This postulation has gained greater prominence in recent years

as a result of the increased linkages of ethnocultural communities in Canada and

their countries of origin resulting from at least two major factors. One factor is the

particularistic form of transnationalism that fosters affinities and connections across

national boundaries between members of a particular nation or ethnocultural

group. The other factor is extensive news coverage of the various types of linkages

among members of such groups in supporting, among other things, resistance and

liberation movements, rebellions and revolutions, and acts of terrorism. Kay (1998,

31) has suggested that this postulation is rooted more in the public perception, than



in reality. He maintains that regardless of the empirical evidence on this matter,

when some people think of multiculturalism, they generally think of immigrant

groups importing conflicts into Canada. Other analysts have added that the percep-

tion of imported conflict is fostered not only by peoples preconceptions of the

effects of multiculturalism policies, but also by the goals and rationales of govern-

ment policies produced in response to problematical situations, such as those

enacted for security purposes in the wake of 9/11 (Kruger and Korenic 2004, 72-78).

This last point is an important reminder regarding the need to take careful stock in

selecting policy responses to problematical situations.

Postulation 8: Multiculturalism creates conflicts within ethno-cultural groupsThe eighth postulation is that multiculturalism creates conflicts within ethno-cul-

tural groups. At the core of this postulation is the notion that ethnic groups are not

as homogenous and essentialized as the multiculturalism paradigm suggests. There

are differences of values and preferences within groups on an array of matters, and

conflicts are particularly acute when there are fundamental differences in cultural

and religious values between what are commonly referred to as the orthodox fun-

damentalists and the modernists. In addition to creating intra-group problems,

such differences could potentially result in the establishment and operation of intra-

group tyrannies that impose particularistic normative frameworks that conflict with

the norms and values of the national civic culture. To ensure that this does not hap-

pen, such critics argue that it is imperative for the state to set limits to such particu-

laristic normative frameworks that not only run counter to the norms of the

national civic culture, but actually harm others either within or outside the ethno-

cultural group. Cohen-Almagor, for example, asks what the limits should be in the

face of increased cultural fragmentation in tolerating individuals and groups who

are importing norms and practices that run counter to those espoused by the major-

ity in host countries such as Canada. He argues that some things lie beyond the lim-

its of toleration of liberal democracies and that democracy cannot endure norms

that deny respect to people and that are designed to harm others, although they

might be dictated by some cultures. He asserts that the reason for this is that the

right of a group against its own members is not absolute (2001, 83). For this reason,

and to prevent the likelihood of coercion and abuse, he argues that it is important

that liberal democracies such as Canada set limits to multiculturalism that result in

the stretching of accepted norms and practices (90). Those who share this view tend

to emphasize the importance of either or both a greater commitment to the appre-

ciation and application of a rule of law that applies to all groups and individuals

regardless of their ethnocultural or religious background and the adoption of and

conformity to the values of a national civic culture.


| 151Joseph Garcea

Postulation 9: Multiculturalism fosters competition and inequality betweengroupsThe ninth postulation is that multiculturalism fosters competition and inequality

between ethnocultural groups as well as within ethnocultural groups. Paquet (1988,

11) expresses concern regarding the potential dangers of multiculturalism in fostering

inequality of ethnocultural groups, and cautions that the idea that each ethnocultural

group can be different but equal is an illusion because, ultimately, an ethnic hierarchy

will emerge. Some have suggested that this inequality results from the political dynam-

ics between the relationships of the leadership of ethnocultural groups and some polit-

ical parties whereby the former seek political status and financial resources to advance

the groups and personal interests and the latter seek various forms of support to win

elections (Brimelow 1986, 142-143; Gairdner 1990, 392-396). In a similar vein,

Ogmundson (1992, 52) suggests that eventually multiculturalism will have dire conse-

quences for Canada because it fosters group competition and after some period of

struggle a very clear group hierarchy will emerge and thereafter life chances will

again be a direct consequence of ethnic background. Moreover, he disputes the claim

that multiculturalism is needed to combat ethnic stratification because, in his words,

Serious and competent work has shown that ethnic stratification is minimal (ethnic-

ity explains only two percent of the variance in socio-economic status), is declining,

and looks good in an international perspective (50).

Postulation 10: Multiculturalism hinders the mobilization of activism forprogressive policies in achieving an equitable distribution of economic andsocial benefitsThe tenth postulation, and closely related to the ninth, is that multiculturalism hin-

ders the mobilization of activism for progressive policies in achieving an equitable

distribution of economic and social benefits. Multiculturalism is viewed as reac-

tionary and anti-egalitarian because it tends to preserve an existing hierarchically

ordered socio-economic class structure that favours some ethnocultural groups over

others (Bannerji 2000). A related critique of this feature of multiculturalism policy

is that it offers members of ethnocultural groups an illusion of cultural freedom,

while denying them any real power (Peter 1981, 8) within the political and eco-

nomic systems.

Porter articulates this notion in his discussion of the perpetuation of the verti-

cal mosaic in Canada. He argues that the vertical mosaic is perpetuated not only

because within the Canadian polity some groups are privileged over others, but also

because segregation within Canadas polyethnic society perpetuates certain occupa-

tional choices among members of various ethnocultural groups. The reason for this,

according to Porter, is that when ethnic groups are closely knit, as they are in



Canada, certain occupational choices are encouraged while others are discouraged.

In effect, he is arguing that tightly knit ethnocultural geographic enclaves create eth-

nocultural occupational enclaves. This type of occupational enclaving or clustering,

he argues, contributes to the difficulties faced by members of some ethnic groups to

move from a lower into a higher socio-economic class (1965, 558).

Similarly, Mazurek (1992, 21) suggests that multiculturalism policy does not

contribute to progressive politics and policy largely because not all of the original

goals of that policy were being pursued to the same extent. He argues that rather

than focusing on improving the material well-being of members of multicultural

groups, too much attention and too many resources were devoted to facilitating the

nurturing, perpetuation, and social acceptance of diverse cultures.

One critic of Canadian multiculturalism philosophy and policy argues that

multiculturalism is anti-egalitarian in the economic domain because the politics of

multiculturalism undermines the politics of redistribution (Barry 2001, 8, 11-12,

317). He believes that the tendency of the politics of multiculturalism to produce

particularistic policies aimed at ethnocultural groups, rather than the population as

a whole, is especially problematic.

A similar critique regarding the adverse effects of at least one facet of multicul-

turalism policy on equity in the context of the arts sector is articulated by Li. He

notes that funding for the arts in Canada consists of a dual systemone for [the]

formal legitimized high-status art world of mainly white Canadians, and the second

is a marginal, folkloric, and low-status multicultural circle reserved for immigrants

and made up largely of visible minorities (1994, 366). The central theme of his cri-

tique is that the Canadian state, through its role as a sponsor and patron of [the]

arts and minority cultures, creates the unequal infrastructural conditions which are

conducive in developing two types of arts and culture. In this sense, dominant arts

and subordinate minority cultures are at least partly perpetuated by state interven-

tion (366-367).

ANALYSIS OF THE POSTULATIONS

The ten postulations highlighted in the previous section regarding the fragmentary

effects of multiculturalism and the literature devoted to them have some notable fea-

tures that are noteworthy for the purpose of advancing both the analyses of and dis-

courses on multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy in Canada.

First, the postulations identified in this paper can be grouped, albeit somewhat

roughly, into the following four general themes:

multiculturalism segregates the population in Canada (postulations 1, 2,

and 3)


| 153Joseph Garcea

multiculturalism is problematical for the Canadian, Quebecois, and

Aboriginal cultures, identities, and nationalism projects (postulations 3, 4,

5, and 6)

multiculturalism perpetuates conflicts between and within groups (postu-

lations 7 and 8)

multiculturalism hinders equity and equality in society and the economy

(postulations 9 and 10)

Second, generally the postulations are presented as propositions that have been

proved, rather than what they arepropositions that have not been proved, but

which postulators believe are self-evident. There is a tendency for the postulators to

comment on the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and pub-

lic policy more on the basis of what they believe, rather than on the basis of facts pro-

duced by any systematic research and analysis. Moreover, generally, the postulators do

not concede that producing facts either on the fragmentary or unifying effects of

multiculturalism is very difficult, if not impossible, due to the challenges of establish-

ing clear causal relationships and producing reliable measurements. This situation is

not unique to multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy; most, if not all,

other public philosophies and public policies are confronted with similar challenges

in generating facts regarding causes and effects. This is an important point that

should not be lost on any of the protagonists involved in debates regarding causes and

effects either in the multiculturalism sector or in any other policy sector.

Third, the postulations are generally based on an inadequate distinction

between multiculturalism public philosophy and multiculturalism public policy.

The postulators tend to comment on the problems of multiculturalism without

explicitly specifying either whether it is the public philosophy or the public policy

that is problematical, or which particular facets of either of those is problematical.

Fourth, the postulations are generally based on an inadequate acknowledgement

that either the public philosophy or the public policy of multiculturalism and the

fragmentation problems attributed to them evolve over time. Instead, the postulators

tend to discuss the philosophy, policy, and problems as if they are all immutable phe-

nomena. This tendency may be explained, in part, by the fact that most postulators

focus on those matters as they are at the time they are writing, and do not take a

broader historical perspective in their respective analyses and commentaries.

Fifth, the postulations are not very precise regarding the magnitude of the frag-

mentation that is attributed to multiculturalism public philosophy or public policy

in the social, political, and economic spheres. Instead, the discussion usually entails

some inference that either there is an incremental movement toward a critical frag-

mentation threshold or that the threshold has already been reached or surpassed.

Sixth, the postulations are based largely on Canadas national multiculturalism



public philosophy and public policy, and generally devote almost no attention to

provincial and municipal multiculturalism philosophies and policies of varying

scope and importance (Garcea 2006; Poirier 2004). There tends to be a conflation of

national, provincial and even existing and emerging municipal multiculturalism

philosophies and policies, all of which are treated as a single undifferentiated whole.

The only exception to this is the attention given to Quebecs interculturalism public

philosophy and public policy.

Seventh, the postulations are potentially problematical. The reason for this is

that, ironically perhaps, the postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multi-

culturalism philosophy and public policy generate debates that are potentially frag-

mentary in their own right. This is particularly true when the debates become highly

rancorous and confrontational (Burnet 1979). In some instances, such debates emerge

not only because of fundamental differences between the protagonists regarding the

value of multiculturalism philosophy or public policy, but also because of the concep-

tual ambiguity that surrounds both multiculturalism philosophy and public policy

(Abu-Laban and Stasiulis 1992; Li 1999; Padolsky 2000; Stoffman 2002 and 2004).

Evidence of such debates is found in the views expressed by one analyst who suggests

that multiculturalism both at the societal and policy levels in Canada is an illusion. At

the societal level he asserts that, although Canada is culturally diverse, it is not truly

multicultural because there is a dominant or hegemonic culture. Canadas multicul-

turalism policy is not highly cosmopolitan and accepting of diversity because people

who exercise some of their cultural values or traditions are likely to find themselves

arrested for doing so (Stoffman 2002; Stoffman 2004). The ambiguity surrounding

multiculturalism is also articulated by another analyst who notes that the dis-

agreements over multiculturalism policy do not necessarily represent divergent opin-

ions on a universally accepted version of multiculturalism since such a version does

not exist; rather, they often indicate different emphases attributed to multicultural-

ism (Li 1999, 148). He adds that the multiculturalism debate can never be resolved

as long as the content and meaning of multiculturalism are left ambiguous to suit the

interest of individuals and social groups in Canada (ibid.). While there is some merit

to this suggestion, the notion that the phenomenon of institutionalized ambivalence

(Tuohy 1992) accounts for some of the unity and harmony in the Canadian polity

would suggest that it is the search for clarity at the policy, statutory, and constitutional

levels that should be pursued judiciously by policy makers.

Eighth, the postulations are rooted in three major perspectives regarding alter-

native policy options, namely the anti-multiculturalism perspective, the laissez-faire

multiculturalism perspective, and the reformist multiculturalism perspective. These

perspectives differ either on the value of the multiculturalism public philosophy

and public policy or on the potentially fruitful directions for reform to them. They


| 155Joseph Garcea

provide alternative policy directions that may be placed on a continuum consisting

of radical departures from the current paradigm at one end and minor adjustments

at the other end.

The anti-multiculturalism perspective is articulated by analysts who are

opposed to multiculturalism both as a philosophy and as a public policy (e.g., Porter

1965, Bibby 1990, Barry 2001). There are at least two sub-categories of the anti-mul-

ticulturalism perspectiveone that advocates monoculturalism over multicultural-

ism (e.g., Bibby 1990; Bissoondath 1994; Esses and Gardner 1996; Gwyn 1996;

Granatstein 1998; Kay 1998), and another that advocates interculturalism over mul-

ticulturalism (e.g., Breton 1986; Hutcheon 1994; Gagnon 2000; Gagnon and Iacovino

2002). The fundamental difference between the monoculturalism perspective and

the interculturalism perspective is that, unlike the former, the latter is open to diver-

sity management initiatives driven by state or societal actors designed to recognize

and reconcile cultural diversity within the polity. In some instances, however, it is

difficult to distinguish between the monoculturalism and interculturalism perspec-

tives. This is particularly true when the latter assumes a form that privileges a par-

ticular culture based on language, social norms, religious norms, or nationhood

within the context of diversity management.

The laissez-faire multiculturalism perspective is articulated by those who sup-

port multiculturalism as a philosophy, but oppose state intervention in both the

construction and propagation of multiculturalism philosophy and public policy

(e.g., Day 2000; Ogmundson 1992). Those who espouse this perspective believe that

the state should not engage either in articulating a vision of cultural co-existence or

in managing diversity. Instead, the state should leave it to societal forces and dynam-

ics to construct and reconstruct cultural identities.

The reform multiculturalism perspective is articulated by those who support

multiculturalism both as a public philosophy and as a public policy, but are critical

of some aspect(s) of the precise substantive content of either the philosophy or the

public policy (e.g., Li 1994; Li 2003; Cohen-Almagor 2001; Howard-Hassmann

1999; Sugurasiri 1999; Mirchandani and Tastsoglou 2000). They believe that more

could and should be done to improve the multiculturalism public philosophy and/or

the multiculturalism public policy for the purpose of better managing diversity to

minimize or eliminate fragmentation.

POLICY DIRECTIONS IN LIGHT OF POSTULATIONS

The postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism should not

be dismissed as insignificant. The reason for this is that many of them have consid-

erable support among intellectuals and members of the general public, and are likely



to continue to have in the near future. Regardless of their validity, they tend to be

quite significant in providing critiques of multiculturalism public philosophy and

public policy. For this reason policy makers engaged in managing diversity should be

cognizant of those postulations, along with those related to other multiculturalism

dialectics (Fleras and Elliott 2002, 108), and they should be prepared to address them

both whenever there is any discussion of multiculturalism public philosophy or

public policy and also in undertaking any policy analysis and reform initiatives in

managing diversity.

The postulations should be assessed to determine which of them point to real

problems and which of them point to perceived problems both in relation to the

multiculturalism philosophy and the multiculturalism policy. The aphorism that

perception is reality serves as a reminder not only that differentiating between

these two types of problems is by no means easy, but, more important, that perceived

problems may be as significant as, and possibly even more significant than, real

problems.

Furthermore, in identifying real and perceived problems, special attention

should be devoted both to the symbolic and the substantive dimensions of multicul-

turalism philosophy and policy. The reason for this is that both dimensions are

important, especially given that, as Breton (1986, 27) noted in his analysis of the

relationship between multiculturalism and nation-building, people have symbolic as

well as material interests. Thus, the symbolic dimensions of multiculturalism philos-

ophy and policy may be as important as, if not more important than, the substan-

tive dimensions.

After differentiating between real and perceived problems at the substantive and

symbolic levels, policy makers should assess the relative tractability of the various

problems associated with existing multiculturalism philosophy and policy to deter-

mine, among other things, the proper sequence in which to tackle them, the nature

and scope of the initiatives that will be required to deal with them, and, insofar as

possible, the positive and negative effects, if any, that those changes might have. In

identifying and implementing any such initiatives, policy makers should consider

very carefully the current and potential roles and responsibilities of key actors in the

governmental, non-governmental, educational, research, and media sectors.

Regardless of precisely what they focus on and what they do when dealing with

various symbolic or substantive aspects of multiculturalism philosophy and policy,

policy makers should ensure that neither the efficacy nor the morality of the

Canadian management of diversity is adversely affected. It may well be that greater

efficacy and morality in diversity management is to be found either in a modified or

reformed version of the current multicultural paradigm or hybridized multicultur-

alism/interculturalism paradigm that has emerged at the national level during the


| 157Joseph Garcea

past two decades, or in a substantially different paradigm. However, that is a matter

that should be the subjected to very careful analysis before any radical changes are

made to the status quo.

Given that Canada is a liberal democracy that ostensibly is committed to

respecting and protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, it must operate

within the parameters of the multiculturalism and interculturalism paradigms

because they embody the values of that particular aspect of liberal democracy (Kay

1998, 33). Thus, so long as Canada wishes to remain a liberal democracy, the critical

question is not whether Canada should or should not operate according to either the

multiculturalism or the interculturalism paradigm. Instead, the critical question is

according to what particular configuration of either of these two paradigms, or some

hybrid version of the two, it should operate.

In answering that question, the differences between the multiculturalism and

interculturalism paradigms should not be overestimated. The two public philoso-

phies, which invariably are not conceptualized in a very precise manner, have much

more in common than is generally acknowledged. The explicit or implied distinc-

tion commonly made between multiculturalism and interculturalism to the effect

that the former is somehow more segregationist and the latter is more integrationist

is highly questionable. This is especially true in the Canadian context where the gen-

eral consensus is that an integrationist modus vivendi is more desirable than a seg-

regationist modus vivendi. The prevailing Canadian political culture is much more

favourably predisposed to building bridges than to building walls. The most impor-

tant policy task is to ensure that this virtuous aspect of Canadian political culture is

perpetuated.

NOTES

1. The concept of multiculturalism public philosophy is influenced by Manzers (1985, 13) conceptualization ofpublic philosophy.

2. What is referred to as multicultural public philosophy in this article is generally referred to as ideology(Moodley 1983), and what is referred to as multiculturalism public policy in this article is commonly referred to as offi-cial multicultural policy.

3. For the intents and purposes of this article, a postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but con-sidered to be self-evident, and a postulator is someone who articulates such a proposition as the basis of an argument.

WORKS CITED

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. 1994. The Politics of Race and Ethnicity: Multiculturalism as a Contested Arena. InCanadian Politics: An Introduction to the Discipline, ed. James P. Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon, 242-263. Scarborough: Broadview Press.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Daiva Stasiulis. 1992. Ethnic Pluralism under Siege: Popular and PartisanOpposition to Multiculturalism. Canadian Public Policy 18.4: 365-387.



Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism, and Gender.Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bibby, Reginald W. 1990. Mosaic Madness: The Poverty and Potential of Life in Canada. Toronto: Stoddart.Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin Books.Breton, E. 2000. Canadian Federalism, Multiculturalism, and the Twenty-First Century. International

Review of Canadian Studies 21: 155-175.Breton, R. 1986. Multiculturalism and Canadian Nation-Building. In The Politics of Gender, Ethnicity, and

Language in Canada, ed. A. Cairns and C. Williams, 27-66. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Brimelow, Peter. 1988. The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited. Stanford: Hoover

Institution Press.Brotz, Howard. 1980. Multiculturalism Policy in Canada: A Muddle. Canadian Public Policy 6.1: 41-46.Burnet, Jean. 1979. Myths and Multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Education 4.4: 43-58.Cohen-Almagor, R. 2001. Liberalism and the Limits of Multiculturalism. Journal of Canadian Studies 36.1:

80-93.Day, Richard J. F. 2000. Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.Esses, V. M., and R. C. Gardner. 1996. Multiculturalism in Canada: Context and Current Status. Canadian

Journal of Behavioural Science 28.3: 145-152.Field, Dick. 2003. Multiculturalism Undermines Values Held by Canadians. In A Country Nourished on

Self-Doubt: Documents in Post-Confederation Canadian History, 2nd ed., Thomas Thorner and ThorFrohn-Nielsen, 397. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada.Scarborough: Nelson.

Gagnon, Alain-G. 2000. Unity and Diversity in Canada Under Trudeau and Chrtien. In Democracyand Cultural Diversity, ed. Dennis Austin and Michael ONeill, 12-26. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gagnon, A-G., and R. Iacovino. 2002. Framing Citizenship Status in an Age of Polyethnicity: QuebecsModel of Interculturalism. In Canada: The State of the Federation 2001, Canadian Political Cultures inTransition, ed. H. Telford and H. Lazar, 313-342. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Gairdner, William. 1990. The Trouble with Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out. Toronto: Stoddart.Garcea, Joseph. 2006. Provincial Multiculturalism Policies in Canada, 1974-2004: A Content Analysis.

Canadian Ethnic Studies 38.3: 1-20.Granatstein, J. L. 1998. Who Killed Canadian History? Toronto: Harper Collins.Gregg, A. 2006. Identity Crisis: Is Canadian Multiculturalism Dangerously Outdated? The Walrus 3.2: 38-47.Gwyn, Richard. 1996. Nationalism without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian. Toronto:

McClelland and Stewart.Howard-Hassman, Rhoda E. 1999. Canadian as an Ethnic Category: Implications for Multiculturalism

and National Unity. Canadian Public Policy 25.4: 523-537. Hutcheon, Pat D. 1994. Is There a Dark Side to Multiculturalism? Humanist in Canada, summer: 26-29.James, C. E. 1996. Race, Culture, and Identity. In Perspectives on Racism and Human Services Sector: A Case

of Change, ed. C. E. James, 15-55. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.James, C. E., and A. Shadd, eds. 2001. Talking about Identity: Encounters in Race, Ethnicity, and Language.

Toronto: Between the Lines. Kay, Jonathan. 1998. Explaining the Modern Backlash against Multiculturalism. Policy Options 19: 30-34.Kallen, E. 1982. Multiculturalism, Ideology, Policy, and Reality. Journal of Canadian Studies 17.1:51-63.Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford

University Press.Kruger, E., M. Mulder, and B. Korenic. 2004. Canada after 11 September: Security Measures and

Preferred Immigrants. Mediterranean Quarterly 15.4: 72-87.Li, Peter S. 2003. Deconstructing Canadas Discourse of Immigrant Integration. Journal of International

Migration and Immigration 4.3: 315-333.


| 159Joseph Garcea

. 1999. The Multiculturalism Debate. In Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, 2nd ed., ed. Peter S.Li. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

. 1994. A World Apart: The Multicultural World of Visible Minorities and the Art World ofCanada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 31.4: 365-391.

Manzer, Ronald. 1985. Public Policies and Political Development in Canada. Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

Mazurek, Kas. 1992. Defusing a Radical Social Policy: The Undermining of Multiculturalism. In TwentyYears of Multiculturalism: Successes and Failures, ed. Stella Hryniuk, 17-28. Winnipeg: St. JohnsCollege Press.

McRoberts, Kenneth. 2003. Conceiving Diversity: Dualism, Multiculturalism, and Multinationalism. InNew Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., ed. Francois Rocher and Miriam Smith, 85-110.Peterborough: Broadview Press.

. 1997. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Mirchandani, Kiran, and Tastsoglou, Evangelia. 2000. Towards a Diversity Beyond Tolerance. Studies in

Political Economy 61: 49-78.Moodley, Kogila. 1983. Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology. Ethnic and Racial Studies 6.3: 320-332.Ogmundson, Richard. 1992. On the Right to be Canadian. In Twenty Years of Multiculturalism: Successes

and Failures, ed. Stella Hryniuk, 45-58. Winnipeg: St. Johns College Press.Padolsky, Evan. 2000. Multiculturalism at the Millennium. In Journal of Canadian Studies 35.4: 138-260.Paquet, Gilles. 1988. Multiculturalism as National Policy. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Peter, Karl. 1981. The Myth of Multiculturalism and Other Political Fables. In Ethnicity, Power, and Politics

in Canada, ed. J. Dahlie and T. Fernando, 56-67, Toronto: Methuen. Poirier, Christian. 2004. Diversity Management in Canadian Cities: The Dynamics and Issues of the

Representation of Ethnic Interests. In Rendez-Vous Immigration 2004, ed. Helene Destrempes and JoeRuggeri, 541-554. Moncton: Policy Studies Centre and Atlantic Metropolis Centre.

Porter, John. 1965. The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Roy, Patricia E. 1995. The Fifth Force: Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science 538.1: 199-209.

Saul, Roger. 2005. Multiculturalism: A Discourse of Contradictions. In Possibilities and Limitations:Multicultural Policies and Programs in Canada, ed. Carl James. Halifax: Fernwood.

Stoffman, Daniel. 2002. Who Gets In: Whats Wrong with Canadas Immigration Policy, and How to Fix it.Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter, and Ross.

Stoffman, Daniel. 2004. The Illusion of Multiculturalism. In Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada:An Introductory Reader, ed. Elspeth Cameron, 217-242. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

Sugunasiri, Suwanda. 1999. How to Kick Multiculturalism in Its Teeth: Towards a Better Tomorrow withCritical Compassion. Toronto: Village Publishing House.

Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tuohy, Carolyn. 1992. Policy and Politics in Canada: Institutionalized Ambivalence. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Wilson, V. Seymour. 1993. The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism. Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science 26.4: 645-669.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express his appreciation to Dr. Anna Kirova and Dr. Lloyd Wong, as well as to his research assis-tants for their respective contribution in the preparation of this article. This article was produced with research assis-tance funded by Canadian Heritage and the Prairie Metropolis Centre.


JOSEPH GARCEA is an associate professor in the department of Political Studies atthe University of Saskatchewan. His research and publications focus on immigra-

tion, citizenship, diversity management, and multilevel governance.



Date post:	25-Sep-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	coltonmckee
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times