The dark history of injustices subjected to the Chinese by the Canadian government

The dark history of injustices subjected to the Chinese by the Canadian government

The dark history of injustices subjected to the Chinese by the Canadian government dates back to 1885. It was during this time the Head Tax was first levied. Head Tax was to discourage China’s people from migrating to Canada after completing the Canadian Pacific Railway. The wounds somehow remained until Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to the Chinese society for what the government did to their forefathers. The apology was healing to both the Chinese and the Canadian because it created a discussion platform and strengthened the relationship between them. The apology was historic because it marked the first time the Canadian government revisited the wrong choices of sidelining the Chinese Immigrants, and Harper publicly asked for an apology on behalf of the government. In this library research paper, I tried to look for a reliable peer-reviewed article related to the Week two readings on Chinese Immigration, compare their content information, and analyze the differences.

First, in the article of Karen Cho (2020), “In the shadows of Gold Mountain,” and analyzes and creates a content correlation with an article, “Redress for old wounds: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s apology for the Chinese head tax,” published in the Chinese Journal of Communication. In 2006, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, gave a speech of apology to Chinese society for their forefathers’ sufferings when they were migrating to Canada. On behalf of the government, the apology addressed injustices the Canadian government imposed on the Chinese by using the Head Tax. According to Edwards et al. (2011), it was a sincere apology because both Canada and the Chinese welcomed it warmly and strengthened their relations. That marked the first time an apology was ever released on behalf of Canada’s government since the colonial error.

The injustices addressed by the prime minister have similarities with the article of Karen Cho (2020), who visited first-hand victims who experienced the Head Tax and other policies’ influences, and they gave different stories in the interviews. The stories given by the victims showed that no kind of support has ever been made by the Canadian government to try and compensate the victims for what they went through during the migration times (Cho, 2020). Besides, Cho brought to light his regrets that, up to the time his film ended, no initiative of the Canadian government to consider affected by the policies. In my opinion, the policy’s implementation resulted from a wrong decision since both sidelined the Chinese needs of compensation due to problems they underwent.

Harper is also addressing the similar issue of social injustices. Even though the apology was made during political campaigns, the impact was felt across Canada. Harper promised to work with the Chinese community should his party win and form the next government. Although the Convectional Party was not elected as Harper had planned, other people saw the need to support the apology and apologize. For example, Martin apologized after Stephen Harper, though the Chinese Canadian community, quickly criticized his apology. Edwards et al. (2011) further argue that the Chinese community criticized Martin’s apology because he tried to completely dismiss his apology in an English-speaking media on the same day. In a news conference, Stephen Harper argued his position on Head Tax issues that, “Chinese Canadians are making an extraordinary impact on the building of our country. They’ve also made a significant historical contribution despite many obstacles (Edwards et al. 2011). That’s why, as I said during the election campaign, the Chinese Canadian community deserves an apology for the head tax and appropriate acknowledgment and Redress.” The argument triggered the opening of formal discussions on the form of apology and Redress in March 2006. I suggest that in both the articles, the authors saw the need to advocate for harmony and unity, thus complementing each other. That led to the termination of the injustices subjected to the Chinese community and brought togetherness.

However much I saw similarities between the article by Karen Cho and the Journal article by Harper, there were also differences. For example, the apology speech by Stephen Harper in the journal article was motivated by political ambitions of power and governance. In comparison, the Chao Film was motivated by the desire to light the facts concerning the injustices imposed on the Chinese immigrants and the Canadian government’s lack of compensation (Chao, 2020). However, I learned an essential lesson on decision-making, the importance of apology and brotherhood, the dangers and wounds of racism, and how it affects not only an individual but also society. The segregation from the rest of the society, being considered less of a citizen, dramatically affects the victims. The article content shows how the Chinese community appreciated the apology and even strengthened their relationships with the Canadian people after the apology.

The two sources, the article, and the documentary shows some conflicts on their primary objectives. The Chao (2020) documentary’s primary goal was to highlight the injustices experienced by the Chinese in the cruel Canadian government’s arms with policies like Head Tax, while the primary goal of Harper’s article was to gain the community’s election acceptance for political leadership and power. Thus, the article does not cover much of the injustices and the prejudices of the Chinese community but rather concentrates more on political ambitions, trust, and support to assume power and governance through elections (Edwards et al., 2011). Basing my arguments on those facts, I, therefore, consider the documentary more informative than the article because it brings more knowledge and exposure and awareness on social and political injustices to us as citizens.

In conclusion, it is essential to note that two sources, the documentary and the article, complement and conflict with each other in many ways, but what is more important is the lesson we learn from them both. I would also like to point out that conducting library research helps compare sources of information and exposes one to more knowledge as it involves a lot of reading.