GEOG 346: DAY 22
Multiculturalism and Citizen
Participation
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
 I will hand back the field trip assignments.
 The headline for the case study has been shifted to
Thursday, April 2nd.
 So far, the following people have signed up to present next
week: for Tuesday, Kala, Sarah, and Aaron; and for Thursday,
Ryan, Gerald, Linda, and Ed. Need some more!
 Today, in addition to offer some background on
multiculturalism and citizen participation (see also the
reading by Uyesugi and Shipley), I want to show a short
video called “Where Strangers Become Friends” about the
Collingwood Neighbourhood House in Vancouver.
MULTICULTURALISM
 Trudeau introduced the policy of “multiculturalism” in Canada in
the 1970s and 80s. It was institutionalized in the Multiculturalism Act
and in Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1991, the Broadcasting Act asserted that “ the Canadian
broadcasting system should reflect the diversity of cultures in the
country.” (Wikipedia).
 Multiculturalism has often been contrasted with the assimilationist
and segregationist policies found in other countries. ‘Salad bowl’ vs.
‘melting pot.’
 In 2002, Karīm al-Hussainī, the 49th Aga Khan of the Ismaili
Muslims, described Canada as "the most successful pluralist
society on the face of our globe,“ citing it as "a model for the
world.” In light of recent events, this is now questionable.
MULTICULTURALISM
 In the U.S., where the ‘melting pot’ was dominant for many
decades, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) constituted a
privileged stratum and were seen as the desirable norm. In the
period from 1930 to 1980, I would estimate that two-thirds to
three-quarters of all entertainers in the U.S. anglicized their
names to better ‘fit in’, as did many other people.
 In Canada, there is a whole history of Chinese and South Asian
people not being allowed to emigrate in, or only being able to
do so if they paid an outrageous “head tax.” They also were not
allowed to vote, despite being allowed to join the army.
Japanese (including domestic-born citizens like David Suzuki)
were interned in concentration camps during the war and had
all their property forfeited.
THEN AND NOW
MAJOR DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
 As Uyesugi and Shipley note, in 1971, 74% of residents in Vancouver
spoke English as their mother tongue. By 2001, this had dropped to
just over 50%, and is undoubtedly lower now. In Richmond, probably
more than 50% speak some version of Chinese as their mother
language. And there are also large numbers of Punjabi speakers, and
speakers of Tagalog, Vietnamese, and various European languages.
 This has necessitated a change in how planners and city bureaucracies
reach out to populations. The least measure was to issue notices in a
variety of languages and to publish notices in a variety of “ethnic”
publications.
 The City also in the ‘90s and early 2000s initiated an innovative City
Plan planning process that allowed real input to people of all
nationalities into how their neighbourhoods could evolve.
MULTICULTURAL AND DEMOCRATIC PLANNING
Community Visioning Process in Vancouver
VANCOUVER’S NEIGHBOURHOODS
MULTICULTURAL AND DEMOCRATIC PLANNING
 CityPlan involved hiring ethnocultural workers to translate
materials and conduct outreach, speaking to people in their
own language.
 Participation by ‘ethnic groups’ was relatively high, and there
were no major issues of contention, though differences in
certain priorities.
MULTICULTURAL AND DEMOCRATIC PLANNING
 As the authors note, “Among some groups, the influence
of culture was distinguished through various preferences
regarding density (Chinese-Canadians were more likely
to favour high density), the need for gardens and
landscaping (Caucasians highly favoured this), and
residential living arrangements (Indo-Canadians tended
to live with multi-generational families).”
 To be successful it is essential that policies and plans be
implemented swiftly after the conclusion of the process.
Otherwise there is a danger that cynicism will set in.
MULTICULTURAL AND DEMOCRATIC PLANNING
 There are many different techniques for involving
citizens:
 Charettes
 Community mapping
 Participatory budgeting (Porto Alegre, Brazil)
 Citizen participation in neighbourhood decision-making
 REAL planning (Great Britain) – model-building and
value-framing
 Clarifying valued assets and scenario-building (Utah),
and many other cited in Nick Wates book, Community
Planning Handbook.
MULTICULTURAL STRESS POINTS
 Many older, well-do whites prided themselves on the heritage homes
and traditional streetscapes in their neighbourhoods. But some of these
homes started to be torn down to accommodate immigrants, who were
often ‘sold a bill of goods’ as to what a desirable prestige house was, and
this caused tension with their neighbourhoods.