What is white multiculturalism?
Hi, my name is Bˆrbara Molas, PhD candidate in History at York University, in Toronto, and Head of Doctoral Fellows at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.
In this episode of Right Rising, I will explain what I have defined as Ôwhite multiculturalismÕ. Building upon my doctoral dissertation, I will explore the origins and impact of far-right understandings of diversity and ethnic cooperation in Canada. In particular, I will introduce the thought of Ukrainian Canadian Walter Bossy, who immigrated to Canada in the 1920s and promoted the establishment of a white and Christian Canada until the 1960s.
*
A fervent anti-communist and a devout Catholic, Walter Bossy was born in the Ukraine in the late nineteenth century and moved to Canada in 1924. In the early 1930s, he moved to Montreal, one of the most multicultural cities in North America at the time. There, he realized that what he called New Canadians were constantly being discriminated against, as they were not considered to be part of the Canadian nation. That nation was traditionally understood as being only composed by the two founding nations, that is by those of British or French descent. In 1934, Bossy published a pamphlet that demanded the socio-political reorganization of Canada in a way that acknowledged and incorporated the New Canadians into the national fact. The New Canadians were Ð he said Ð more than their hyphens. They deserved to be considered and treated like simply Canadians.
But this pamphlet did more than propose the recognition of New Canadians. It also defined who these New Canadians were, and who they werenÕt. Specifically, it argued that the New Canadians were only those of European descent who shared Christian values. Canadians of African, Asian and Jewish descent, he said, were too particular to be considered for this new nation-building project. The real Canada, as he called it, was composed by the two founding nations and by the New Canadians. In other words, it was formed by white Christians only.
Bossy further promoted the idea that Canada must ultimately be one nation, and that only the gradual amalgamation or mixing of different ethnicities would bring the unity and greatness that Canada so badly needed. So, at first, it appeared as if Bossy was using multiculturalism precisely for the same reasons that radical-right groups would reject it. He used it in order to eventually replace rather than reinforce monoculturalism; and to encourage ethnic or nationalist self-transcendence to reach greater unity. From this perspective, BossyÕs multiculturalism echo liberal notions of civic nationalism, which focus on universalism and cultural harmony, stressing the unity of all social and ethnic groups born on national territory.
The idea of ethnic mixing in particular is a very uncommon one among right-wing nationalist movements. More often than not, right-wing nationalism is dependent upon a very stable idea of what the community is or should be Ð and the idea of a shared origin is usually at the very core of such ideology. This is why nationalist movements might encourage assimilation or integration, but not usually amalgamation, which might be seen as the beginning of the end of a certain ethnic community and its unique character. Examples of nationalist, radical-right movements that celebrate diversity or a Òmulticulturalism of the rightÓ, focus simply on the idea of Òa hundred flagsÓ or ethnopluralism, which supports a geographically limited diversity Ð that is, never appealing to ethnic intermixing.
BossyÕs proposal for the integration of the New Canadians was generally well received in the 1930s and up to the 1950s. Especially by the Catholic community in Montreal, who saw in BossyÕs endeavour a practical realization of ecumenism and Christian universalism Ð or the Catholic belief that different denominations and cultures should work together for the progress of civilization and world peace.
But BossyÕs proposal was not as inclusive as it might have seemed. We know from BossyÕs private notes and correspondence that his aim was always to only work for the advancement of Canadians of European descent. If he ever mentioned other minorities was only to try and reach a broader audience Ð attempts which didnÕt get him too far.
But difficulties didnÕt arise due to BossyÕs ethnically biased approaches to multiculturalism. Difficulties arose, on the one hand, from the fact that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Canada was heavily dominated by French Canadians, one of the two founding nations, and one who wasnÕt ready to share the special status that put it on equal foot with English Canada. On the other hand, BossyÕs New Canadians were vaguely defined (for example, what about Canadians of mix ethnicity, or Canadians of non-European descent who were Christians?). This made it difficult to both select and mobilize the New Canadians, especially because Canadian ethnic minorities were already strongly organized by their community institutions, who were already working for their advancement in Canada. In addition, it was not a secret that Bossy was friends with Nazi sympathizers in Montreal, like the so-called Canadian FŸhrer Adrien Arcand, which raised further suspicion. And even though Bossy was able to mobilize up to 15,000 New Canadians in several demonstrations throughout the interwar period and in the early postwar period, his project remained mostly marginal.
But why did Bossy wish to establish white multiculturalism in the first place? Why did he undermine his own Ukrainian ethnicity for a greater purpose? This can be further illuminated by looking at the contemporary political landscape and the rise of right-wing populism. Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been leader of the Party for Freedom since he founded it in 2006. His party advocates Dutch nationalism against cultural relativism, demanding the cultural dominance of the Judeo-Christian tradition and patriotism Ð against religious minorities such as the Muslims. However, it is interesting to learn that Wilders is Indisch Dutch or, in other words, of Indonesian and Dutch mix descent. Given the suffering that Indonesians went through at the hands of Dutch colonizers, how do we explain that Wilders stands for a type of right-wing nationalism that stresses Dutch cultural purity, national unity and patriotism? In the answer lies what illuminates BossyÕs own endeavours. According to Dutch cultural anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen, WilderÕs behaviour is based on feelings of displacement. People like him came to experience that Òthey were welcome neither in the Netherlands nor in IndonesiaÓ; they were in-between citizens that struggled to fit in different societies defined by common descent and a shared (ethnic-based) culture. To confront this sense of identity loss and the feeling that he was and always would be a Òsecond rate citizenÓ, Wilders hid his Indisch descent Ð for example, denying his ancestry and dying his hair blond Ð and led a new nationalist movement that redefined Dutch patriotism and created a new Ôcultural enemyÕ Ð the Muslim. Dutch scholar Van Leeuwen argues that WilderÕs nationalism is an Òexpression of a classic loss of identityÓ and the Òpolitics of displacednessÓ, in other words, of a lacking sense of belonging. 
Based on Van LeeuwenÕs approach to ethnic minorities leading radical-right and nationalist movements, BossyÕs ÔmulticulturalismÕ may be interpreted as the result of his own loss of identity. Having lost Ukraine to Communism; having seen his children marrying into other ethnic groups; and having French and English Canadians say that ÔNew CanadiansÕ were no more Canadians than foreigners; must have caused a huge sense of identity loss which helped Bossy to conclude that his new identity resided precisely in that loss. It was in multiculturalism, in the abandonment of clustered ethnic purity, that a new and more complex ethnicity could be forged Ð and BossyÕs sense of identity regained.
So why is this relevant for the study of multiculturalism and the radical right? Through his discourse, Bossy was able to manipulate the meaning of the term ÔNew CanadiansÕ Ð which previously included the whole variety of newcomers Ð and was successful in permeating the local media in Montreal with it. The press and even the radio used the term based on his discourse, and unintentionally disseminated and legitimized the restrictive and racist meanings that Bossy had attached to it. As a consequence, debates in the public sphere on CanadaÕs multiculturalism became transmitters of what Aurelien Mondon and Aaron Winter have described as liberal racism, which are all those seemingly liberal projects which perpetuate nineteenth century understandings of difference.
The terms that give meaning to our ideas of nationhood, community, and belonging have been and are key elements in the formation of our modern states, and historians must make sure that our progressive understanding of these builds upon liberal ideas on difference and ethnic cooperation. If we donÕt question the conceptual foundations and changing meanings of our liberal tenets, we will run the risk of contributing to the institutionalization of racism Ð which is exactly what Bossy wanted.
I hope you enjoyed this episode, and thanks for listening.