During the period of Canada’s foundation, there was much controversy as to what nations should be recognized as the founding partners. The British still had a hold on Canada; they held Canada as part of their own nation and expected its citizens to follow their lead. As noted in CanLit “Other cultural and linguistic groups, including Indigenous peoples, were expected to assimilate to the notion of Canada as British.”(Nationalism 1500-1700s: Exploration and Settlement) The Indigenous peoples were not given the option to maintain their right to express their culture and be part of the foundation of Canada, rather they were expected to become a Canadian by following the British expectations of the ideal citizen. CanLit explains the issues that the Indigenous peoples had in expressing their culture as follows “the Indigenous peoples being reduced from allies and trading partners, to wards of the new Canadian state. They were seen primarily as obstacles to settlement who needed to be civilized before they could be assimilated into the population and become citizens.” (Nationalism 1800s: Loyalism and Nation-building). These people were only treated as a restriction from an idealized society and they had a choice; become a Canadian through the eyes of the British or be segregated from society due to belief and traditions. Where is the equality in these decisions? Canada is normally depicted as a peaceful place; we say “Please” and hold the door open for each other, but Canada’s foundation is created upon making people feel different due to their culture, rather than bracing this new form of traditions, stories and people, and allowing for the creation of a country where all are equal.
I really enjoyed reading about Louis Riel (I had read about him in high school but was excited to see all of the articles which gave light to his political career!). His goal was to maintain the Northwest part of Canada as land of the Métis, where the Manitoba Act was created. In an article I found that explains the motives of this Act it shows that “Central to this agreement, the federal government agreed to reserve 1.4 million acres (566,560 hectares) for the children of Métis residents of Manitoba and ensured that the province would be officially bilingual.” (Stanley). Riel had accomplished part of what he wanted; to allow the Métis people to keep their land, not just for now, but also for the future. His provisional government had succeeded in getting the attention of the Canadian government and demanding their rights to their land. Even though it seems simple that these people do have a right to their land, Riel was faced with so many obstacles in obtaining what was rightfully theirs. The provisional government enabled the “Métis (who) organized the Métis National Committee in order to protect the social, cultural and political status of the Métis in Red River and the Northwest” (Stanley) which was necessary due to the fact that the Canadian government decided that it had the right to their land. Louis Riel created a movement for the Métis people and showed them that their land was their heritage and their right, and the creation of the Manitoba Act put this on paper.
I would just like to add a quote I really liked from Frye “Identity is local and regional, rooted in the imagination and in works of culture; unity is national in reference, international in perspective, and rooted in a political feeling” (The Bush Gardens) which encapsulates the essence of what nationalism should be. Unlike the segregation of the Indigenous peoples in the founding of Canada, Frye determines that unity is key in creating a national home. In a united nation, all people are determined as equals and all have a right to their culture and traditions. But as Canadians, who really are we? Are we really those nice people, or do we have a shadowed history? Canada foundation was created upon the recognition of British rule in Canadian culture, which either left a person assimilating into their approved culture or wondering where the ideologies of the unity of differences had gone in the definition of nationalism.
“Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom’s Guide to Nationalism.” CanLit Guides. Canadian Literature. Aug. 15 2013. Web. Feb 23 2015.
Frye, Northrop. “The Bush Garden.” Blogspot. Web. Feb. 21 2015.
Stanley, George. “Louis Riel.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Apr. 22 2013. Web. Feb. 26 2015.
Gwyn, Richard. “Canada in the age of national-identity crisis: Gwyn.” The Star Commentary. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd, Apr. 1 2014. Web. Feb. 27 2015.
4 Comments
Hi Alexandra,
Thanks for teaching me about the Manitoba Act! I’d never learnt about it in school (at least as far as I can remember), but I do remember learning about the traveling side of Louis Riel. What a cool guy.
You finished your post saying: “In a united nation, all people are determined as equals and all have a right to their culture and traditions. But as Canadians, who really are we?” I think we’re both. We are a united nation, all under one flag and one federal law, but we are aiming (generally as individual people, not as a country, otherwise Bill C-51 wouldn’t be a conversation right now), but many of us have our own cultures and traditions which stem from our past. This allows us to be Canadian – our ability to embrace the differences makes us Canadian.
Best,
Caitlin
I agree that he is a cool guy 🙂 There is still so much more to learn about him! I think he one of the most interesting figures in Canada’s history. I really like how you see us as Canadian; we are united but in this unification we are all allowed our differences. I agree with what you say and thinking more about it, proves true. I looked up the Bill C-51 (as I previously did not know what that was-so thank you for the reference!) which explains how we all can be individuals in a diverse country. We are lucky we live in a place which embraces all different forms of thinking, belief, personalities and cultures. As a Canadian, we are open to new ideas and new cultures which helps all of us grow.
Thank you for your comment,
Alex
Hi Alexandra,
There was this line I really liked from Frye that is “The tension between this political sense of unity and the imaginative sense of locality is the essence of whatever the word “Canadian” means.”.
“Uniformity, where everyone “belongs,” uses the same cliches, thinks alike and behaves alike, produces a society which seems comfortable at first but is totally lacking in human dignity. Real unity tolerates dissent and rejoices in variety of outlook and tradition, recognizes that creating proletariats and scapegoats and second-class citizens is a mean and contemptible activity. Unity, so understood, is the genuine human life.”
I think that this quote should be the response for every time a politician or someone asks us what it means to be Canadian. Or even from any other country. Our country does not define the people we are or the people we become. To ask for unity, is to ask for conformity. To ask for conformity, is to ask the individual to put aside whatever it is that makes this individual who they are, so that they can form this unity.
I think nationalism is an exercise that serves political and military purposes. It builds boundaries between people. It provides reasons to exclude people and to discriminate them. It creates distances between neighbours.
Do we need to know what it means to be Canadian? Or is the definition of being Canadian, exactly who we already are – individually? I think so.
forgot to write my name
Qihui Huang