ETHNICITY AND RACE

QUESTION: HOW MANY “RACES” DO YOU THINK EXISTED IN CANADA IN 1901? HOW MANY “RACES” EXIST IN CANADA TODAY?

WHAT IS AN ETHNICITY?

1) FROM THE LATIN ETHOS – “MY PEOPLE.”

2) CONSCIOUSNESS OF KIND.

3) COMMON STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE.

4) IN MODERN EVERYDAY USAGE ETHNICITY CONNOTES IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF “CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS.”

ETHNICITY – A COLLECTIVITY OF PEOPLE WITH SHAREED “CULTURAL TRAITS,” INCLUDING LANGUAGE, RELIGION, OR ANCESTRY. CANADA OFFICIALLY SANCTIONS ETHNIC DIVERSITY AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF IDENTITY AND IT IS CELEBRATED THE CANADIAN MOSAIC IN THE FORM OF "MULTICULTURAL POLICY".

WHAT IS A RACE?

1) ORIGIN UNCERTAIN – IN EARLY ITALIAN RAZZA – “BREED, LINEAGE, COMMON DESCENT”

2) A PARTICULAR PEOPLE OR STOCK.

3) CHARACTERIZED BY A COMBINATION OF SHARED PHYSICAL TRAITS WHICH ARE GENETICALLY TRANSMITTED.

4) IN MODERN EVERYDAY USAGE RACE CONNOTES THE IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF “PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.”

RACIAL GROUPS DEFINE THEMSELVES AND/OR ARE DEFINED BY OTHER GROUPS AS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GROUPS BY VIRTUE OF "INNATE AND IMMUTABLE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS". THESE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE IN TURN BELIEVED TO BE INTRINSICALLY RELATED TO MORAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND OTHER NON-PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OR ABILITIES

IN SHORT, RACE REFERS TO A GROUP THAT IS "SOCIALLY" DEFINED BUT ON THE BASIS OF "PHYSICAL" CRITERIA.

DIFFICULTIES ARISE WHEN THINKING IN TERMS OF "RACE". THE USE OF THE TERM IMPLIES THAT RACIAL PURITY EXISTS -- AS IF THERE IS A CLARITY, EXACTNESS TO BIO-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC.

EX: (1) ALTHOUGH WE MAY ASSUME THAT WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF "RACE", BIOLOGY WOULD CONFIRM THAT MOST CANADIANS, LIKE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, ARE GENETICALLY MIXED.

(IN FACT, MOST SCHOLARS ARGUE THERE ARE NO "PURE" RACIAL TYPES (BIOLOGICAL UNITS) IN THIS WORLD.

IN FACT, MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS SUGGEST THAT THE CONCEPT OF "RACE" IS REALLY A MYTH -- (RACE IS REALLY A INVIDIOUS STATUS DISTINCTION).

{SOCIOLOGICAL STIPULATION: BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF IT MAY BE A BIOLOGICAL MYTH — BUT — IT IS A SOCIAL REALITY {IT IS REAL IN ITS CONSEQUENCES}

EX: THE CONCEPT OF RACE IS ONLY IN EXISTENCE BECAUSE OF RACISM -- THE ACQUISITION OF POWER AND STATUS -- "POLITICS OF DOMINANCE AND DOMINATION" -- CREATES "STATUS AND STATUS ANXIETY".

{SOCIOLOGICAL STIPULATION: BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF “RACE” IS (1) SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED AND HAS INTERACTIONAL CONSEQUENCES; AND (2) IT IS TIME AND SPACE CONTINGENT ======> MANY SOCIOLOGISTS THINK IT IS MORE PRECISE TO REFER TO “RACIALIZED INDIVIDUALS”

======> MANY SOCIOLOGISTS PREFER TO USE THE TERM RACIALIZATION AS OPPOSED TO RACE IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT RACIAL CATEGORIES ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS THAT CHANGE IN TIME AND SPACE AND CIRCUMFERENCE }

ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT THINGS FOR STUDENTS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT RACE AND ETHNICITY ARE SOCIAL REALITIES NOT BIOLOGICAL/GENETIC REALITIES == IT IS NOT JUST THAT THEY CHANGE OVER TIME AND SPACE == IT IS THAT PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK AT HOW THEY CHANGE == PEOPLE TEND TO TREAT THEM AS A "THING-IN-ITSELF, NOT AS "A WAY OF ORGANIZING ‘MEANING’ AND ‘STATUS’ IN THE WORLD"

SOCIOLOGICAL UPSHOT: ETHNICITY AND RACE ARE SOCIAL REALITIES THAT GIVE US {OUR}IDENTITY, MEAN AND ATTACHMENTS

RACE IS NOT A “THING IN ITSELF” == BUT RATHER == “A SOCIAL PROCESS” =====> “NOT A PERSON” == BUT RATHER == “A PERSPECTIVE”

IF WE THINK ABOUT “RACIAL AMBIGUITY” IN OUR MIXED-GENETIC LIVES IT IS MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND HOW ETHNO-RACIAL CATEGORIES ARE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

EX: TIGER WOODS - MOTHER IS ONE-HALF CHINESE AND ONE-HALF THAI, AND HIS FATHER HAD ONE WHITE, ONE NATIVE, AND TWO BLACK GRANDPARENTS. (WHAT IS HE? FUZZY ZEOLLER - FRIED CHICKEN AND COLLAR GREENS).

******WHILE RACE IS TREATED AS A “REAL THING” IN EVERYDAY LIFE – IN ACTUALITY RACE IS A PROCESS OF RACIALIZATION ======> REFERS TO THE ASSIGNING OF RACIAL CONNOTATIONS {LABELS & STIGMAS} TO THE ACTIVITIES OF MINORITY PEOPLE.

TO SEE RACE IS ENGAGE IN A THOUGHT PROCESS WHICH BIOLOGIZE PEOPLE BY ATTACHING STATUS TO THE PHYSICAL.

PEOPLE ARE THE SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS OF "RACIALIZED FORMATIONS" -- MEANING -- PEOPLE DO NOT SEE "RACE"; RATHER THEY OBSERVE CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF REAL AND SOMETIMES IMAGINED SOMATIC [OF THE BODY] AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT THEY ATTRIBUTE MEANING TO WITH THE IDEA OF "RACE".

A DIFFERENCE IN SKIN COLOUR IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE PROCESS OF "MARKING" HERE -- IT ACTUALLY GOES BEYOND THE BIOLOGICAL

RACE IS A SOCIAL PROCESS OF ATTRIBUTING SUPERIOR- INFERIOR STATUS === THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS OF EXPLOITATION, CONTROL, AND EXCLUSION GROUNDING THE DIFFERENCES OF RACE, AND GIVING RISE TO (THE IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF) "THE RACIALIZED OTHER"

OMI AND WINANT OFFER A “RACIAL FORMATION THEORY” THAT THEY DEFINE AS “THE SOCIOHISTORICAL PROCESS BY WHICH RACIAL CATEGORIES ARE CREATED, INHABITED, TRANSFORMED AND DESTROYED. . . . [IT] IS A PROCESS OF HISTORICALLY SITUATED PROJECTS IN WHICH HUMAN BODIES AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES ARE REPRESENTED AND ORGANIZED.” FURTHER, THEY LINK “RACIAL FORMATION TO THE EVOLUTION OF HEGEMONY, THE WAY IN WHICH SOCIETY IS ORGANIZED AND RULED.” THEIR ANALYSIS SUGGESTS THAT “RACE IS A MATTER OF BOTH SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATION.” [[ MICHAEL OMI AND HOWARD WINANT, “ON THE THEORETICAL CONCEPT OF RACE,” IN RACE , IDENTITY AND REPRESENTATION IN EDUCATION, ED. C. MCCARTHY AND W. CRICHLOW (NEW YORK: ROUTLEDGE, 1993), PP. 3–10.]]

(A) WHEN YOU DEFINE A RACE, YOU DEFINE SOMEONE "BIOLOGICALLY" - WHEN YOU DEFINE A ETHNICITY YOU DEFINE THEM "CULTURALLY."

(B) IN CANADA TODAY, WHAT USED TO BE CALLED RACE IS BEING SUBSUMED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF "ETHNICITY" (I.E., BEING GIVEN A "CULTURAL VOCABULARY" FOR SPEAKING OF PEOPLE).

MANY SOCIOLOGISTS BELIEVE THAT THIS RACIAL CLASSIFICATION WILL EVENTUALLY BE A “PROBLEM” IN OUR SOCIETY — DO YOU KNOW WHY?

HISTORICAL CONCEPTION OF THE WORD RACE

HISTORICALLY THE WORD RACE WAS USED TO DESCRIBE A HUMAN GROUP THAT SHARED CERTAIN CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS LANGUAGE OR RELIGION (E.G., "FRENCH RACE", "JEWISH RACE").

(A) MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT JEWS CONSTITUTE A RACE ALTHOUGH THEIR DISTINCTIVENESS PERTAINS TO CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS, PRIMARILY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS WELL AS A HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.

(B) THE MATTER IS EVEN MORE COMPLEX WHEN WE CONSIDER: THE FALASHA OF ETHIOPIA, BLACK AFRICANS, COMPRISE A SECT OF JUDAISM THAT DATES TO THE FIRST CENTURY B.C.

EX: POLES AND UKRAINIANS (KNOWN AS "GALICIANS", WERE CONSIDER BY IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES AS LOW GRADE BIOLOGICAL SPECIMENS, BUT POSSESSED A NECESSARY "PEASANT QUALITY" USEFUL TO OPENING UP THE WESTERN FRONTIER.

EX: SYRIANS AND ARMENIANS WHERE THOUGHT TO BE "DETRIMENTAL AND BURDENSOME" TO CANADA, AND INCAPABLE OF BEING ASSIMILATED INTO POLITE SOCIETY.

RACIAL CATEGORIES & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

(1) CANADA IN THE PAST:

FOUR RACES=

WHITE

BLACK

RED

YELLOW

2) CANADA IN THE PRESENT:

THREE RACES=

WHITE

BLACK

ASIAN

3) CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY:

FROM THREE TO TWENTY RACES:

CAUCASIOD

NEGROID

MONGOLOID

AUSTRALOID

4) THE AGE OF GLOBLISM (AND WORLD-WIDE CAPITALISM)

IN THE PAST THREE GROUP (KINDS-OF-PEOPLE) GEO-POLITICAL CONFIGURATIONS THAT IMPACT DEFININTIONS:

FIRST WORLD - [NATO ALLIES -WESTERN SOCIETIES]

SECOND WORLD - [RUSSIA AND EASTERN COMMUNIST ALLIES]

THIRD WORLD - [THE REMAINING COUNTRIES]

{{THE TERM "THIRD WORLD" EMERGED AFTER WORLD WAR II, WHEN THE TWO CONQUERING POWERS - WASHINGTON AND MOSCOW - BEGAN POINTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AT EACH OTHER AND DASHING HOPES OF PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION. WASHINGTON'S BLOC REPRESENTED THE ADVANCED CAPITALIST COUNTRIES AND WAS DEEMED THE "FIRST WORLD," AND MOSCOW'S BLOC OF EAST EUROPEAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES WAS BY WAY OF CONTRAST THE "SECOND WORLD." WHILE MOST OF THE REMAINING COUNTRIES - THE "THIRD WORLD" - WERE STILL FORMAL COLONIES OR ECONOMIC DEPENDENCIES OF THE WESTERN POWERS, OR WERE JUST EMERGING FROM EXTERNAL DOMINATION.}}}

IN THE PRESENT=

TWO INTERNATIONAL "KINDS OF PEOPLE" CATEGORIES:

NORTH - [DEVELOPED, RICH COUNTRIES]

SOUTH - [DEVELOPING, POOR COUNTRIES]

1) ORIGINALLY PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS -- CALLED RACES THE VARIOUS SUB-SPECIES OF HOMO SAPIENS CHARACTERIZED BY CERTAIN "PHENOTYPE" (VISIBLE COMPOSITION) AND "GENOTYPE" (INHERITED-GENETIC COMPOSITIONS) [E.G., "CAUCASIAN RACE", "NEGROID RACE", OR "MONGOLOID RACE"] ...

PHENOTYPE - (CULTURAL POTENTIAL) IS A PRODUCT OF BOTH NATURE [GENETIC EQUIPMENT] AND NURTURE [ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES AND FORCES].

GENOTYPE - (GENETIC POTENTIAL) INNATE CAPACITY INHERITED FROM ANCESTORS THROUGH GENES, WHICH DETERMINES THE LIMITS OF THEIR MENTAL OR COGNITIVE GROWTH.

2) (MODERN LIFE IS SUBJECT TO WIDE BIOLOGICAL VARIATIONS THAT HAVE LEAD TO A MODERN PHENOMENON OF RACIAL AMBIGUITY– EX: MARIAH CAREY, AMANDA MARSHALL, JENNIFER BEALS, TIGER WOODS] == WHICH EXPOSES THE “SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION” OF RACE == THEIR BODIES DON’T DEFINE THEM, WE DEFINE THEIR BODIES — AND “ONLY WHEN THEY ARE DEFINED, DO CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND SENSIBILITIES COME INTO PLAY”

EX: (A) ALTHOUGH WE MAY ASSUME THAT WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF "RACE", BIOLOGY WOULD CONFIRM THAT MOST CANADIANS, LIKE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, ARE GENETICALLY MIXED.

(B) TIGER WOODS - MOTHER IS ONE-HALF CHINESE AND ONE-HALF THAI, AND HIS FATHER HAD ONE WHITE, ONE NATIVE, AND TWO BLACK GRANDPARENTS. (WHAT IS HE? FUZZY ZEOLLER - FRIED CHICKEN AND COLLAR GREENS).

3) PEOPLE DO NOT SEE “RACE” THEY SEE WHAT SOCIOLOGISTS CALL “RACIALIZED” FORMATIONS” == OR, “BIOLOGIZED FORMATIONS.”

4) COMBINATIONS OF REAL AND IMAGINED SOMATIC {OF THE BODY} AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT THEY ATTRIBUTE MEANING TO (WITH THE IDEA OF RACE).

5) TO SEE RACE IS ENGAGE IN A THOUGHT PROCESS WHICH BIOLOGIZE PEOPLE BY ATTACHING STATUS TO THE PHYSICAL.

THE SOCIOLOGY OF ETHNCITY AND RACE

Ethnicity:

Sociologists do not agree on how to define and measure ethnicity. Objective definitions of ethnicity assume that ethnic groups exist because of people’s social attachments (Isajiw, 1977). From this point of view, ethnicity is something that people possess because of differences in language, culture, customs, national origin, and ancestry. Subjective approaches to ethnicity focus on the process of ethnic identification. Sociologists who emphasize the socially constructed nature of perceived reality insist that ethnicity is a “transactional” process. Ethnic groups are made up of people who identify themselves, or who are identified by others, as belonging to the same ancestral or cultural group. Whether they actually display any of the cultural characteristics of the group with which they identify, or whether they are merely born into that group, is largely irrelevant. When subjective definitions are used, then, “ethnicity” is self-defined and reflects “a shared ‘we-feeling’ within a collectivity (groupness) whose symbolic components can vary from time and place” (Fleras and Elliott, 1996). From this perspective, ethnic identities and boundaries are situational, variable, and flexible.

Race:

For much of the twentieth century, there was little difference between common-sense understandings of race and the way that race was analyzed in the social and natural sciences. Most scientist believed that races were real and objective subdivisions of Homo Sapiens. These divisions in the scientific, or “social biology” discourse on race were supposedly based on a combination of unalterable physical and genetic characteristics. Characteristics such as skin colour hair texture, body and facial shape, genetic diseases, metabolic rates, and distribution of blood groups were used to construct various racial typologies. The most common typology was the division of humanity into “caucasoid,” “mongoloid,” and “negroid” races (Montagu, 1972).

During the 1930s, scientists began to raise a serious doubts about the scientific validity of the concept of race (Barkan, 1992). Since the 1950s, the scientific consensus is that racial classifications of humanity are arbitrary, that genetic differences between groups are small, and that genetic differences are behaviourally insignificant (Montagu, 1972). Racial classification based on characteristics, such as, skin colour, are as illogical as racial classifications based on the length of index fingers (Miles, 1982). Thus, from a strictly genetic point of view, Paul Martin may have as much more in common with Oscar Peterson than with George W. Bush.

In the critique of the social biology discourse on race, differences between races came to be recognized as arbitrary, extremely small, and without behavioural consequences. More and more, ethnic boundaries and identities were viewed as flexible, negotiated, and historically variable. This did not lead to the conclusion, however, that race and ethnicity are unimportant aspects of modern society. Rather, as W.I. Thomas’s famous dictum contends, if people define situations as real they are real in their consequences (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918: 79). Even though race is a hollow biological concept, and even though ethnic identities and boundaries are neither fixed nor unchanging, many people believe in the existence of ethnicity and race, and organize their relationships with others on the basis of those beliefs. Therefore, race and ethnicity are important parts of our social reality.

A Decade After Massacres, Rwanda Outlaws Ethnicity

By MARC LACEY

Published: April 9, 2004

IGALI, Rwanda, April 8 - Although he is not a government spokesman, Ernest Twahrwa can recite Rwanda's official view toward ethnicity with great precision: "There is no ethnicity here. We are all Rwandan."

Mr. Twahrwa, a Hutu, is halfway through a six-week government re-education camp set up to purge him and other former fighters of any ethnic ideologies that they may still harbor from 1994, when extremist Hutu massacred 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu.

"They're trying to change what we think," Mr. Twahrwa said. "There have been many changes in this country. I need to change too. I need to be a new person."

This country, where ethnic tensions were whipped up into a frenzy of killing, is now trying to make ethnicity a thing of the past. There are no Hutu in the new Rwanda. There are no Tutsi either. The government, dominated by the minority Tutsi, has wiped out the distinctions by decree.

The re-education camp is one way of driving the point home to people who once lived by the motto "Hutu power." As Hutu fighters who fled to Congo after 1994 return to Rwanda they are sent to the camp. Along with civics they are taught some hands-on skills like carpentry. They leave with $75 and, at least in theory, a whole new way of thinking.

That new thinking has its critics - those who say that denying that ethnicity exists merely suppresses the painful ethnic dialogue that Rwanda requires.

But the government insists that if awareness of ethnic differences can be learned, so can the idea that ethnicity does not exist. Rwanda has an entrenched culture of obedience, and the populace has been quick to pick up on the government's no-ethnicity policy, at least in conversations with an outsider.

To hear Mr. Twahrwa put it: "Ethnicity is bad. I want it to go away."

Ethnicity has already been ripped out of schoolbooks and rubbed off government identity cards. Government documents no longer mention Hutu or Tutsi, and the country's newspapers and radio stations, tightly controlled by the government, steer clear of the labels as well.

Most dramatic is how Rwanda's eight million people now shun the identifications that seemed to loom so large 10 years ago as Hutu extremists began their mass killings.

"We don't like to use the terms at all in class," said Bosco Manishaka, the assistant director of a Kigali primary school. "The children do learn about the history of the country and how we were divided. We advise them to learn from the past."

It is not just considered bad form to discuss ethnicity in the new Rwanda. It can land one in jail. Added to the penal code is the crime of "divisionism," a nebulous offense that includes speaking too provocatively about ethnicity.

Rwanda's approach contrasts markedly with that employed in neighboring Burundi, which has the same ethnic makeup as Rwanda and the same recent history of ethnic violence. Burundi's transitional government has opted to set aside certain positions for Hutu and certain positions for Tutsi. The two ethnic groups rotate the presidency. A Tutsi held it for 18 months, and now a Hutu fills the seat.

Critics argue that Rwanda's crackdown on "divisionism" has turned into a way of quashing dissent toward the governing party of President Paul Kagame, who led the Tutsi rebel movement that swept in from Uganda in 1994 to oust the Hutu militias known as Interahamwe, which were responsible for much of the violence. His administration has shut down opposition parties for being too divisive and jailed journalists and activists for the same.

The government does not want to hear suggestions that one ethnicity or the other has too much power. Those are divisive thoughts. It is not possible to know, or even discuss, whether the majority Hutu population is well represented in universities. No such records are kept.

To try to repair tensions that still linger from 1994, and reduce a huge backlog in the judicial system, Rwanda has created community courts called gacacas. Locals gather together to rehash the killings. They are encouraged to point fingers at suspected killers. The accused are given a chance to stand up and defend themselves, or to apologize.

Confessions can sometimes bring the most extraordinary result: a hug from the accuser and an offer of forgiveness. More often, though, there are arguments.

DEFINITIONS

1) Hutu and Tutsi : Hutu is the name given to one of the three ethnic groups occupying Burundi and Rwanda. The Hutu are the largest group by far. 90% of Rwandans and 85% of Burundians are Hutu. Culturally, it is something of an artificial division, based more on class than ethnicity, since there are no significant language or cultural differences between the Hutu and the other ethnic groups in the area, notably the Tutsi. Historically, however, there were physical differences, principally in average height. Hutu and Tutsi share the same religion and language. Some scholars also point out the important role the Belgian colonisers have in creating the idea of a Hutu and Tutsi race.

The Hutu arrived in the Great Lakes region around the 1^st century, displacing the Twa. The Hutu dominated the area with a series of small kingdoms until the 15th century. At that time, it is believed that the Tutsi came into the area from Ethiopia and conquered the Hutu. The Tutsi monarchy survived until the end of the colonial era in the 1950s, the Belgian rulers using and codifying the ethnic division to support their rule. The Tutsi monarchy soon fell and the area was divided into Rwanda and Burundi in 1962. The Tutsi nonetheless remained dominant in Burundi, while the Hutu gained a degree of dominance in Rwanda.

2) Five Characteristics of Ethnicity:

A) Unique cultural traits (such as language, clothing, holidays, or religious practices).

B) A sense of community (shared identity).

C) A feeling of “ethnocentrism” – the view that one’s own culture is better than others, and/or the tendency to believe that what is true of your culture is true of others.

D) Ascribe membership from birth (membership over which you have no control), and

E) Territoriality, or a tendency to occupy a distinct geographic area by choice or for protection (in contemporary world =’s a “sense of place or homeland”).

3) What Have We Learned about Social Stratification? ==

[[[Every society can be divided into layers or hierarchies that can be ranked according to certain criteria in ascending or descending order. This suggests that inequality is not random or fleeting, but is patterned and predictable and tends to cluster around certain devalued categories related to race or ethnicity.]]]

4) What Is Hate in Canada: Canadian Hate Law Legislation —

Criminal Code

The three sections dealing with hate propaganda in the Canadian Criminal Code are sections 318, 319 and 320.

1) Section 318 ("Advocating Genocide")

Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote

genocide (killing or inflicting conditions to destroy members of a group)

2) Section 319 ("Public Incitement of Hatred")

Section 319 creates two offences.

Subsection (1) targets everyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group by communicating statements in any public place, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Subsection (2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating statements, other than in private conversation.

3) Section 320 ("Seizure of Hate Propaganda")

Section 320 permits a court to authorize the seizure of copies of a publication believed to be hate propaganda.

Hutu and Tutsi: TheEthnicity Exercise

1) Can you eliminate “ethnicity” through re-education? Or does denying that ethnicity exists merely suppresses the painful ethnic dialogue that Rwanda requires? ==== or, is the real issue —

2) Can you eliminate {unlearn} “hate” by eliminating {unlearning} the distinctions/ differences/ objects that it is attached to?

3) Official opinion is – “if awareness of ethnic differences can be learned, so can the idea that ethnicity does not exist” – is this a valid and consistent proposition?

4) Can you legislate ethnicity out of existence by ripping it “out of schoolbooks and rubbing it off government identity cards.”?

5) In Rwanda, it is now a penal code offence to speak too provocatively about ethnicity [the crime of "divisionism,"]. Is this similar to Canada’s hate crime laws?

6) Do you think Rwanda's crackdown on "divisionism" inevitably will be used as a way of quashing dissent, why or why not? Are there historical examples to draw on?

7) It has been said of Canada that it is transforming into a “post-national state” — “What we appear to be witnessing is the emergence the emergence of a post-national state, a country of people linked not by blood, race or religion, but by a set of ideas and principles.” — could this be what countries like Rwanda are hypothesizing? How can they get there? What is the difference between a post-ethnic and a post-national state.”

{{{Note: Sociological Moral of the Tutsi Story: Human beings can “learn” and “unlearn” hate and racism — but it is not simply a matter of eliminating distinctions between people — nor legislating it out of existence. Why???

(a) Ethnicity and Race are concepts that evolve over space and time – meaning, they are contingent upon interaction, and interaction is not contingent upon the concepts;

(b) The way to elimate racism is to change the structure of interactions — (as anti-racism activist have discovered) through Direct Action at Personal and Institutional Levels.

(c) Foster’s "Holistic" or Three Dimensional Approach === Addressing the Cognitive, Normative and Valuative Levels of Life Through the Combined Pro-Active Focus on Philosophy (education), Policy (organization) & Practice (legislation).