An apology cannot change history, but acknowledgment and disavowal of past evils can help shape a better future. As the sa国际传媒 government apologizes for the racism that created the Chinese head tax, it is long past time for this newspaper to acknowledge its predecessors鈥� role in fomenting intolerant attitudes and policies.
The head tax, implemented by the federal government in 1885 to control Chinese immigration, was only one in a string of acts that singled out Chinese people. In fact, one draft of the government apology included a list of more than four dozen government acts that discriminated against them.
The head tax was a response to fears that Chinese workers brought to work on the Canadian Pacific Railway would stay and take jobs from whites. It charged individuals $10 for the right to land in sa国际传媒, but that fee rose to $500 by 1903. sa国际传媒 governments were happy to take their share of the revenue.
Those Chinese who did stay here were banned from most occupations. If they started their own businesses, they were prohibited from hiring white workers.
The discrimination culminated in the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which is often called the Chinese Exclusion Act. It prohibited all Chinese from entering sa国际传媒, except for merchants, diplomats and students. Even ethnic Chinese who were British citizens were covered by the ban. It remained in force until 1947, after sa国际传媒 signed the United Nations鈥� Charter of Human Rights.
Enforcement of the act began on July 1, Dominion Day. The Chinese called it 鈥淗umiliation Day,鈥� and refused to take part in annual celebrations of the country鈥檚 birthday.
Anti-Chinese sentiment came easily in the white Anglo-Saxon culture that dominated early British Columbia. It was a culture in which almost anyone 鈥渄ifferent鈥� was regarded as inferior, and society was stratified in classes based on wealth and blood lines.
鈥淭here was a whole pecking order,鈥� says Prof. Patricia Roy of the University of Victoria鈥檚 history department. 鈥淲ho was on the bottom varied a bit from time to time.鈥�
But the Chinese were the only people barred from sa国际传媒 specifically by race.
While the most restrictive laws were passed by the federal government, sa国际传媒 politicians and citizens campaigned vigorously to get the legislation introduced. And the province鈥檚 newspapers, including the Times and the Colonist, led the charge.
In doing research for The Oriental Question and her other books on anti-Asian discrimination, Roy delved into the newspapers of the time.
鈥淓very time I opened up a newspaper, I would find something a little more dramatic in the wording,鈥� she said. 鈥淒ramatic鈥� is perhaps too polite for the inflammatory language she found.
We cannot apologize for something we didn鈥檛 do. Those who should apologize were dead long before we were born, and likely went unapologetically to their graves. It could be argued that we should not retroactively apply our standards to those who lived in a different age. That might be true in many cases, but what was printed on the pages of this newspaper鈥檚 predecessors (and many other newspapers) was hatred, and hatred is wrong in any age.
The Times and the Colonist promoted hatred. In doing so, they did their readers and their community a disservice. They pandered to the worst in human nature. They hindered when, with a little courage and compassion, they could have helped.
What鈥檚 the point of digging up the more unsavoury pieces of the past? To ensure such bigotry doesn鈥檛 happen again. To ensure it hasn鈥檛 left slimy tendrils that can take root today in different forms.
We do not condemn the journalists and other citizens of early sa国际传媒 as evil people, but we condemn most heartily the evil sentiments they too easily embraced.
