Social artifice: a review of the implications of racialization and race-thinking

in Ken Montgomerys article Banal Race-thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian

History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism

Eric Trinh
001171345
Education 4361
November 21, 2016
 In his article, Banal Race-thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History

Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism, Ken Montgomery explores the implications

of banal race-thinking in education, which he defines as the belief that all

humans can be separated into, as well as must belong to, a race. These

races define innate characteristics and temperaments that are

representative of an entire group of people. Montgomery suggests that

Canadas unity through civic nationalism is a falsity, and rather that

Canadian society is inherently anchored in aspects of race-thinking. In order

to cover this falsity, the idea of multiculturalism is perpetuated, which

encapsulates many of the inaccurate ideas of race-thinking held in Canada

dating back to the early 20th century (Montgomery, 2005, p. 314). In his

study of both early and recent social studies textbooks in Ontario schools, it

is found that the majority of them continue to condone race as an

appropriate and natural means of categorizing people, even though racial

prejudice has been condemned in recent years. Montgomery expresses

frustration with the inability of textbooks to define what race is (p. 332) and

the notion that race should be taught as an appropriate means of defining

people. However, Montgomery recognizes the implications of eliminating

race in a racialized society, and thus makes a strong case that the idea of

race as a natural division of people should be questioned, and its existence

as a social construct defined.

Throughout the article, Montgomery makes a strong distinction

between race-thinking and racialization. As stated earlier, race-thinking

implies that race is a natural division of people, assumed to have existed for

as long human existence. Race-thinking is problematic because it makes

race an intrinsic part of society that is so banal as to not think about it

(Montgomery, 2005, p. 314). Montgomery argues that this type of thinking is

dangerous because it allows people to justify the differences, namely the

superiority and inferiority, of one race over another as this is inherent in

natural law (p. 318). It also acts as a scapegoat for conflict and competition

between races. Montgomery believes instead that race should be examined

in terms of racialization, which is the mechanism through which race is

socialized into existing. In his article, Montgomery outlines the three stages

of racialization: separation/division, naturalization, and essentialization (p.

319). Division entails the separation between groups of same and other,

same being the central group from which all other groups are compared to.

In terms of race, this could include skin colour, physical attributes, culture,

etc. The specific features of these characteristics of race are determined

through what is known as essentialization. This involves blanket

generalizations used to stereotype the look, demeanor, and civility of the

people in another race as compared to the central group. Naturalization is

the belief that the attributes that make up a race are destined in ones blood

(i.e. genetics), and that regardless of the individual, these attributes are

inherited and inescapable (p. 333). In understanding racialization,

Montgomery argues that the artifice of race becomes apparent, and that in

knowing that race is merely a social construct, that society ought to

recognize the oppression caused by race and dismantle the idea that race is

an inherent part of human existence.

Prior to the 1960s, Montgomery argues that it is evident that Canadian

textbooks knowingly used race as a means through which they could oppress

minority groups in Canada. Most textbooks whitewashed the nation and its

history in order to establish the values of European settlers, particularly

Anglo-Saxons, as the foundation for Canadian society. In line with the ideas

of race-thinking, it becomes apparent in the textbooks that the white race

becomes the benchmark to which all other races are compared to. This

separation of race allows the texts to create narratives and judgements on

groups outside of the central white race, because race itself becomes

important and fundamental element for the composition of the nation.

Consequently, white culture becomes the homogenous normality that is

disturbed by the appearance of other racial groups, which are ultimately

inferior to the likes of white man (Montgomery, 2005, p. 329). These texts

have major implications in light of education because they perpetuate

imperialist European ideals that are harmful to other groups of people in

society. As Montgomery (2005) notes, history textbooks in school are likely

the last encounter that most people will have with social and anthropological

issues (p. 336). With that in mind, it is clear that race and racial tensions are

thus taught to be justified, because they are believed to be an inherent part

of society and nature. In establishing race as a fundamental scientific and

biological rule for humans, all forms of racial prejudice and defamation are
excused since they are innate and thus unquestionable. In Canada, one of

the most infamous uses of race to justify prejudice manifested in the form of

residential schools for First Nations students. Since differences in race were

deemed inherent and inescapable, the government was able to justify that

First Nations people were not of the same caliber of intelligence as white

people, and thus, gave them the right to enforce policies that aimed to

civilize First Nations peoples (Barman, p. 256-257). Montgomery makes a

strong argument that this type of exploitation could be eliminated if it is

acknowledged that race is a social construct, forcing society to take

ownership for the existence of the concept of race (Montgomery, 2005, 334-

335). This prevents the excusal of racist policy and behaviour because those

that enforce racism must also take full responsibility for their actions towards

other groups of people.

Montgomery found that the modern textbooks of the early 2000s had

much less degrading views of non-white races, however, they still refuse to

acknowledge that race is not in innate aspect of human beings. Thus, he

argues, very little has changed in terms of how we view race since the early

20th century because the texts still insist on focusing on human typology,

which is inherently wrong due to the fact that race is a social construct

(Montgomery, 2005, p. 334). Although the issues of racism are addressed,

the oppression enacted on those affected by categorizations of race is not

recognized. Rather, there is an idea that races exist in peaceful harmony

with one another, giving credit to the fact that race is still a feasible way to
divide mankind. This belief underlies Canadas national identity, which

Montgomery argues is a false pretense, because rather than overlooking

race, as civic nationalism claims to do, multiculturalism highlights the

differences in race even more specifically, which is problematic as it is the

foundation on which the Canadian identity is based. In order to be

multicultural, there has to be an acknowledgment that race not only exists

and is inherent across the Canadian population, but that races are also

fundamentally different and that these differences are merely tolerated from

one race to another (p. 334). As well, the use of politically correct language

in these textbooks such as minority groups, ethnic groups, and people

of colour perpetuate the idea that white Anglo culture is the origin or center

from which Canadian identity exists, and that other groups of people act to

change or disrupt that Canadian identity (p. 331). In this way, Montgomery

has made the case that modern textbooks are little better than their

predecessors since the old ideas of race such as lineage and descent

continue to persist in modern texts (p. 333).

The most compelling element of Montgomerys argument is the fact

that, unlike colour-blind racism, he understands the importance of

recognizing the difficulties faced by those oppressed by the concept of race.

Rather than ignoring these issues, Montgomery (2005) suggests that the

idea of race-thinking needs to be dismantled by acknowledging the

subjugation of other racial groups and reaffirming that race is not an inherent

aspect of nature (p. 335). The intricacies of racialization need to be exposed

and challenged in order to subvert race-thinking as an innate part of society

and allow people to break from the constraints of their race. The

implications of this for student textbooks is important because it is critical

that students understand the devastating consequences of race-thinking as

it applies to their current society, for example, the impact of residential

schools on First Nations people. It is important not to ignore the

complications that were brought on by the existence of race-thinking and

racialization as this will only lead to the erasure of the suffering of those who

were oppressed, which also simultaneously excuses the racist actions of the

oppressor. In order for students to understand the breadth of the implications

of race-thinking, they must learn the consequences of race and challenge its

banality in respect to the causes that lead to it.

Although Montgomery makes a convincing argument against the

banality of race, there are a few of aspects of his article to be conscious of.

Although it is true that many textbooks perpetuate the ideas of race-

thinking, Montgomery makes the assertion that the Ontario government,

through textbooks, is sanctioning race-thinking and racialization

(Montgomery, 2005, p. 334). Since race-thinking has in fact become such a

banal part of our society, it is important to consider the practical reasons as

to why this may be the case. Seeing as most of the literature regarding banal

race-thinking is fairly new, it is unlikely that there are many textbooks that

address race in this manner that also align with the needs of provincial

curriculum. It is also difficult to assume the intention of the government, as

whether or not they are intentionally sanctioning race-thinking cannot be

known. This is not to say that they are to be entirely excused of perpetuating

these ideas, however, to assert that they are solely responsible while

knowing that race-thinking has played such an essential part in shaping the

identity of Canada as a nation would be historically unfair. Montgomery also

provides little in the way of differing perspectives in his article, which may

have been intentional, however, many, if not all, of the secondary sources

cited agree with his point of view.

As a nation that prides itself on pluralism and tolerance, it is quite

jarring to discover that the foundations on which our multicultural identity is

built lies in race-thinking and racialization. Although it is easy to point out the

differences between historic and modern education, Montgomery points out

difficulties in trying to identify the continuities that continue to exist.

However, he also shows how the implications of persisting problematic ideas

can be detrimental to the progress of society. Schools hold a powerful

influence over the shaping of ideologies and perspectives in students and

thus have major consequences on the principles of society. Montgomery

outlines the dangers of complacency in education, highlighting the

importance of constant evaluation and reflection of the content that is taught

in classrooms. In terms of dismantling racialization, this entails that

educators begin to address the concepts of race as a social construct and

explain how race-thinking and racialization is used to ostracize and oppress

groups of people outside of the white, Anglo-Canadian ideal. Montgomery

effectively articulates how separating race from nature makes it possible to

undo the notion that the mannerisms and qualities of a person can be

reduced to the colour of their skin and that domination and oppression on

the basis of race is inevitable (Montgomery, 2005, p. 334-335).

Challenging race-thinking, a concept so far entrenched in society as to be

commonsensical, is no doubt incredibly difficult but nonetheless remains a

critical responsibility of an educator on behalf of their students.

 Works Cited

Barman, J. (2012) Inequality: The Education of B.C. Aboriginal Children in

Sara Z. Burke and Patrice Milewski, Schooling in Transition: Readings in

Canadian History of Education, 255-276.

Montgomery, K. (2005). Banal Racethinking: Ties of blood, Canadian history

textbooks and ethnic nationalism. Paedagogica Historica, 41(3), 313-

336.