A key factor in language retention is the ethnic group’s as well as the individual’s attitude towards the preservation of the ethnic identity. We have seen that the Germans in Central and Eastern Europe cultivated a strong sense of identity, and a few groups like the Hutterites and some Mennonites still do. When there is strong group cohesion, the group’s attitude will surely affect the individual’s preparedness to surrender his or her cultural identity in the new country. If the group’s attitude strongly supports ethnic preservation, the individual is likely to favour it as well. On the other hand, if the immigrants are not held together by group cohesion, as most immigrants from Germany after the Second World War were not, they are likely to give up their ethnic identity and will, over time, develop a sense of belonging with the new country. The readiness with which “the Germans” have been prepared to become “Canadian” has been examined by numerous studies.
Block settlements, by their very nature, are likely to create and enforce group cohesion, as was the case in the Mennonite settlements in Manitoba and the migration of Mennonite groups to the fringes of secular society. In a study of assimilation in block settlements in North-Central Saskatchewan in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Anderson found German Catholics to be the most assimilated group: only 32.6% favoured the preservation of their ethnic identity. 29% used the language “fairly often” although 93.2% could, in fact, speak German. There was a strong relationship between desire for preservation of the ethnic identity and age: 69.5% of elderly respondents supported it, compared to none of the adolescent ones. 73% of the immigrants favoured preservation compared to 10% of the third (etc.) generation. Mennonites with up to high school education were generally in favour of identity preservation, but were resigned to its loss, while those with university education were largely indifferent. Hutterites, on the other hand, strongly supported identity preservation. [1]
In 1975, the Canadian Department of Manpower and Immigration published a comprehensive study of immigrants’ readiness to acquire English as their home language; one of the parameters was the immigrants’ “sense of belonging” in Canada. [2] It established that almost half of the sample of immigrants who had arrived from the Federal Republic of Germany between 1969 and 1971 felt “at home” after their first three years in Canada, 19% still felt “attached to their country of origin,” and 33% were undecided. Italians felt less at home (39%), while the Portuguese (64%) – although much less fluent in English – claimed a greater sense of belonging in Canada (see Table 4). [3]
Table 4 Sense of belonging in Canada, for selected ethnic groups [4]
In a 1976 study, O’Bryan et al. [5] found that members of the first generation of German immigrants were quick to call themselves “Canadian”: 35% of a selected sample of immigrants from German-speaking countries described themselves as “Canadian,” another 49% saw themselves as “German-Canadians” or “Canadians of German origin,” and only 10% still thought of themselves as “German.” Only Scandinavian (58%) and Dutch immigrants (53%) surpassed the Germans in the extent to which they perceived themselves as Canadians as early as the first generation. An overwhelming 68% of second-generation ethnic Germans labelled themselves “Canadian,” and 15% “German-Canadian” or “Canadian of German origin.” Among the third-generation ethnic Germans, the percentage describing themselves as Canadians rose to 80%; in this sample, the number of those who saw themselves as “German” was essentially zero. [6]
3.1 The Ethnic Identity and Retention Survey
In 1990, a careful study of ethnic identity in Toronto (specifically, Metropolitan Toronto and parts of Richmond Hill and Mississauga) among four ethnic groups (German, Italian, Jewish, and Ukrainian) as well as members of the English and “majority Canadian” groups was published by Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach and Reitz. [7] The data were derived from interviews with 2,338 respondents in 1978-1979 and covered members of the first, second, and third generation of these groups in weighted samples. Among the issues addressed, the examination of the retention of ethnic identity is of special interest for present purposes.
In the “Introduction,” ethnic identity was defined as follows:
Ethnic identity ... can be defined as the manner in which persons, on account of their ethnic origin, locate themselves psychologically in relation to one or more social systems, and in which they perceive others as locating them in relation to those systems.” (p. 35)
Locating oneself in relation to a community and society is not only a psychological phenomenon, but also a social phenomenon in the sense that the internal psychological states express themselves objectively in external behaviour patterns that come to be shared by others. Thus individuals locate themselves in one or another community internally by states of mind and feelings, such as self-definitions or feelings of closeness, and externally by behaviour appropriate to these states of mind and feelings. Behaviour according to cultural patterns is thus an expression of identity and can be studied as an indication of its character.
We can thus distinguish between external and internal aspects of ethnic identity. External aspects refer to observable behaviour, … such as (1) speaking an ethnic language, practicing ethnic traditions, and so on; (2) participation in ethnic personal networks, such as family and friendships; (3) participation in ethnic institutional organizations, such as churches, schools, enterprises, and the media; (4) participation in ethnic voluntary associations, such as clubs, ‘societies’, and youth organizations; and (5) participation in functions sponsored by ethnic organizations such as picnics, concerts, public lectures, rallies, dances.
The internal, subjective aspects of ethnic identity refer to images, ideas, attitudes, and feelings… The cognitive dimension of identity includes, first, self-images and images of one’s group. These may be stereotypes of self or of the group and perceived stereotypes by others of oneself and one’s group. It also includes knowledge of one’s group’s heritage and its historical past. This knowledge may not necessarily be extensive or objective. It may rather focus on selected aspects or events or historical personalities that are highly symbolic of the group’s experiences and that thus have become a legacy. Finally, the cognitive dimension includes knowledge of one’s group’s values, since these are part of the group’s heritage.
The moral dimension of identity involves feelings of group obligations. ... Feelings of obligation account for the commitment a person has to his group and for the group solidarity that ensues. They include the importance of teaching the ethnic language to one’s children, marrying within the group, or helping members of the group finding a job.
The affective ... dimension refers to feelings of attachment to the group. Two types of such feelings can be distinguished: (1) feelings of security with and sympathy and associative preference for members of one’s group as against members of other groups, and (2) feelings of security and comfort with the cultural patterns of one’s group as against the cultural patterns of other groups or societies. (pp. 35-37)
Based on this definitional complex, Isajiw examined the retention of ethnic identity in the groups mentioned and came to the following conclusions: [8]
3.1.1 Retention of external, behavioural aspects of ethnic identity
• Ethnic language retention: Most of the second-generation Germans in Toronto acquired English as their mother tongue (64%) while 62% of the second-generation Italians and 71% of the Ukrainians learned the ethnic language as their mother tongue. Almost 100% of the third generation of all groups (except the Ukrainians where ca. 12% learned Ukrainian as their mother tongue) had English as their mother tongue. (p. 50)
• Having at least some knowledge of the ethnic language for whom English is the mother tongue: In the second generation, Germans showed the lowest proportion of such knowledge (41%) while the Jewish show the highest (86%); Italians and Ukrainians came in with 55% and 56%, respectively. In the third generation, only 12% of the Germans had at least some knowledge of German, while for the Jewish, Ukrainian and Italian groups the corresponding percentages were substantially higher at 69%, 48%, and 46%, respectively. (p. 50).
• Literacy in the ethnic language among those with English mother tongue: The reading and writing abilities declined sharply from generation to generation in all groups. From the first to the second generation the loss was the steepest among the Italians and the Germans (by 60% for Italians and by 36% for Germans in the reading skills; by 62% for Italians and 42% for Germans for the writing skills). In the third generation, only 17% of the Germans with English mother tongue read the ethnic language very or fairly well (down from 54%), and 17% were able to write German very or fairly well (down from 43%). Among Italians and Ukrainians the self-perceived ability to read or write the ethnic language declined to very similar low levels in the third generation, but it remained high among the Jewish group with 46% for reading and 25% for writing the language. (pp. 52-53)
• Frequency of ethnic-language use among those who can use it: Among the first generation, 94% of the Italians and 84% Ukrainians used their ethnic language every day or often, but only 57% of the Germans reported doing so. In the second generation, 74% still used Italian every day or at least often, 58% of the Ukrainians did so, but only 29% of the Germans. In the third generation, the percentage of those who speak their language every day was between zero and 10% for all groups (0% for Germans). 75% of the Germans in the third generation never or rarely used German, as did 74% of the Jewish group, 67% of the Italians and 67% of the Ukrainians. (pp. 53-54). Yet 64% of the second and 32% of the third generation reported that it is important to them that their children learn their ethnic language. Isajiw suggested that language in the second or third generation no longer is a means for practical communication but it becomes a symbol or means of identity reinforcement. (pp. 55-56).
• Ethnic-group friendships: Germans were the least exclusive in their friendship patterns: As many as 34% of the first generation had no close German friends at all, and this percentage increased to 71% and 76% in the subsequent generations. At the other end of the continuum, only five percent of first-generation Italians had no close Italian friends. (p. 58)
• Participation in ethnic-group functions: The most active participants in ethnic group functions in the first generations were Italians and Ukrainians with 71% of the respondents indicating that they participated either frequently, often or sometimes; among the first-generation Germans, only 33% did so. In the second generation, only seven percent, and in the third six percent of the Germans said that they participated in ethnic group functions frequently, often or sometimes. Among the other three groups almost half of second-generation members still participated frequently, often or sometimes; 28% of the Italians did so in the third generation, 42% among the Jewish, and 33% among the Ukrainians still participated in ethnic group activities in the third generation. (pp. 60-63)
• Attendance at ethnic vacation resorts or camps was low among all groups, but lowest among the Germans with 5%, 2% and 4% in the first through third generations. (p. 63)
• Germans were very similar to the English in the extent to which the participated in non-ethnic group ‘Canadian functions”: 67% of the first-generation did so compared to 62% of the English; 42% of the Italians and 52% of the Ukrainians participated frequently, often or sometimes. In the other groups, participation rates climbed drastically in the second and third generations so that by the third generation about 80% of all groups (except the Jewish with 48%) said that they participated frequently, often or sometimes in non-ethnic group functions. (p. 62)
• Listening to ethnic radio and watching ethnic TV: Italians in the first generation were the highest consumers of ethnic electronic media with 84% saying that they listened to Italian-language radio or watched Italian-language TV frequently, often or sometimes; 61% of the Ukrainians did so as did 61% of the Germans. By the second generation, between a quarter to a third of the group members reported using ethnic electronic medias frequently, often or sometimes, and in the third generation, the Germans were lowest with one percent reporting that they listened to the German radio or watched German TV. (p. 65)
• Reading ethnic newspapers, magazines, or periodicals: 69% of the Italians, 63% of the Ukrainians, 59% of the Jewish, but only 51% of the first-generation Germans claimed to read ethnic newspapers, periodicals, or magazines frequently, often or sometimes. In the second generation, the percentages ranged between 15 and 20 (except for the Jewish group with 57%), by the third generation, 55% of the Jewish group still read ethnic media, but only one percent of the Ukrainians, two percent of the Germans, and 6% of the Italians did so. (p. 65).
• Consumption of ethnic food associated with ethnic holidays: between 90 and 100% of the first-generation Italians, Jews and Ukrainians, and 70% of the Germans said that they consumed ethnic food associated with holidays every time, often or sometimes. In the third generation, 28% of the Germans, but 74% of the Italians, 91% of the Jewish group, and 86% of the Ukrainians claimed doing so. (pp. 67-68)
• Consumption of ethnic food at times other than holidays: More than 90% among all groups in the first generation said that they ate ethnic food at times than holidays either every time, frequently or sometimes. The percentages dropped to 52% for the Germans in the third generation who said that they ate ethnic food at non-holiday occasions, significantly fewer than the Italians (92%), the Jewish (87%), and the Ukrainians (82%). (p. 68)
• Practice of ethnic customs: In the first generation, only 59% of the Germans stated that they cultivated group customs; while as many as 92% of the Ukrainians reported doing so. In the third generation, 15% of the Germans, 47% of the Ukrainians, 39% of the Italians, and 90% of the members of the Jewish group stated that they practiced religious or non-religious ethnic customs every time, often or sometimes. (p. 68)
• Possession of ethnic articles, such as artistic articles, religious objects or traditional clothing characteristic or symbolic of their ethnic group: In the first generation, the possession rate was highest for Ukrainians with 96% and lowest for Germans with 63%. By the third generation, 23% of the Germans vs. 64% of the Italians, 64% of the Ukrainians and 93% of the Jewish said that they owned ethnic articles. (p. 69)
3.1.2 Internal aspects of ethnic identity. It will be recalled that internal aspects of ethnic identity refer to cognitive, moral and affective aspects of ethnic identity. The authors constructed an “ethnic identity index” which is composed of (a) the respondents’ self-definition as “hyphenated” or “unhyphenated” or “Canadians” (i.e., the cognitive aspect); (b) the importance they attach to their ethnicity (moral aspect), and (c) their perceptions of the closeness of their ethnic ties (affective aspect). The index may range from “3” indicating low intensity of ethnic identity to “8” indicating high intensity.
• Ethnic identity index. In the first generation, Germans displayed the lowest intensity index at 4.6, compared with 6.4 for the Italians, 6.1 for the Ukrainians, and 4.8 for the Jewish. In the second generation, the Germans’ intensity index dropped to 4.1, but by less than the Italians’ index (to 5.9) or the Ukrainians (to 5.1); in the third generation, the Germans rated 3.3 on the ethnic identity index and 4.5 for both the Ukrainians and Italians. For the Jewish group, the intensity index remained virtually unchanged over the three generations at 5.9. (p. 75)
When the intensity of ethnic identity is measured, 14% of the first-generation Germans showed a high intensity, compared to 58% for the Italians, 60% for the Ukrainians, and 51% for the Jewish group. In the second generation, the percentage of those claiming high ethnic intensity among the Italians and Ukrainians dropped by about half. By the third generation, only one percent of the Germans reported high ethnic intensity, 10% of the Ukrainians, and 14% of the Italians did so. In the Jewish group, the percentage of those for whom a high ethnic intensity was calculated remained at about 50% over all three generations. (p. 75)
• Ethnic group obligations. Feelings of group obligations, as defined here, refer to how important it was to respondents to help people of their own background to get jobs; the importance which they attached to their actual or potential children marrying into their own ethnic group; the extent to which they felt obliged to support their group’s special causes, and the importance which they attached to their children, actual or potential, to learn the ethnic language.
Helping group members find a job: For the Germans, this obligation ranked by far the lowest among all ethnic groups and the members of all three generations (34% in the first, 32% in the second, and 20% in the third). (p. 78)
Marrying within the ethnic group: 7% of the first-generation Germans considered it important for their children to marry partners of German origin, compared to 73% of the Jewish, 61% of the Ukrainians, and 39% of the Italians. The level of importance attached to children marrying within the ethnic group was similarly low for all groups in the third generation (except for the Jewish group with 66%) at about four percent (two percent for the Germans). (p. 78)
Supporting group needs and causes: Only 24% of the first-generation Germans (compared to 79% of the Ukrainians and 65% of the Italians) attached significance to support their ethnic group’s needs and causes. Even in the third generation, 36% of the Ukrainians, 20% of the Italians said that this was important, compared to seven percent of the Germans . For the Jewish group, the importance given to supporting its cause and needs remained virtually unchanged at 80% or above over all three generations. (p. 78)
Importance that children speak ethnic language: In the first generation, 65% of the Germans, 94% of the Italians, and 83% of the Ukrainians felt that it was important for their children to learn to speak their ethnic language. By the third generation, only 15% of the Germans considered it important that their children learned to speak German, while 37% of the Ukrainians and 31% of the Italians did so. For members of the Jewish group there was only a slight decline from 64% to 54% from the first to the third generation. (p. 79)
When the Jewish group is left out of consideration (as Isajiw suggested, religion plays a dominating role in the maintenance – and even rediscovery – of the ethnic identity of the Jewish), the Germans in Toronto ranked lowest on virtually all dimensions of the external and internal aspects of ethnic identity among the three remaining ethnic groups and across three generations. In cases, such as the observation that second-generation Italians showed the lowest level of skill in reading the ethnic language (38% vs. 54% for the Germans and 42% for the Ukrainians), sampling errors may well be the reason.
Isajiw noted succinctly that “for the German group, the preferred route to identity retention appears to be connected with the third generation’s emphasis on foods and friends of the same ethnicity.” (p. 88)
In a subsequent paper on the Germans, using the same data, Isajiw (1998) raised two questions:
How can we explain the fact that the loss of identity among German-Canadians is so much faster than among other comparable ethnic groups? Second, does this loss of identity mean that the German community in Canada is disappearing? [9]
Isajiw noted that more research needs to be done on these issues, but it was clear from the data that there was a definite correlation between the degree of ethnic socialization and ethnic identity retention. There were several distinctive differences between the Germans and the others (p. 76), viz.
* Second generation German-Canadians did not commonly use either German or a mixture of German and English when speaking to their young children. 12% of the Germans did so, compared to 46% of the Italians and 44% of the Ukrainians.
* 45% of the second-generation German-Canadians used either German or a combination of German and English while 72% of the Italians and 96% of the Ukrainians did so.
* Only 0.7 percent of the third-generation German-Canadians attended German schools or classes when they were growing up compared to 17% of the Ukrainians and 82% of the Jewish.
* Only 10% of the German third-generation said that their German identity or German cultural background was somewhat or very important, compared with 30% of the Italians, 51% of the Jewish, and 77% of the Ukrainians.
Isajiw observed that childhood ethnic socialization appears to be a significant factor in ethnic retention, but it is still not known why there is such a difference between the German-Canadians and the other groups (p. 77).
He also found it puzzling that there was quite a large difference between individual and institutional ethnic identity retention. Using mostly 1974 data, he pointed out that German-Canadians had the third-largest number of ethnic organizations in Canada to support their identity, the third-largest number of ethnic publications and were third in the number of broadcast minutes per week in German (p. 80). Of course, the passage of time will certainly have seen the disappearance of many of these institutions among all four ethnic groups studied.
3.2 The Ethnic Diversity Survey
More recently, the most comprehensive examination of “belonging” – that is, from the perspective of a sense of belonging to one’s ethnic group – was carried out in 2003 in the Ethnic Diversity Survey: Portrait of a multicultural society. [10] Because of its relevance to this study, its findings will be described here in detail.
The purpose of the study was to help Statistics Canada and Canadian Heritage to understand better “how people's backgrounds affect their participation in the social, economic and cultural life of Canada.” Also, the survey “asked questions about ethnic ancestry and ethnic identity, and the importance of ethnicity to the respondent. … The survey explored both objective and subjective dimensions of ethnicity and asked questions about the respondent's ethno-cultural background in order to better understand how respondents choose or do not choose certain ethnic identifications.” 42,476 persons responded to the survey questions.
Of interest for the current study were the Survey’s examination of Canadian ethnic groups’ sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group and of the importance which they attach to their ancestry and their cultural traditions.
3.2.1 A sense of belonging experienced by all members of an ethnic group. The Survey examined Canadians’ sense of belonging to their ethnic group by three membership criteria, viz. all members of a specified ethnic group; members of the first vs. the second vs. the third generation of an ethnic group; and the immigrants of the 1990s.
This sense of belonging varied, not surprisingly, by ancestry (see Table 5). For example, 78% of Filipinos reported a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group, as did 65% of East Indians, 65% of Portuguese, 58% of Chinese, and 56% of Italians. Some of this variation among groups may be related to the extent to which the group is composed of new arrivals to Canada and of people who have been here for many generations. [11] Overall, the first generation had a higher proportion than subsequent generations of a strong sense of belonging. About 57% of the first generation of all immigrants reported a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group, compared with 47% of the second generation, and 48% of the third generation.
German-Canadians were found in the same group as, for example, Ukrainians, Norwegians, Swedes, and Dutch in terms of the strength of their affiliation to their ethnic group. 33% of the entire German ethnic group reported a strong sense of belonging, 22% had a medium sense of belonging, and 43% had a weak sense of belonging. By comparison, only seven percent of the Filipinos expressed a weak sense of belonging, and 15% expressed a medium sense of belonging to their ethnic group.
As the census question “ethnic origin” requested the respondents to supply their (or their ancestors’) ethnic origin – which may date back many generations – it is not surprising that almost half the German-Canadians expressed only a weak sense of belonging to their group. Immigrants from Southeast Asia have arrived in Canada in large numbers only in the last few decades.
Table 5 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, for the entire ethnic group, 2002 [12]
3.2.2 The sense of belonging felt by the immigrants of the 1990s. About 75% of Filipinos, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Portuguese and East Indians immigrants felt a strong sense of belonging with their ethnic group (see Table 6). Among the first generation of immigrants of German origin who arrived in Canada between 1991 and 2001, 50% held a strong sense of belonging, and 25% each had a medium or weak sense of belonging to their ethnic group.
Regrettably, the Canadian Census no longer reports the annual number of immigrants by ethnic origin, but data by country of last permanent residence are available: Between 1991 and 2001, a total of 23,129 persons who reported Germany as the country of last permanent residence immigrated to Canada, [13] and according to the 2001 Census 7,565 Mennonites immigrated in the same time period. [14] The vast majority of the Mennonite immigrants belonged to conservative groupings who returned to Canada from Mexico, Bolivia, Belize, Uruguay, and elsewhere for economic reasons. Most of them would have reported German origin, and conservative Mennonites are known to have a strong affiliation with their German ancestry. In other words, the percentage of German-origin immigrants of the 1990s from Germany – as opposed to the re-immigrants – having a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group was probably considerably lower than the 50% reported in Table 6.
Table 6 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, for immigrants arriving during the 1990s [15]
3.2.3 The sense of belonging felt by members of the first vs. the second vs. the third generation of an ethnic group. For several ethnic groups, it was possible to assess the strength of their sense of belonging to their own group over three generations.
First generation (see Table 7). A strong sense of affiliation with their ethnic group was felt by the entire first (=immigrant) generation of Filipinos (80%), Portuguese and Pakistanis (71%), Sri Lankans (68%), and East Indians (66%). At the other end of the scale, among German immigrants 39% felt a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group – which is comparable to the Norwegians (38%) and the Dutch of whom only 37% still expressed a strong sense of belonging to their cultural group.
The highest percentages of immigrants feeling only a weak sense of belonging to their ethnic group were recorded by persons of German or Dutch origin (40%), whereas only about 10% of immigrants from southeast Asia and Portugal reporting a weak sense of belonging to their cultural group. While this strong feeling of still belonging to their ethnic group is not surprising, the weak affiliation revealed by Dutch- and German-Canadians in the immigrant generation is. It may be explained by the fact, however, that most immigrants from Germany and the Netherlands came to Canada in the 1950s and 1960s; it can be reasonably expected that their sense of belonging had diminished over the last few decades.
Table 7 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, for the first generation, 2002 [16]
Second generation. The first Canadian-born generation of persons from Southeast Asia recorded in Table 8 reported a substantially reduced sense of belonging (about 60% vs. 70% for the immigrant generation) while the percentage of those showing a medium sense of belonging increased by about five percent (from ca. 19% to 23%).
The first native-born generation of German-Canadians expressed a slight decrease in strength of their sense of belonging to the German ethnic group from 39% to 33% which shifted about equally to a more medium and weak sense of belonging. The other members in this group of ethnic origins – except the Swedes – experienced a similar slight shift away from a strong sense of affiliation with their ethnocultural group.
Table 8 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, for the second generation, 2002 [17]
Third generation. The data for third generation members of the Southeast Asia ethnic groups described here were not reliable enough to be reported as the sample size was likely to be small (see Table 9).
Only one third of the third-generation of German-Canadians reported a strong sense of belonging – the same as felt by the members of the second generation; the Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians and Ukrainians expressed a further slight decline in the number of those feeling a strong sense of belonging to less than a third of the group in question. All groups reported a slight to considerable increase in the percentage of those feeling only a weak affiliation with their ethnocultural group.
Table 9 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, for the third generation, 2002 [18]
3.3 The importance of customs and traditions
Feelings of belonging to one’s ethnic group may be reflected in a better awareness of one’s ethnic heritage, customs and traditions. [19] The Survey found that, understandably, the first generation was more likely than other generations to indicate that ethnic customs and traditions were important to them. Nearly three quarters of those who had arrived in Canada since 1991 and rated their ancestry highly also rated their customs and traditions as being important. Punjabis ranked first with 92% rating at least one ethnic custom/tradition as being “important” or “very important;” Iranians shared second place with Greeks, Sri Lankans and Vietnamese at 82% of the groups considering at least one ethnic tradition important..
To about 80% of most Canadians of Southeast Asian origin at least one such tradition was important (see Table 10). In the German ethnic group, 45% said that cultural traditions were important to them; conversely 55% said that none was important to them or did not respond to the question. Ukrainians perceived cultural traditions to be substantially higher in importance (63% saying that cultural traditions were important to them) than the Dutch (38%) or the Swedes (37%).
Table 10 Importance of customs and traditions among ethnic or cultural groups rating their ancestry highly [20]
3.4 Discussion
The following inferences may be drawn from these studies of ethnic identity and retention and the sense of “belonging in Canada” or “belonging to one’s ethnic group.”
In virtually all aspects of external and internal ethnic identity retention, the Germans in Toronto were found to rank lowest among the ethnic groups studied. While the causes of this phenomenon are not clear, children in “German” families were less socialized to their ethnic group, heard their parents’ mother tongue spoken at home less often than other second-generation children, and attended an ethnic language school less often. Low childhood ethnic socialization clearly led to low adult ethnic socialization in the second and into the third generation.
Urban Canadians of German origin have been shown to assimilate quickly and readily and to develop a sense of belonging in Canada. This also becomes evident in the fact that the sense of belonging to one ethnic or cultural group is much higher among, for example, Canadians of Southeast Asian descent (and others) in the immigrant and other generations than among Canadians of German, Dutch, or Scandinavian descent. But the visible minority groups mentioned have been relatively recent arrivals in Canada while German- and Dutch-Canadians and others have a long history in this country.
Consequently, the low sense of belonging among them may be an artefact created by comparing groups whose length of presence in Canada differs considerably. Yet, even among members of the immigrant generation of German-Canadians, Dutch-Canadians, and Scandinavian-Canadians, and even among those who arrived in the 1990s (where data are available), the sense of affiliation with their cultural group is considerably lower than among the other groups.
The fact that 50% of the immigrants of German origin who arrived here in the 1990s expressed a high sense of affiliation with their own ethnic group may be a composite of both a higher and lower sense of affiliation. If the returning Mennonite groups did, in fact, report a higher sense of belonging to their ethnic group, as one would expect, [21] then the sense of belonging felt by immigrants from Germany would be even lower than 50%.
Table 11 presents the decline in German-Canadians’ strength of their sense of belonging to their own ethnic group from ca. 50% (which almost certainly is inflated) to 39% among the first generation and to 33% in the second and third generations. Immigrants of German ethnic origin – excepting the Mennonites – are apparently quick to relinquish their attachment to their group.
Table 11 Sense of belonging to one’s ethnic or cultural group, by generation, 2002
The inference that German-Canadians (and Dutch- and Scandinavian-Canadians) put less stock in a high affiliation with their group than others is borne out by the data showing that they are also not attaching as high a significance to their cultural traditions than other ethnic groups. The percentages of those expressing a strong sense of belonging are comparable to those who consider at least one custom or ethnic tradition important: they both ranked in the 30% to low 40% range.
|
[1] Alan B. Anderson, Assimilation in the block settlements of North-Central Saskatchewan. Ph.D. Dissertation. (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 1972, pp. 366-367.
[2] Canada, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Canadian Immigration and Population Study: Three years in Canada. Vol. IV. First report of the longitudinal survey of the economic and social adaptation of immigrants (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1975), Table 11.11.
[3] Canada, Canadian Immigration and Population Study, p. 109.
[4] Canada, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Canadian Immigration and Population Study: Three years in Canada. Vol. IV. First report of the longitudinal survey of the economic and social adaptation of immigrants (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1975), Table 11.11.
[5] K.G. O’Bryan, J.G. Reitz, and O.M. Kuplowska, Non-official languages: A study in Canadian Multiculturalism (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1976).
[6] O’Bryan et al., p. 100-101.
[7] Raymond Breton, Wsevolod W. Isajiw, Warren E. Kalbach, and Jeffrey G. Reitz, Ethnic identity and quality. Varieties of experience in a Canadian city. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990). For a review of studies on the development of ethnic identity over three generations see Isajiw in this volume (pp. 38-48).
[8] Wsevolod W. Isajiw, “Ethnic identity retention,” in Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach, and Reitz (1990), pp. 34-91.
[9] Wsevolod W. Isajiw, “Identity and identity retention among German Canadians: Individual and Institutional,” in Angelika E. Sauer and Matthias Zimmer (eds.), A chorus of different voices. German-Canadian identities. New York: Peter Lang, 1998, p. 76.
[10] Statistics Canada, Ethnic Diversity Survey: Portrait of a multicultural society (Ottawa, 2003), Cat. No: 89-593-XIE. Additional tables were provided by the authors, Carole Sawaya and Jennifer Chard at Statistics Canada, for whose generous assistance the author wishes to express his gratitude. For details on the Survey see http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/4508.htm.
[11] Ethnic Diversity Survey, p. 8.
[12] Statistics Canada, Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2002 (unpublished data). Notes: 1. Reponses from 40 ethnic groups (single and multiple responses) were collected by the Survey; data refer to the non-Aboriginal population aged 15 and over. In the following tables, only the highest- and lowest-scoring groups are reported. 2. Row totals may not add to 100% because the categories “not asked”, “refused” or “don’t know” are not reported here. 3. In several instances the Survey recommended “caution” in the interpretation of the data. See source document for details.
[13] “Immigration Statistics”, annual reports (Ottawa: Department of Citizenship and Immigration); Table 051-0006 – Immigrants to Canada, by country of last permanent residence.
[14] Canada. Statistics Canada, CC 2001, 97F0022XCB01004.
[15] See Table LM.3. A “-“ denotes data considered by the Survey too unreliable to be published.
[16] See Table LM.4.
[17] See Table LM.4.
[18] See Table LM.4.
[19] Ethnic Diversity Survey, pp. 9-10.
[20] See Table LM.3. Sample item: “Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all, and 5 is very important, how important is it for you to carry on ethnic customs and traditions, such as holidays and celebrations, food, clothing or art?”
[21] “Most of the Low-German speaking people in southern Ontario would be newcomers that have come from Mexico, Belize, Bolivia, Paraguay or perhaps even Uruguay. We just recently put up a low-power FM Low German radio station and we estimate that at least 10,000 people could understand us.” (Personal communication from Abe Harms, EMMC, received on June 2, 2004). It has also been estimated that some 2,000 Mennonites returning from Latin America have settled in the Taber and La Crete regions of Alberta. In the former, the school systems are finding it difficult to integrate the children because of their lack of knowledge of English. |
Printer friendly
Download file
