1. GEOG 346: DAY 22 Multiculturalism and Citizen Participation

2. HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS  I will hand back the field trip assignments.  The headline for the case study has been shifted to Thursday, April 2 nd.  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.

3. 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, Kar ī m al-Hussain ī, the 49 th 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.

4. 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.

5. THEN AND NOW

6. 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.

7. MULTICULTURAL AND DEMOCRATIC PLANNING Community Visioning Process in Vancouver

8. VANCOUVER’S NEIGHBOURHOODS

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.