2] In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

For this blog assignment I have chosen to focus on the immigration act of 1910.  It is however difficult to discuss this act without first mentioning the immigration act of 1906. The immigration act of 1906 was the precursor to the more severe act  implemented in 1910.  The 1906 act defined “an immigrant” and although there has been laws in place since 1869 which had placed certain regulations on immigration, the act of 1906 banned the immigration of individuals who were deemed unwanted by the government.  Not only did the immigration act of 1906 place strict immigration guidelines but it also gave the government the right to deport immigrants and to place a required amount of “landing money” that all immigrants were required to have.

The immigration Act of 1910 is seen as the second event to place restrictive laws on immigration.  The act of 1910 furthered the restrictions on the 1906 Act by stating that the government had the right to prevent the immigration of all “immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada.” (Government of Canada) The Act of 1910 also gave the government more power to deport any individuals based on any uncertainty of their morals of political views. Some of the numbers relating to the deportation of immigrants are insane, and based on ridiculous grounds such as illness and that they might potentially become criminals.  The government also introduced an “in-order council” which required all immigrants of Asiatic descent to have $200 in cash when entering Canada.  This head tax was an incredible sum as in general the average worker in Canada made only slightly over $400 annually. The “in-order council” also controlled the $25 fee that was applicable to all other immigrants, this requirement created much protest in Great Britain because immigrants would now have to have an addition $25 to the money that would be needed for their passage to reach Canada.  

Once an immigrant had reached Canada, the act of 1910 decreed that they were on a three year probationary period which meant that until permanent residency was granted, the immigrant could be deported at any time that they became classified as undesirable 

It is startling to note that this act had very little debate.  The only discussion that it inspired was in relation to the governments failure to increase the population of the maritime provinces.  

I feel that the Immigration Act of 1910 fit perfectly with Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility. Like the project of white civility the Immigration Act of 1910 was an attempt to create country based on an image set forth by a close minded individual who felt that he knew what was best for an entire nation.  The Canada that I know now is such an open and welcoming country that it surprised me that we have had such a judgemental past filled with racism and bias. I hope that this country keeps striving for equality and never forgets the horrors of our past.  

Works Cited

Canada. Government of Canada. Publications and Manuals. Forging Our Legacy: Canadian     Citizenship and Immigration 1900-1977. Online.  2006.07.01.

“Immigration Act, 1910″. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. Canada. Government of Canada. 1910. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

1] In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to the story.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The first time I read “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” I was so confused and I really had no idea half the time what was going on.  In hindsight I was skimming and in order to properly understand this text I found that I had to slow down and read out loud.  I read this text three times. First I read it quickly and in my head, then I read it out loud to a friend, and finally I had my friend read it to me.

As I said before, my first attempt was a little bit of a failure, my second attempt however gave me a new perspective on the entire text.  I found that the sentences that before had made no sense at all, now flowed with ease and even the mistakes and oddities within the text didn’t seem to matter as much.  It wasn’t an immediate transformation however, it did take me a few pages to allow the words to flow and to stop being so focused on the text itself.  I feel that often as students we are taught to read in the same way that we wright.  This I feel, makes us susceptible to every word that we read.  This method of reading takes a lot of effort! I’m sure many of you have read a paragraph and realized that you have absolutely no idea what you just read, then you go back and read the paragraph again word for word to understand what it was that your brain skimmed over the first time.  I feel that in this text you are forced to read the words as if they were your own, and simply on the page as a guideline for the direction of the story.  Without making your own changes mentally as you read it out loud, it really makes no sense.  Once you allow your mouth to make the small changes as you go and to stop fixating on the words themselves the story comes together.

The third time, I had my friend read the story to me.  This was a different experience all together because as much as she initially struggled, I simply listened and absorbed the words that she was saying.  Although at this point I was pretty clear on the story I felt that listening was the most natural way to hear this story.  When I was reading out loud I still had to process the words that I said, when the story was told to me I felt that there was no restriction placed on the meaning.  My friend initially though that the story was a little odd, however she did not feel that her comprehension of the story was greater after having read it out loud. I found this very interesting because I found that after having the story told to me, I had more understanding.  Perhaps had I had the story read to me initially, I would not have not struggled so much to understand the story in the first place.

Check out a blog posted by Scicurious, there is a very interesting post on silent reading and how our brains process written word when reading in our own heads.  Although I agree with the post, I do feel that they should have acknowledged the difference between how we perceive text when we read silently and when we read out loud, instead of simply focusing on how our brains process silent reading.  

– Jennifer

Works Cited

King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Mississauga, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

“Silent Reading isn’t so Silent, at Least, not to your Brain.” Blog Post. Neurotic Physiology. Scientopia, Jan 23, 2013. Web. Feb. 13, 2015.

Question 1

King’s decision to include two different stories of creation seems completely logical to me.  To omit a version simply because one does not believe it seems contradictory.  Also, is that not what the First Nations have been fighting against this whole time?

I do not think that people must chose a version of the story to believe, there are many people in fact, that do not believe any of the creation stories and simply believe in a scientific explanation.  This is not to say that the stories lose their importance if one does not believe them, it is the stories that are told that create a people, a culture, and a history. Personally I believe in a scientific explanation, that does not mean that I don’t value all versions of the creation story.  My family is of European descent and although we are not religious at all, the religious practices that my family follows such as Christmas and Easter have been absorbed into cultural practice and have become my families culture even without a focus on religion.  These practices make my family complete and without them we would be missing our family traditions.

By allowing us to hear two creation stories together, King is able to convey the importance of having stories that make our traditions instead of placing the importance on the belief in the stories themselves. I do not believe that King emphasizes the believability of one story over the other.  Although he clearly spends more time, and gives more detail to the story of “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky,” I believe that how King tells the story is true to the culture of the stories themselves.  Historically “The Woman who fell from the Sky” would have been told orally and with detail, perhaps the details would have been slightly different had someone else told it, maybe it would have been longer or shorter, it might have even had a different tone or been told to teach a lesson unrelated to the creation of the earth.  All of these variables mean that King had a choice in how he chose to tell the story.  The story of Adam and Eve is more cut and dry.  It has been written down and read for hundreds of years.  Those who believe in the story believe in the bible and what is written, and therefore is unchanging.  The way King told the story of Adam and Eve complements this more structured belief system.

Wendy Wickwire discusses the importance of hearing a story many story many times before one is able to come to any conclusions about it. (Robinson, 19) This is critical to understand when one thinks about the importance of preserving these stories and why perhaps King placed more detail in the First Nations story.

Overall it is important to understand that no matter what your beliefs may be, it is easier for people to exist within a framework than to be floundering.  I believe that King told these two stories together to create an understanding that no matter where we come from or what we believe in we all search for this framework and as long as we are content with how we share these stories with others, one does not have more importance than the other.

Works Cited

King, The Truth About Stories, Chapter One: You’ll Never Believe What Happened Is Always a Great Way to Start.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books2005. (1-30)