Canadian social structure

This book examines Canada's social system and its efforts to keep the country white at the detriment of refugees and people of color who are branded negatively. Samuelson and Antony draw attention to some of the disparities that Canadians face due to their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Samuelson & Antony, 2012). The authors' emphasis on power means that certain races have civil liberties in accessing resources that allow them to live. Focusing on how these races preserve and expand their rights while posing threats to other races is critical. Nonetheless, the authors’ main objective is reporting the current conditions and approaches to generate let go resistance and transformation. In depicting the inequalities inherent in the unjust Canadian community, Samuelson & Antony have documented how power relations informed by issues to do with class, race, gender, and sexual categorizations have been advancing not just capitalistic but imperial mindset that seems to segregate the immigrant who are perceived as criminals, lazy and diseases infested. According to the authors, the common understanding of issues that appertains to poverty, racism, violence, homophobia, crime and pollution emanates from our perspective of the social structure. Moreover, the authors note just how overarching the Canadian immigration laws can get. Critical Observations

Much as the authors apply a number of analytical techniques, they also explore certain social, political and economic factors that arise due to social inequity. While there is a logic flow of ideas, the authors’ focus on other experts views. Again, it becomes very hard to read and comprehend the book per se. Nonetheless, the sequence of events and how the issue of migration was put together complicates issues altogether. However, when it comes to evidence, the authors use Canadian experience case studies to help readers under complex perspectives of structural and social inequalities; power and resistance. This is an indication that Samuelson & Antony made strong arguments in the book, hence they cannot be disputed. In cases where the authors use proof that conflicts with their standpoint, they refute it to reinforce their stance. Furthermore, Samuelson & Antony portray social issues differently; for instance, they demonstrate the society via the critical lens. They start by observing the difference between public and private problems to recognize peoples’ lives while evaluating social institutions of the society. Even though the authors demonstrate that most of the legislations by the Canadian government are illegitimate, it fails to acknowledge that these are subversive activities that stem from power relations. Again, recognizing that there are inequalities in the society is not an assurance of the way in which power can function. This is because a state operates in the interests of the powerful. Nonetheless, much as the powerful interests are common across the society, it is hard to predict the structures for exercising power. Recognition of the way power essentially functions can only be evident via a meticulous historical investigation to help uncover how the privileged groups use to safeguard their interests- at times through the government or other means, all successful or unsuccessful. This is, however, lacking in the book.The authors attempt to bring basic disagreements regarding the nature, organization, and structure of a society. Instead, the author constructs the notion that focusing on social problems entails comprehending various aspects such as what is assumed to be social issues, addressing the issue that is associated with what is seen as the root cause of the social issue. The authors did a good job demonstrating how immigration has contributed to problems in Canada and foster for the enactment of laws to tackle the problem. But this is not a social problem per see, in Canada the main issue is racism that is contributing to the sloppy enactment of immigration legislation. This is because immigrants are likely to stifle the policy purposed at “keeping Canada White”. In a pretentious notion of building a nation that lives up to the utmost ethical principles, these warped benchmark advances the course of segregation to the disadvantage of immigrants. While the book dismisses the argument that social problems emanate from poor choices, it reasserts that indeed social anomalies came as a result of structural social inequalities. However, the book does not give a clear historical account that details how successful assimilation that saw both sides reap massive benefits from the fur trade. The authors hint that the ping pong politics and blame game that is being leveled against immigrants paves way for a strategic enemy that should be answerable for the social ills. According to the authors, the labeling theory has been employed to sustain the racially polarized ideology, where immigrants are termed as poor and outsiders (Samuelson & Antony, 2012). According to the authors, it is the demonizing of immigrants as the other has only helped to supplant public suspicions as well as anxieties about immigrants terrifying Canadians, taking over their jobs and straining the welfare system. Moreover, according to the book, the Canadian government had a keen interest in a certain category of immigrants; white, British, English-speaking and even Protestants (Samuelson & Antony, 2012). The authors’ content that this was presumably the only way by which the moral standing of Canada would have been shaped. It is at this point that immigrants of color were clustered not just as low quality but as morally debased, and this alone qualified them for deportation. While the book demonstrates much power and resistance, it fails to appreciate the fact that perfectly feasible alternatives to empirical teachings can highlight inequity not as a concept but as a felt experience. However, intimations of an inductive strategy that allows the authors of this book to begin with a broad view of issues and work as an approach fit both the scientific and education context contrary to the conventional approaches.

Questions about the readings



What is the genesis of the social anomalies that continue to bedevil the Canadian Society?

Is racial profiling pronounced in the mantra to ‘keep Canada White’ a policy ploy to advance modern day segregation?

How can the issue of labeling immigrants in derisory terms be handled, and their meaningful contributions to advance the common good acknowledged?







































Reference

Samuelson, L., & Antony, W. A. (2012). Power and resistance: Critical thinking aboutCanadian social issues, 5th ed. Reviewed by Howard A. Doughty. Fernwood Publishing.