I read an email from a friend last night that prompted me to think about
cultural differences. When we think about cultural differences, we usually
think in terms of foreign countries and their cultures. Some of these cultural
differences we understand, and some of them we don't.
We know that if we go to Italy, for example, we would not be surprised to
see two men kissing each other on the cheek as the standard form of greeting. Yet many would raise an eyebrow if two non-ethnic Americans or Canadians would do the same in our countries. Though we understand the cultural difference, it does not mean that the majority of us in Canada or the United States would accept it for our way of life.
Canada prides herself on being a multicultural country and extremely
sensitive to the cultural needs of others. Yet sociologists have found a new
type of cultural intolerance that can no longer be defined as the very black and white "you are either accepting of cultural differences or you're not."
The new type of cultural clash can be explained through the example of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Canadians have accepted multi-culturalism with grace. We have incorporated cultural differences within the Canadian mosaic. One major exception to the rule has been when cultural differences step on our toes or get to the very heart of the Canadian identity.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is at the heart of our
Canadian identity. Our national police force in its red jackets, black pants,
and hats are known throughout the world. Not only is the fact that they are
usually posed mounted on horses uniquely Canadian, but the entire uniform
from head to toe spells Canada as well.
Very few aspects of our identity distinguish us from our American
brothers, but the RCMP does. However this bastion of Canadian uniqueness was challenged by an ethnic group.
For cultural reasons, the Sikhs in Canada felt that they were excluded from the police force. For religious purposes the Sikhs must wear a turban. Thus they could not wear the traditional garb. I cannot begin to explain the emotional uproar that followed. Suffice to say that there was much controversy.
The feeling of the day was that we Canadians accept all cultures into our
society, but now you are treading on something that is near and dear to our
hearts; our very own Canadian identity. Finally after much debating back and forth, the Sikhs were admitted into the police force wearing a turban rather than the traditional hat.
At the beginning of this article, I brought up cultural differences that were
understood within the culture that adhered to them; namely the two ethnic
men kissing each other. This cultural practice would not be accepted across the board in Canadian or American cultures. The second example was a cultural difference that tore at the heart of the Canadian identity. Alterations were made to the RCMP uniform in favour of the Sikhs.
But what about all the differences that we are not even aware of? How do
we incorporate them into the mosaic of Canadian life especially when they
conflict with our own values? For example, some cultures, such as the
Japanese and Native Americans, do not look directly into the eyes of the
people with whom they are speaking. In these cultures it is considered rude to do so. Yet Japanese people have lost American and Canadian jobs because the interviewer mistook the downcast eyes to mean that the applicant was not assertive enough for the position at hand.
In terms of Native peoples of Canada and America not looking into the eyes of the people they are speaking with, it is a form of respect, but for our culture it has often been misunderstood to mean "shifty eyed," or sneaky and not trustworthy.
At work a few weeks ago I had a conversation with a supervisor who was
very frustrated with an employee from another country. The supervisor stated that she had told him time and again what his areas of weakness were and he just stood there never saying a word. The supervisor expected dialogue of some sort, perhaps excuses why his performance was not up to par or an argument if he disagreed with her evaluation. By not responding, she assumed that he either did not care about his job or he was guilty as charged.
I pointed out that his demeanour was more cultural than anything else. For
him to respond to the accusations was to challenge her authority. It would be considered an act of disrespect in his culture. After that conversation, I am pleased to say that supervisor went away with a better cultural understanding and the gentleman in question is still working for our company. The supervisor was able to establish dialogue and performance issues were resolved.
Imagine how many misunderstandings could be easily resolved if we took
the time to understand cultural differences.
You can find Part 11 of this article here:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
Best to lok beyond cultural diffrences to se the real person.
Canada, the land of political correctness! LOL A Mountie-Sikh; I just can't imagine it. That's a little over the top, I think.
The thing about changing the culture to fit religious beliefs is that it's all choice: if you are a Sikh, you make a choice that allows you certain options and prohibits others. It's just part of the ball game, and I have little patience with people who think that the world should bend to fit their particular choices. If my religion tells me that I should not work on Monday or Friday, does my employer have to comply with that in order to employ me? I don't think so.
That said, (and that's just my own pet peeve) your point about cultural differences is excellent. I learned this lesson well when I went from my home in Massachusetts to my father's new home in Orlando, Florida for his wedding. I'd never been to Florida before, and although I had heard about it, I was not prepared for the deep cultural differences that exist between the U.S. north and south. I might as well have landed on Mars, it was so different.
(sorry Hannah, couldn't help myself today, and it was sooo easy...Ha Ha. In a funny mood.)
Good article.
Stay tuned tonight for part 2, called fitting in.
But a uniform is a uniform and I don't think turbans should be allowed. As an airline stewardesss, I had to wear the uniform with all kinds of restrictions like hair no longer than my collar, no earrings, only one ring, had to wear a girdle and full slip. If I wanted to work for them I had to abide by their rules. Same should be for the RCMP and others.
about the turban apparently now they wear whatever colour they want to it seems, because red would have been more appropriate for a mountie.
And, imagine how much more we would enjoy each other's company.
I used to feel very much against the use of Spanish in America; after all, this is an English-speaking country, unlike Canada, which has had a long tradition of French and English. And many serious issues surrounding that language duality, particularly in Quebec.
I did not want to see problems creep up in this country surrounding the use of Spanish, for example ( I speak to Hannah and Mary's point about immigrants coming to a new country should adopt the customs of the new country).
I still have very ambivalent feelings about what has become in the U.S. - a widespread use of Spanish.
Spanish as an option is now on many corporate voice mail phones when you make routine telephone calls; certainly, I can understand the use of Spanish language as an option on telephone systems whose public is mainly immigrant, but Spanish is very quickly becoming the second language of the U.S.
I have never been in favor of Spanish becoming a second language in the U.S. The U.S is an English-speaking country.
Should Spanish become an 'official' second languge in the U.S., there will continue to be problems similar to that which Canada and Quebec faced surrouning multi-lingualism.
Concerning religious headgear. In the U.S. people are permitted to wear religious clothing at most workplaces, where headscarves, veils or turbans would be otherwise prohibited for people not of that religion.
In the U.S. we have had to adapt to a great many multi-cultural differences similar to that which you describe, Carol.
I'm not personally familiar with any stories of religious persons who require religious headgear wanting to be admitted to military or police forces.
But I'm sure that question is not far off. And when it comes, there will be much controversy, to be sure.
But should the result be that religious persons are permitted to wear their religious headgear instead of a traditional military or police headgear, I will embrace that decision as their right.
It is not 'stealing' the heritage of Canada, Mary, but embracing the culture of those who immigrate to Canada.
It's just something that we all need to adapt to.
Where I differ from all the acceptance demanded by cultural diversity is when a cultural group insists on physically abusing their women and children and other family members in the name of culture and religion.
Are we going to go backwards on laws fought long and hard for that are against forced child marriages, honor killings, refusal to educate girls?
Are we going to allow familes for reasons stated as religious to not allow their children to have an education that will allow them to choose which culture they will be part of?
Because our constructed sense of self is so fragile, so groundless, any outward expression of belongingness – tangible proof of our own reality through dress or language, for example – becomes highly problematic. Needless to say, if our sense of self-identity depends upon our sense of group-identity, we will feel threatened by any "outside" challenge to that which makes us feel real. Thus when our cultural identities are threatened, we will do everything in our power to perpetuate the illusion of "self."
From a "Buddhist" perspective, attachment to groundless concepts such as group-identity and especially self-identity only serves to exacerbate our sense of suffering, stress, dis-ease, lack, or existential angst that arises as we try to avoid our own sense of groundlessness. Our suffering consequently manifests itself through the "three poisons" of delusion, fear/hatred, and greed – all of which can, of course, be directed towards our selves as well as towards others.
So here we have the case of a constructed "Canadian identity" being brought into conflict with constructed "Sikh identity" – although, of course, neither is mutually exclusive of the other, since these group identities are constructs in the own right. (What exactly is a "Canadian" anyway?) As long as neither group is willing to let go of that which reifies its own existence, it seems as though compromise is the best solution. Certainly history is rife with too many examples of what happens when conflicted parties fail to reach such accord.
Though I'm not sure I agree with a Royal Canadian Mountie wearing a turban... shouldn't it have been where he must conform to the way the Royal Canadian Mountie's dress rather than the RCM's conforming to him? As the saying goes: "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." When we go to another country that does not speak our language we must learn to speak their language otherwise we're not understood by those people. The RCM police have a distinct uniform as do all professions that require uniforms, and they should have had the person conform to their way of dressing. But whom am I to say this? I myself accept differences in all people, just not sure we should take it as far as them not conforming to our ways when required to wear a uniform.
When my great-grandparents came to America from Italy, Spain and France, they learned how to speak English and learned to conform to whatever uniform an American company required them to wear if they had those type of jobs. They did not push their Italian, Spainish or French culture onto their American coworkers... just something to think about. Again, congrats on a very well written article and it being picked for "Publisher's Pick"!
Rosanne
Publisher: The Cat's Meow for Writers & Readers Ezine (an online progressive magazine); Author: Touch of Tomorrow - In Loving Memory (book of poetry) and numerous short stories, poetry and articles published online & in print, with more to come...
Perhaps I'm missing the point on why the turban is so culturally significant to the Sihks, but I feel that in a job where a uniform is required you should conform to that standard of dress.
I think we need to be accepting of other cultures, but I also feel that sometimes we go overboard and by doing so we conceed points that will eventually dilute the uniqueness of our country.
Personally, I don't think spanish should be a second language in the US. I understand the argument that If you don't challenge people to do something (like learn english) they won't.
America was built on immigrants but I think we forget sometimes that we are supposed to be a melting pot if cultures, we're not supposed to melt the pot.
Sikhs are considered brave warriors. The turban is one of the five external symbols that makes them the warrior class. The British recognized it and made an exception to it. Depriving a Sikh of his turban undermines the very tenet of "warrior-class" or "Khalsa" (meaning pure) that their 10th guru, Gobind Singh infused in them because of historical necessity.
Sikhism is a tolerant and non-proselytizing religion. It is of syncretic origin, combining some elements of Hinduism and Islam, perhaps as a way to bring peace to the two feuding religions.
Considering this background, the acceptance of Sikhs with turban into RCMP scores a point in cultural understanding.
our mounties hat does come from the similiar version that the brits wore. We have been wearing them since the 1800's. I did a google search on this.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/history/nwmp_uniform_e.htm