Grant, Peter R. “”Canadian, Eh?” an Examination of the Multidimensional Structure and Functions of the National Identity of Immigrants and of those Raised in Canada.”Canadian Ethnic Studies 48.1 (2016): 45. Web.
Grant, in the article “Canada, Eh?” attempts to answer the question we as Canadians often struggle with. The question being what makes us Canadian and how, as a nation, are we unique. Grant goes about answering this question with straightforward questions directed at recent newcomers to Canada as well as those born here. Grant’s approach seems rather methodical and scientific as he provides us with charts and statistical facts to back up the data that has been collected. I found this approach refreshing and easy to dissect as opposed to the usual metaphoric literature filled with bias and opinion. With the use of the ICIS, an identity scale which measures the diverse factors which make up identity, Grant and his team listen to real Canadians in an attempt to find out what being Canadian means. The findings show that Canadians have a shared national ideology, that is a belief in cultural diversity, and cultural and civic freedoms (Grant, 66). The research points to a collective self-concept of a Canadian identity regardless of ethnic background or how long one has been living in Canada.
Although there exists a cohesiveness, there are certain self-identifying ethnic groups which are more ethnocentric than others. One example highlighted are francophone populations in Quebec who, perhaps due to a perceived threat, are less tolerant of diversity in general (Berry, 316). Important to point out is that the rosy picture the research points to is not the case across the country. There are of course those who oppose immigration or who are more comfortable in a monocultural setting, however the majority of Canadians interviewed in these studies share a common ideal which has helped shape the policies that allow Canada to welcome people from differing backgrounds.
I found this article useful for the purpose of answering our questions about finding a national identity. The research gathered for this article came directly from Canadians of varying backgrounds, ages, and economic status and did not dwell on the past. Having said that it is of course necessary to recognize our nation’s troubled past when it comes to human rights and the lack thereof in cases of the marginalized ethnic groups that faced outright discrimination on behalf of the Canadian government and white majority. Nevertheless Grant’s article provided a look at the current state of affairs in terms of a national identity, sourced directly from Canadians.
Works Cited
Berry, J. W., and R. Kalin. 1995. Multicultural and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada: An Overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 27: 301-320.
Verkuyten, M., and B. Martinovic. 2012. Immigrants’ National Identification: Meanings, Determinants, and Consequences. Social Issues and Policy Review 6: 82-112.
Alex MacLeod
Valaskakis, Gail Guthrie, et al. Indian Country: Essays on Contemporary Native Culture. North York;Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005;2006. Web.
Gail Valaskakis served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Concordia University in Montreal. She also served as Director of Research at the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in Ottawa. It was during Valaskakis’s time at this foundation that she composed the Essays on Contemporary Native Culture.
Valaskakis opens our eyes to many of the challenges aboriginal people face living in the modern era. Gone are the days in which aboriginal people are bound to reservations along with their hopes, dreams, and culture. Today more native people live in urban centers than do not, and despite greater interaction within Canada’s multicultural spectrum, their native identity has not been lost (Valaskakis, 247). On the contrary Mary Crow Dog, a native American highlighted by Valaskakis, goes on to say, “my roaming gave me a larger outlook and made me more Indian” (247). It is perhaps only in contrast with people(s) of cultures unfamiliar to our own that we begin to form a sense of what culture means to us. Being part of modern Canada’s greater multicultural identity however does little to diminish past atrocities that saw Canada’s native population and their culture forcibly assimilated with European ideals by these newcomers (Vizenor, 8). For those aboriginal people who have been forced to live in reservations, what are the implications when it comes to culture? Unlike the fixed boundaries of a reservation, societal boundaries shift according to the positionings we negotiate and build in discursive interaction, the conversations and actions of social change (Valaskakis, 251). The interaction with and perception of “Indians” in Canada is a process that is ever-evolving. Is modern Canada’s identity as a warm and welcoming place for people of all backgrounds warranted or is it simply a facade to a past era of discrimination and cultural genocide? Has Canada’s troubled past helped shape it’s future as a multicultural nation? These are questions that Valaskakis attempts to answer and they are very relevant to understanding who we are today as Canadians, whatever our background. In order to look forward as a nation we must recognize our past and learn from it. Our goal has been to try to find an answer as to what it means to be Canadian, and Valaskakis’s Indian Country provides a very in-depth account of the past events that have lead us as Canadians to this point in our cultural evolution. By untangling the past we can try to make sense of the issues we all face today when it comes to cultural identity.
Works Cited
Vizenor, Gerald. 1994. Manifest Manner: Postindian Warriors of Survivance. Hanover, NH: Weslayan University Press.
Alex MacLeod
Andrews, Jennifer, and Priscilla L. Walton. “Rethinking Canadian and American Nationality: Indigeneity and the 49th Parallel in Thomas King.” American Literary History 18.3 (2006): 600-17. Web.
Jennifer Andrews is currently a professor at the University of New Brunswick and has an interest in nineteenth and twentieth century American and Canadian literature, Native North American literature, as well as border and cultural studies. Recently, she was awarded $45,000 from the SSHRC Insight Development Grant to aid in her development of a new project entitled “Americans Write Canada” which focuses on the ways Americans construct Canadian identities. Priscilla L. Walton attained her Ph.D. at the University of Toronto and has received the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant and Carleton Research Achievement Award among many more; she is currently a professor at Carleton University.
In Andrews and Walton’s article, they discuss what constitutes “identity, citizenship, and belonging” (12) within and beyond transnational lines. With particular reference to Thomas King, the article explores the complex relationship between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada and the US, as well as the ways in which these two nations “delimit the identity and belonging of indigenous peoples” (Andrews and Walton, 604). This analysis of transnational ties and the historical negligence of Aboriginal rights in Canada and the US is expressed through an in-depth exploration of some of Thomas King’s works. For instance, Andrews and Walton utilize King’s Green Grass, Running Water, as an imperative example of how he articulates the struggles of the Indigenous people that must “operate between and across multiple ‘nations’, be they nation-states, reserve lands, or even differing forms of community” (604). In a similar context and more specific to this course, Andrew and Walton also draw upon King’s The Truth About Stories as a means of discussing the implications of borders: “the border doesn’t mean that much to the majority of Native people in either country… it is, after all, a figment of someone else’s imagination” (King, 122). Andrews and Walton argue that in his novels, King raises essential questions regarding the supposed hegemony of nation-states and what their contact zones both disclose and disguise—they argue that King’s work is vital to comprehending “a set of counter-narratives to predominant notions of nation and race” and highlights how they have “obscured the stories of other people, particularly those of the First Nations” (Andrew and Walton, 615).
This article will be useful for the purpose of our conference goal and research aim, because it propels the discussion of transnationalism and indigeneity in current literature by offering a “hemispheric reading of these nations that is often ignored or buried in ‘authorized’ representations of the two countries” (Andrews and Walton, 614). Integrating Thomas King is useful in articulating the struggles of Indigenous people, because as an American-born Canadian and Native writer, his positionality offers a complex and authentic read on the issues of Aboriginal cultural genocide; essentially, his texts offer a subversive response to the historic and persisting representation of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal affairs in Canadian literature. I think this piece will be particularly effective in cultivating an intervention plan on how to better understand and improve the Canadian identity because it posits just as much blame on Canada as the US in neglecting to acknowledge indigeneity. By conducting a critical analysis of the 49th parallel with reference to Thomas King’s stories, this article problematizes the representation of Canada as not responsible or in control of its own colonial policies, and prompts us to rethink the image of Canada as being relatively passive and less of a facilitator to the cultural genocide against Indigenous people than the US.
Therefore, rather than focusing on the prototypical characteristics of Canada’s identity, this article provides substantial evidence that reiterates the significance of acknowledging the historical denial of indigeneity in Canada. It opens up the possibility of integrating cosmopolitan ethics to aid in improving the Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal relations in Canada – an area of intervention that our team intends to further explore.
Works Cited
Gómez-Vega, Ibis. “Subverting the “Mainstream” Paradigm through Magical Realism in Thomas King’s “Green Grass, Running Water”.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 33.1 (2000): 1-19. Web.
Morgan, Vanessa Sloan. “On Being Here to Stay: Treaties and Aboriginal Rights in Canada.” Intercontinental Cry. N.p., 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 April. 2016.
“Justin Trudeau vows renewal of relationship with Aboriginals.” Youtube. Youtube, 20 December 2015. Web. 16 April 2016.
Neia Balao
Hébert, Yvonne M. “Cosmopolitanism and Canadian Multicultural Policy: Intersection, Relevance and Critique.” Encounters on Education 14 (2013): 3-19. Web.
This article is written by Yvonne Hébert, a Professor of Education at the University of Calgary. Her research interests include: youth, identity, citizenship, education, democracy, minority studies, policy and educational reform. At the undergraduate level she teaches sociology of education and diversity studies, and at the graduate level she leads seminars on identity, education, and culture. In her article, she focuses on exploring the possible reemergence of “cosmopolitanism for its theoretical possibilities with respect to the process of integrating into an official multicultural country” (3). Situating her argument around the question: ‘What does it mean to be cosmopolitan?’, Hébert argues in favor of integrating cosmopolitan subjectivities among citizens of Canada. She comprehends that this potential reconstruction of self is representative of many diverse identities that will be able to be nourished by the resurgence of linguistic rights and global migration. Additionally, she also states that with regards to the current multiculturalism policy in Canada, integration is defined in comparison to standards based on Canadian-born citizens, which explicitly marginalizes and subordinates Aboriginal peoples (despite their native-born status) and immigrants in general. With “the dominant group holding negative stereotypes of the Other” (Hébert, 4), this policy subordinates a large amount of individuals and underhandedly favors the socially dominant groups at the expense of the inferior immigrants. To further develop her argument, Hébert discloses nine major benefits to the reintegration of cosmopolitanism. She argues in favor of cosmopolitanism as: promoting an “openness toward an Other”; fostering a “relational attachment to a locality”; recognizing “the smallness of one’s milieu”; acknowledging “migratory experiences”; as having the “capacity to integrate oneself in a milieu”; concerned with the “establishment and maintenance of interconnecting with similar persons”; showing an “awareness of living between two entities or in a multiplicity”; having a “moral obligation toward the Other, especially less fortunate” and having “critical regards on the major contemporary questions” (Hébert, 10). Essentially, the crux of her argument is her contention that cosmopolitanism is productive for “transversal analyses of migrants’ and minorities’ experiences in a particular city, that is, at the same time, a minority milieu” (Hébert, 13). Therefore, in favor of the reimplementation of cosmopolitanism in the Canadian society, she argues that these enduring realities, which are shared by minorities and migrants alike, are in need of new analyses and theoretical approaches to support “cosmopolitan connections” (Hébert, 6) between people in an immensely collaborative and globalizing world in order to cultivate a more comprehensive understanding “political, sociological, and psychological attributes of social change” (Hébert, 6).
Hébert’s piece is imperative to our conference because she contends that cosmopolitanism makes up for what the assimilative multiculturalism ideology fails to recognize: that “today’s citizen is yesterday’s immigrant, the result of previous processes of adaptation contributing to a continuously evolving sense of Canadianness” (5). As Hébert contends, the discussion of cosmopolitanism is very effective in developing a more sophisticated, operative understanding of how we can all live together in Canada, and how this call to action can be articulated in Canadian literature as well.
Works Cited
“Cosmopolitanism in 3 minutes.” Youtube. Youtube, 22 January 2016. Web. 16 April 2016.
“London 2014: Multicultural or Cosmopolitan?: Mica Nava at TEDxEastEnd.” Youtube. Youtube, 09 February 2014. Web. 16 April 2016.
Schertow, John Ahni. “Bringing an end to the media’s systemic marginalization of Indigenous peoples.” Intercontinental Cry. N.p., 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 16 April. 2016.
Neia Balao
Galway, Elizabeth A. “Flint and Feather: The Figure of the Indian.” From Nursery Rhymes to Nationhood: Children’s Literature and the Construction of Canadian Identity. New York: Routledge, 2011. 95-114.
Elizabeth Galway is currently the chair of the English Department at the University of Lethbridge, with a PhD in English from the University of Lexter. Her areas of expertise include Canadian literature, children’s literature, imperialism and nationalism, as well as nineteenth-century literature, and her current research foci are Canadian literature, children’s literature, WWI, and national identities.
In the late eighteen century, Indians were a staple in Canadian children’s literature, often portrayed as “noble savages” or “fierce warriors” (95). In 1899 novel French and English: A Story of the Struggle in America, however, both of these characteristics were exemplified as the Indian were shown be to unstable, turning against the English when provoked—the ‘horror’ at hand was that the settlers could be instigators in such a turn by the Indians, yet blame for the atrocities committed y the English and French were placed on them. They were portrayed as “inherently separate” and “a threat to the civilization and establishment of a Canadian society” (99). However there are examples in early Canadian literature where they are still portrayed as inferior but in a less negative light, such as the 1896 novel Three Boys in the Wild North Land by Egerton Ryerson Young who portrays the assistance that indigenous peoples often offered to white settlers in order to help them survive. Yet, there were very few self-portrayals of Canadian Indians. This changed with the 1907 short story “Little Wolf Willow,” Pauline Johnson, a half-Indian writer chose to explore the relationships between first nations and their colonizers, and treats the two words of “Indian” and “Canadian” as separate, those two that can be navigated between. In particular, she uses the patriotic imagery of the Northwest Mounted Police and the perspective of an Indian protagonist, “a means of representing diversity within Canadian unity.” (112). She concludes that the figure of the Indian in literature in early literature was used to assist in the construction of Canadian identity.
This article is of relevance of our research project, despite the fact that it involves the examination of dated literature. In order to understand identity formation, it is pertinent to examine the history of Canadian literature, understanding the historical context in order to make observations about the current milieu. Particularly with the inclusion of children’s literature, which allows the examination of what Canadians were being exposed to at an early age.
Works Cited
Natalie Dee
Godard, Barbara. “Notes from the Cultural Field: Canadian Literature from Identity to Hybridity.” Essays on Canadian Writing 72.72 (2000): 209. Web.
Barbara Godard was a prominent Canadian literary critic, who held strong feminist values and was an academic, translator, and editor as well. She taught a variety of subjects at York University, including English, French, and Women’s Studies, and was the recipient of several prizes and chair positions during her career.
Godard takes a cynical view towards literature and the idea of identity formation as she argues that literature no longer serves to strengthen national identity, but as a consequence of the Cold War it instead serves to “further its economic security in an era of global capitalism” (211). Due to the rapidly occurring changes in Canadian society, there has not been sufficient opportunity for “genuine classics” (212) to emerge, and so this incoherency has become a characteristic of Canadian literature itself. Additionally, it is noted how those outside the hegemonic cannot create coherent narratives, instead producing fragments of “a nation in formation.” (212).
In this article, she also draws upon Bordieu’s field theory as away to explain how the concerns of a nation have shifted from the protection of a physical space, such as was the concern during the era of the second world war, to the protection of “the symbolic space of the nation” (214) through cultural production. Culture is described as a “civilizing structure” (219) that was integral in the continued existence of the Canadian nation-state, and post WWII with the proliferation of American mass culture, there was much anxiety surrounding the lack of distinct Canadian culture.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is noted as being the beginning of the proliferation in individualism in Canadian society, coinciding to cutbacks to Canadian cultural institutions such as the CBC and Heritage Canada, demonstrating how, despite the influx of capital into the country through agreements such as NAFTA, Canadian heritage subsequently suffered. Simply but, in a broad global economy, due to its proximity to America and lack of well-established producers of culture, many Canadian publishers were bought by foreign companies and uniquely ‘Canadian’ artists were overlooked in favour of traditional European artists. Also discussed in the article is the impact of First Nations literature and how it can be used to “unsettle” (233) the traditional colonial discourse and push against hybridity. Other minorities also use their literature to upset the hegemonic, such as the LGBTQ* community, and the Asian-Canadian community. Godard concludes that Canadian is taking its cues from American, and the government removes itself from cultural production in an attempt to ‘level the playing field’ (243).
Considering our topic of cosmopolitanism and where that and literature intersect, looking at Canada as a globalized nation and its impact of its culture is of course of great relevance to this topic. In order to understand Canadian creation identity, the external factors that undoubtedly have an effect upon Canada must be addressed.
Works Cited
Natalie Dee
Beatrice Lew
April 19, 2016 — 9:59 am
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for your post! I really enjoyed learning about how the evolution of the ‘Indian’ throughout Canadian literature has been used to assist, for better or for worse, in the construction of our national identity. It reminded me of a short spoken word video by Thomas King that I came across called “I’m Not the Indian You had in Mind.”
I really liked what Neia had to say about the integrating Thomas King in articulating the struggles of Indigenous people, because “his texts offer a subversive response to the historic and persisting representation of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal affairs in Canadian literature.”
“I’m Not the Indian You Had in Mind challenges the stereotypical portrayal First Nations peoples in the media and the way in which the actors, sporting business attire or jeans are juxtaposed against the loincloth-wearing, tomahawk-wielding Indians of Saturday morning cartoons and Westerns, seem like a visual representation of the work that King does in Green Grass Running Water.
This video demonstrates how First Nations people today are challenging old stereotypes and creating new identities for themselves today.
Thanks,
Beatrice
http://www.nsi-canada.ca/2012/03/im-not-the-indian-you-had-in-mind/
NatalieDee
April 19, 2016 — 1:50 pm
Hey Beatrice,
I really enjoyed the video you linked it–the juxataposition of the archival footage which we all know exists, particularly the more insulting stereotypical hollywood depicts, with actual indigenous people were really powerful. Particularly the lack of romanticization of the real lives of the indigenous people was really powerful, demonstrating just how much they have in common with other non-indigenous Canadians.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
-Natalie
neiabalao
April 19, 2016 — 7:59 pm
Hey Beatrice!
Thanks for your response 🙂 I am glad you enjoyed the way the article integrated Thomas King’s literature into its discussion! Like you, I found it to be very effective and appropriate for this course especially, considering the extent to which we have discussed him.
Thanks again!
Neia
Beatrice Lew
April 19, 2016 — 10:28 am
Hi Alex
Thanks for sharing from Peter Grant’s comparative study between the national identity of immigrants and those raised in Canada. I would not have guessed that our one unifying national ideology is a “belief in cultural diversity, and cultural and civic freedoms.” While it’s comforting to know that Canadians support multiculturalism, the sad reality is also that government policy has also been pretty “diverse” in its standards when it comes to providing resources for its citizens. Immigrants often come to Canada hoping for a better life, yet the reality is quite opposite for Indigenous peoples who already reside here. Reading the Joseph Boyden article Attawapiskat that Dr. Paterson posted last week reminded me that “despite living in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, Indigenous families and communities in Canada continue to face widespread impoverishment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, ill-health and unsafe drinking water” (Amnesty International). In Natalie’s post, I read how Pauline Johnson makes a distinction between “Indian” and “Canadian” identity. Today, this differentiation is unfortunately reflected and reinforced through a disparate allocation of resources.
Thanks,
Bea
http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/issues/indigenous-peoples/indigenous-peoples-in-canada
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/attawapiskat-and-the-fallout-of-intergenerational-trauma/
Sierra Gale
April 19, 2016 — 4:17 pm
Hi Alex,
I would like to comment on your annotation for “Indian Country: Essays on Contemporary Native Culture.” Your summary and thoughts on this piece reminded me of the keynote address given by Chief Robert Wavey of the Fox Lake Nation in northern Manitoba, at the 1991 International Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Community based Resource Management. In his address, Chief Wavey states that indigenous traditions, cultures, languages, institutions and beliefs have survived the “policy of cultural extermination” imposed by the Canadian government for several generations (Wavey 1991). He argues that the culture of his people lives on and grows stronger every day. He states there are two main reasons for this:
“The first is our tremendous sense of community and family. Our traditional means of teaching — with the grandparents teaching the young while the parents provide for the family — remains today within our communities; it has ensured that the young people recover, restore and revitalize their traditions, their languages and their way of life. The second is that most Aboriginal people in Canada still have the land. Without the land, our knowledge of the land and the respect that we hold for the land, our communities and our way of life would not exist because the land and the people are one. A land base and extensive traditional ecological knowledge has ensured the cultural survival of Aboriginal people in Canada” (Wavey 1991).
I thought this excerpt might be helpful in your goals to better understand the Canadian cultural identity. You can find his entire address here:
Inglis, Julian. “Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases.” International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge: International Development Research Centre, 1993. Web. 18 April, 2016. • http://books2.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/viewdoc.html?id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_crkn/2009-12-01/3/405910&page=7
neiabalao
April 19, 2016 — 6:35 pm
Hey Alex!
Thanks so much for your contribution to our annotated bibliography with your summary of Peter Grant’s piece. I do think it is immensely applicable to our conference goal, as his article is rooted in uncovering the ways in which Canadians perceive themselves. I think it’s especially significant that he conducted his research based on the opinions of Canadian citizens themselves, rather than insinuating or theorizing without any sort of evidence. Since the research from Grant’s piece was gathered directly from Canadians of various ages, ethnicities, and economic statuses, he was therefore able to obtain a wide-breadth of responses that made his results more representative of Canada’s population.
Your annotation contributes seamlessly to our exploration of the Canadian identity, and the ways in which cosmopolitanism and indigeneity can fit into the picture as well. I think the first step to improving our current Canadian identity is to acknowledge the ways in which Canadian citizens view themselves; by holding up a mirror to them and asking how they identify themselves, we are able to gain a better understanding of what makes us both strong and weak as a collective nation. I am also glad that you added in the disclaimer that while those interviewed shared a cohesive, collective response that has helped welcome individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds, it is still imperative to recall Canada’s troubled past in marginalizing minority groups, specifically the Aboriginal communities.
Overall, amazing post and addition to our conference!
Your annotation has tons of insight to offer for the purpose of our exploration. ☺
Neia
neiabalao
April 19, 2016 — 7:31 pm
Hey Natalie!
Thank you so much for your contribution to our conference with your annotation of Barbara Godard’s article. I especially enjoy the way in which she takes on a more cynical approach towards her understanding of literature and the notion of identity, as it is a refreshing response and addition to the current conversation. I think the point you highlight from Godard’s article regarding the situation of the overlooked Canadian publishers is imperative to address, as I believe this all relates back to the unequal distribution of power. It is no doubt that in terms of mass media exposure and literature as well, it is as though American individuals appear to be more recognized and praised for their crafts, while Canadians do not see as much recognition, or at least recognition of the same degree. Therefore, your indication of Godard’s assertion that Canadian publishers and ‘Canadian’ artists are overlooked in favor of artists of different hegemonic nations is significant to the purpose of our conference.
I love how Godard discloses the impact of Aboriginal literature and the way in which it is used as means of upsetting hegemonic control, as I think it compliments the importance of recognizing indigeneity. Frankly, I find the fact that Aboriginals utilize their language, literature, and creative capacities to upset those that look down upon them as immensely empowering and exemplary of how minorities should fight back against those that oppress them.
Therefore, based on your annotation, I find Godard’s piece to be an honest articulation of the struggles First Nations literature endures in the face of more controlling and powerful literary nations. Hopefully, by further exploring the idea of cosmopolitanism and where it intersects with Canadian literature, along with the acknowledgment of how Canadian and First Nations literature have been dismissed in the past, we can develop an intervention strategy that can help us better represent our collective history to the rest of the world.
Thanks again for your contribution to your annotated bibliography; I am excited to put together our team dialogue page.
Neia ☺
NatalieDee
April 20, 2016 — 12:45 am
Hey Neia!
I was definitely more of a fan of the cynical attitude she took toward Canadian literature! I’ve always thought of American culture as something very heavily exported and promoted, whereas Canadian culture is more of something… homegrown, I guess? Like, I look at MuchMusic with a different kind of fondness than I do MTV. I’m always having to explain to my non-Canadian friends that most of our culture consumption is American, and that Canadian content gets drowned out in the noise.
I also find it ironic that Indigenous literature is used as a means of subversion–considering that is truly is something uniquely and perhaps ‘more’ Canadian in the sense of originality is used to push back against the hegemonic. Than again, we can never forget that this country was founded in a colonial manner, and so it makes sense that the literature would push back against that.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, the connection you make at the end there between the article and the topic is really strong!
-Natalie
AlexMacLeod
April 19, 2016 — 8:11 pm
Hello Neia,
In response to your piece on Hebert.
Great choice on including this article as it deals with the complex issue of cosmopolitanism, which is a key component in our project. I would have to agree with Hebert that our current policies on multiculturalism are in need of tweaking of not overhauling. Up until the point at which our last major policy overhaul took place, I am going to argue that this took place in the late 80s, Canada had seen an ever-changing series of policies. With every change we say arguably more and more progressive policies being enacted. However progressive they may have been for the time there are still major flaws in terms of finding a policy that in fair and equal for all involved.
It often seems as if Canada’s First Nations population(s) are not a crucial component of our multicultural policies. We, as a nation, are focused more on immigration as a means of building a multicultural nation than integrating First Nations. In order to make progress all parties need equal representation.
Thank you.
Alex MacLeod
neiabalao
April 19, 2016 — 8:48 pm
Hey Alex,
Thanks for your feedback!
I definitely agree with the point you made regarding how Canada seems to neglect the integration of First Nations into our supposedly ‘multicultural’ nation. While that’s not to say that Canada does not deserve its renowned portrayal as being multicultural, I do think this title requires further interrogation. How multicultural can we be if we are denying equal opportunities to those whose land was colonized to begin with? Rather than focusing strictly on immigration, Canada undoubtedly needs to continue taking action towards equally representing Aboriginal peoples as well.
Neia
AlexMacLeod
April 19, 2016 — 8:39 pm
Hello Natalie,
In response to your piece on Galway.
Your bibliographic entry provides a fascinating look back at how First Nations people(s) have been portrayed since Canadian literary works were first produced by European settlers. There seems to have been a great disconnect between the two perceived cultures of the day. By classifying Canadians into either ‘Indian’ or ‘White’ one stands to make some very broad judgments or stereotypes. Given our much more ethnically varied cultural setting today, one might assume that this seemingly necessary need to classify people would have faded. Yet we still find ourselves living in a world filled with cultural and ethnic divides.
Is it necessary to differentiate between First Nations and non? Or between long-time resident and newcomer? By doing so are we not creating a nation of unequal treatment? These are all fairly charged questions but I would also argue that equality cannot be met until we stop this categorization.
Today one could argue that out literature is much more PC. We no longer see battles between cowboys and Indians. We do however see battles between left and right, different religions, and others. Our literature, at least in terms of story-telling, does not highlight these confrontations. So literature is not necessarily a good representation of the cultural setting of a given time period.
Literature can be used as a tool and this may have been the case when portraying Indians as being savage and other. And it may not have even been in a fictional sense. Truth is very much in the eye of the beholder, and for this reason we must be careful when dissecting literary works. Do Canada’s modern literary works fairly represent reality of have they been altered for some purpose?
Thank you.
Alex MacLeod
NatalieDee
April 19, 2016 — 10:11 pm
Hey Neia,
As before we began to delve into our research topic, I’d never really given much thought to cosmopolitanism, and so I found your pick of article to be very enlightening. To me, cosmopolitan seems almost like an outdated term, something I would associate with a drink or the magazine before I would think of it’s original meaning as an adjective.
It does seem ironic that Canada as such a multicultural country seems to be more welcoming to those coming from the outside, as opposed to those who have inhabited the land the country is built around for thousands of years. The idea that indigenous populations are the least privileged in urban environments, however, aren’t new to me—in a GRSJ class I took in a previous semester, I remember reading that both on and off reserve, indigenous peoples are at a distinct disadvantage.
This is pretty much the perfect article for our research topic, as it offers thoughts on the intersections of cosmopolitanism and Canadian indemnity we are currently examining. Thanks for doing such a great job of summarizing!
-Natalie
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-urban-migration/
Neia B
April 20, 2016 — 12:31 pm
Hey Natalie!
Thanks for your feedback. 🙂
I would be lying if I said that I didn’t immediately associate cosmopolitanism with the magazine first… (pop culture nut here). But I am glad that you benefited from my annotation and the article as much as I did. It’s quite heartbreaking when you think about how disadvantaged Aboriginal people have been for so long; how, despite our current efforts and steps being taken towards repairing this damaged relationship in Canada, their discrimination still persists.
Thankfully, since we both have a better understanding of cosmopolitanism, it’ll be exciting to try and formulate a way in which we can integrate it in Canada and Canadian literature as well!
Neia
NatalieDee
April 20, 2016 — 12:24 am
Hi Alex!
This is a great summary you’ve provided on the Valaskakis piece, particularly with the link explaining the differences between all the terms we’ve used to describe First Nations peoples. I’ve always wondered what the particular differences between the terms the terms are–what I found interesting about that hyperlink as well is the hundreds of comments that sit below it, demonstrating how active the discourse surrounding names are.
But back to the article–though the Indian act no longer prevents indigenous people from leaving their reservations as they please, the assertion that the ‘hopes dreams and culture’ are no longer bound there is one that unsettles me. Poverty is so rampant amongst the community, and by living on reserves many First Nations enjoy tax exemptions that are not available to status Indians that live off reserve. Not to mention the isolation of many communities–during the summer as I was growing up, I would go camping on the west coast of Vancouver Island on a lake adjacent to a First Nations reserve. It was an hour’s drive by logging roads to the nearest town, Port Alberni, and two hours away from Nanaimo or Victoria, and many reservations are vastly more inaccessible. This brings up the questions of the residual effects of colonialism. How do we solve these ongoing problems while ensuring the culture is preserved?
It is a very interesting notion that by experiencing other cultures, we begin to appreciate our own original cultures more, and I think I’ve found that true in my own experiences. It attests to the idea that I’ve come across often during this course, that part of Canadian ‘identity’ is the ability to appreciate your own culture while experiencing and respecting other cultures.
Thanks for your summary, I enjoyed reading it!
-Natalie
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/first-nations-pay-more-tax-than-you-think-1.2971040
Danielle Dube
April 20, 2016 — 5:31 pm
Hi Neia,
When I read your post I couldn’t help but wonder what globalization has done to our identity as Canadians. Once I looked further into the term cosmopolitanism it made me think that with how connected the world has become it almost seems that we should all just be people of the world rather than people from a certain country. With our research we have been looking into how language is connected to identity and how this is especially true with indigenous cultures. When their language is lost a piece of their culture and identity is lost. This can be seen in Canada with how strongly the french hang on to their language but what about english? It seems that the english language, which has borrowed many words and sounds from many languages around the world, has no identity. It’s greatest connection is to the worlds economy and in some sense has taken away from individual identities to create a larger globalized community. I like to imagine how amazing it would be to have all of the indigenous languages of Canada still being used today. The pride, culture, and identity of each area would be much easier to pin point if that were the case.
Danielle
Danielle Dube
April 20, 2016 — 5:44 pm
Hi Natalie,
Thank you for focusing on children’s literature as I agree that it is a big part of shaping our identity as Canadians. I realize now that I was only taught what the school system wanted me to learn. It was the stories of the settlers and their perception of the situation. Yes, I was also taught about the aboriginal people who lived on this land before we came but it almost seemed like a sidebar. Kind of like, this is the way things were before we were here and this is how we, the settlers, made it better. In my groups research I really focused on lost languages and what language means to identity. Indigenous people carry so much identity in their language and their oral story telling that when these languages no longer exist it is hard to tell their stories. With the loss of language they clearly lose their identity and culture. If with the flick of a switch we were able to regain all of our lost and almost lost aboriginal languages, how do you think that would affect our identity as Canadians? I myself feel we would have a stronger identity to our community.
Danielle