As humans, we all have “gaps” in our knowledge despite the fact that we are currently inhabiting what many call the “Information Age.” We may feel both saturated with and even overwhelmed by the amount of “information” available to us and directed at us through a range of media such as television, books, advertisements, news outlets, websites, and increasingly, social media. That is not to say that all content is factual. Galileo Educational Network explains how, “[i]n a world currently serving up fake news and post-truths, it’s easier than ever to consume falsehoods and spout them as fact” (Retrieved 2/15/21). On another level, the presentation of information itself (the production and reproduction of knowledge) can be deeply embedded in broad and far-reaching systemic processes and relations of power : Whose perspective is told? To whom? How? To what effects and in whose interests? Whose perspective is not told? Why not? These kinds of critical questions are fundamental to anti-oppression work; they help us to see how certain assumptions/beliefs/values are produced over and over until they become “normalized,” “dominant,” or even “obvious,” even if they are based on inaccurate, or partial information.
As Canadians, when we consider where we might have learned about a particular historic event and its impact on the present, we might think back to our education system, Social Studies class, or the formal teaching of “history.” However, our understandings of “history,” “Canada,” and even our relationships to each other are influenced by other sources as well. Our understandings are shaped by what is said and/or represented as well as by what is not said or represented. For example, we see this in new outlets (CBC vs. Fox), our political system and practices, entertainment (music, film), literature, and sporting events. We need to be attentive to how discourses of citizenship and national identity are produced and reproduced in ways that make certain assumptions and power relations appear “normal” to those who they privilege—and in turn, whose privilege is reproduced and re-entrenched. In Canada, there are certain narratives or assumptions about national identity that are at once compelling, popular, idealized, and reproduced both internationally and in our education systems, and yet, inaccurate.
In his book Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Benedict Anderson influentially describes nations as “imagined communities,” arguing that nothing really connects people within a state border except for the self-perpetuating idea that they form a community, a nation. A shared idea about being connected through a particular “narrative” is what defines a nation according to Anderson. In Canada, we have a number of these narratives that privilege certain stories and suppress others. Some common themes in dominant Canadian nationalism include anti-Americanism, where it is common to hear statements such as “Canada is different from the US because we never had slavery.” In reality, Canada also participated in the slave trade, however, due to physical geography, slaves were less prominent in New France (former Canada); Click here to learn about Marcel Trudel’s book Canada’s Forgotten Slaves: Two Centuries of Bondage .
There are also narratives of Canada being distinctive and superior due to our high level of ” tolerance of difference.” This notion of tolerance, however, focuses only on some advancements in human rights. For instance, we focus on how a Canadian helped create the League of Nations and the UN, yet, continuously ignore the ongoing colonization of Indigenous peoples, the systemic racism inherent in the immigration system, anti-immigration sentiment, and the ready acceptance of racial profiling etc. The word “tolerance” itself is profoundly problematic as “to tolerate” means “to put up with.” Instead, words such as “acceptance” should be used, as this is the “[a]ffirmation and recognition of those whose race, religion, nationality, values, beliefs, etc. are different from one’s own.” (CRRF Retrieved 08/14/24). One way to think about this problem of intolerance of difference is to think about how Canadian national identity rests on a certain kind of historical amnesia which focuses on, or remembers, certain aspects of Canadian history but (conveniently for some) overlooks others. Even the notion that there is no such thing as “Canadian Identity” is a convenient myth that overlooks Canada’s implication in imperialism and racism and fails to recognize that dominant Canadian nationalism is grounded in whiteness (and its sense of superiority and proprietorship over people and place) imperialism, and capitalism.
Click here to learn more about historical amnesia and Lisa Lowe’s book The Intimacies of Four Continents; See our definition of Multiculturalism
We all have gaps in our knowledge. To assume that it is possible to be all-knowing is a rather suspect idea. Yet, each of us have particular experiences, perspectives, and relationships to place and history that can contribute to a fuller and more equitable understanding of Canada and its history. Challenging racism in terms of deconstructing inaccurate perspectives on Canadian history and national identity certainly requires accurate information. It also invites us to critically question how and why certain stories we tell ourselves and others about Canada hold sway and why other stories (especially those that counter the dominant image) are not told, not heard, or presented as an “aberration” in what is otherwise an idealized story. Our Learning Actions are designed to support these processes, encouraging participants to identify and come to terms with the implications of knowledge gaps.
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
(403) 220-2505
aclrc@ucalgary.ca