Vancouver 2010 Olympic Street Party
What is Canada?
To give us all an idea of our preconceptions coming into the course, write your blog entry on what you think Canada is and what the storyline(s) of Canadian history are; i.e. “Canada is ….” And “Canadian history is about ….” – you fill in the blanks!
Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
To say that Canada is a multicultural nation is completely correct. In present day, it is seen as a melting pot, representing cultures that stretch worldwide. Multiculturalism is present at a grassroots level, including multicultural neighborhoods in cities across the country; It can even be seen within the multicultural Federal Cabinet, as well as the Supreme Court. However, it is wrong for one to be under the impression that multiculturalism is relatively new in the grand scheme of Canadian history. Even before European contact, First Nations tribes of different cultures interacted in aspects of politics, trade, agriculture, etc.. Upon arrival of European ships, there was a massive clash of cultures. Nomadic First Nations weaponry, farming techniques, and in the case of the Iroquois, matriarchal societies, would have differed from the fairly advanced culture that the Europeans would have been accustomed to. However, since these groups of people coexisted in a relatively confined area (St. Lawrence Lowlands), it can only be described as multicultural interaction.
Canada’s abundance of resources, including fish and fur, drew European attention. They began settling the area in hopes of maximizing profits. To gain capital, it was necessary to interact with the indigenous people whose culture was so fundamentally different from their own. Therefore, early signs of multicultural relations allow one to understand that within the confines of recorded Canadian history, multiculturalism has always been prevalent.
The answer to that question depends on how you define the word multicultural. If you would say that the mere existence of different cultures within a countries borders I believe that Canada is, and after today’s lecture, have been a multicultural country for a long time. However, another definition could be that there have to be a functional and friendly co-existing between different cultures to be able to call it multicultural. According to me, the latter definition is more accurate. The lecture ended with the destructions of the Huroians – a war. To call that multicultural would be the same thing to call Iraq multicultural because of the presence of the Americans (I don’t exclude that it couldn’t be a multicultural country in other aspects though).
A multicultural country is a positive thing for me because it means that different cultures could live in harmony, and as I have understood it, Canada has become a multicultural country today. But it would be incorrect use of the word to call this place multicultural during that time.
By the way, was the country even known as “Canada” during that time?
Terrific answer Karin!
It is a pressure to write about a great nation, and multicultural country. Multiculturalism in Canada is the sense of an equal celebration of racial, religious and cultural backgrounds. The government of Canada officially adopted the history of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and 1980s. Based on the lectures and readings this week, it illustrates that Canada has never been occupied by just one culture since the initial occupation of North America. The multiple nations of indigenous were in itself an example of multi-culture in Canada.
An example from history of First Nation suggests that over the past five hundred years of history, and in more modern history colonization has impacted Indigenous people in British Columbia, Canada. The Musqueam, for instance, Indian Band argues, that they declare and affirm that they hold aboriginal title to their land, and aboriginal rights to practice use of their land, sea, fresh water and all their natural resources within those territories where aboriginal ancestors used them since before written history or contact with Europeans. In addition to that an important part of history of Canada is the fur trade. The fur trade is a worldwide industry dealing in the acquisition and sale of animal fur. Since the establishment of a world fur market in the early modern period, furs of boreal polar and cold temperate mammalian animals have been the most valued. Historically the trade had a large impact on the exploration and colonization of First Nation. Canada’s Aboriginal peoples exchanged furs for guns, gunpowder, liquor, tobacco, pots and pans, wool blankets and tools. They were also keen consumers of various European products such as clothes, and sewing needles. The most highly prized fur was that of the beaver, used to make felt for hats, but the range of animal skins traded was wide. Each skin had a clearly established value measured in plues or made beaver. They almost got the beaver species into instinct.
Furthermore what we have learned from our latest lecture are; New France, politics, law, and judiciary system in 1600s. The territory of New France changed over time, but the colony was initially established in the St. Lawrence River valley. New France was at its largest in the early eighteenth century when it also included Hudson Bay, Labrador, Newfoundland, Acadia, the Great Lakes region and Louisiana. A case of an African maid (in that period) shows the judiciary system in the Estates of the Realm. For instance, when there was a fire in the city of Montreal. The fire destroyed about forty houses/buildings. The rulers thought that African maid/slave sat the fire to create chaotic event in order to escape with the man whom she loved. But there was no evidence against her, still she was charged and later, was executed publicly. There was no police, no detective. The best way to prove was by confession. She later confessed after being tortured. Her confession represented the king’s power on individuals. This brutal law was practices because Louis the XIV (1638-1715) had the divine right. The idea was that the king derived his rules direct from God. Thus, the New France’s political power increased. Not only in New France but also in other provinces including over sea colonies. The king appointed the governor general in St. Lawrence in order to set a law. There was no democracy. People were not considered to govern. Only the higher state ruled, and had the power meaning: hierarchies had the responsibly to rule only.
Canada can be considered a multicultural nation depending on what the definition of the word is to each individual. To me, multicultural can mean one of two definitions: 1) it can be a city or place mixed with a diverse group of people from different parts of the world, possessing different cultural characteristics or 2) it can be a city or place occupied by those other than those native to that city or place. If were speaking about multiculturalism in terms of the second definition, no, I do not believe Canada is a relatively new in multiculturalism given that the French and Dutch began occupancy in Canada dating back to 1541. However, I do believe that the word multiculturalism has evolved much from what it meant then. In my eyes, the word has changed from having a negative connotation (back then) to a positive connotation (modern day). What I mean by this is that multiculturalism had a stigma attached to it, in that with multiculturalism came war (ie. Huron and France at war). Meanwhile, in today’s day and age, multiculturalism is embraced and supported throughout our nation (for the most part). When I think of the word metropolis, I think of multiculturalism because I have known of no other way. I have grown up encouraged to try new foods, attend different religious ceremonies and to befriend anyone regardless of their race. History however, tells us that a lot of the time, different races and cultures were frowned upon. In my grandmother’s eyes, I should marry an Italian and only an Italian. In my parents’ eyes, I should marry anyone I want! This is an example of how the word has evolved over time.
The answer to that question depends on how you define the word multicultural. If you would say that the mere existence of different cultures within a countries borders I believe that Canada is, and after today’s lecture, have been a multicultural country for a long time. However, another definition could be that there have to be a functional and friendly co-existing between different cultures to be able to call it multicultural. According to me, the latter definition is more accurate. The lecture ended with the destructions of the Huroians – a war. To call that multicultural would be the same thing to call Iraq multicultural because of the presence of the Americans (I don’t exclude that it couldn’t be a multicultural country in other aspects though).
A multicultural country is a positive thing for me because it means that different cultures could live in harmony, and as I have understood it, Canada has become a multicultural country today. But it would be incorrect use of the word to call this place multicultural during that time.
By the way, was the country even known as “Canada” during that time?
Multiculturalism is one of the first things that comes up when describing Canada, and it is very clear by last week’s blog posts that it is something that a lot of people appreciate. I feel that multiculturalism is the acceptance of mixing cultures in a way that allows for people to become Canadian, while still being able to hold on to their heritage. This idea was shown in this week’s lecture with the Aboriginal tribes before colonization. The different cultures were able to co-exist successfully before the Europeans arrived and this seems to be the first example of multiculturalism in Canada. Once the French arrived and started colonization, then multiculturalism was not being practised, or at least not in the way that I have defined it. There were multiple cultures in the same place, but the French were attempting assimilation, not acceptance. Now in modern times, when traveling to other countries, you do get a sense of multiculturalism, but not with as much diversity as in Canada. Most of the diversity is seen in bigger cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc. The smaller centres of Canada may not have as many cultures, but they do have tight knit groups that originally migrated from other places. For example, there is a large Ukrainian culture throughout the prairie provinces and a prominent French culture as you move east. As we learned this week, multiculturalism did start out very early in Canadian history, but it has continually grown in diversity and appears that it will continue to do so.
Opps! Wrote that on the wrong wall…
I think there are two parts to a nation truly being multicultural; not only do several different culture groups have to reside in the same area, but there must also be an acceptance, understanding and practice of these cultures. For example, just because the French and the Indigenous people were occupying the same area at the start of Canadian history, does not make Canada a multicultural nation. The French quickly started to try to assimilate Natives by converting them to Christianity, and later in Canadian history, tried to implement European culture by using residential schools. Furthermore, the French were really just using their Indigenous allies to supply their home country with furs. When the French broke their promise to their Indigenous allies, giving the Huron hunting rights in certain areas, it makes one wonder if the French really cared about their allies. Perhaps the French were actually concerned about lives of their Native allies, but they did not take into consideration what would happen with the complex ties between the other Indigenous groups.
Today, we like to think that Canada is a multicultural nation. Compared to some other countries, I would definitely say that Canada is in fact, multicultural. Several laws, as well as the 1988 Multiculturalism Act, try to ensure to recognize all Canadians are full and equal partners in our society. However, something that I found interesting in my sociology class last year is that 85% of Canadians believe immigrants have an obligation to learn Canadian ways and the language. I understand that having a common language makes things easier for everyone living here, but at the same time, as a country priding ourselves on being multicultural, we are not acting very understanding towards other cultures. There is also the fact that Canada still has people practicing racism.
I believe the idea of Canada as a multicultural nation runs back to time of the settling of New France. As was covered in lecture, when the French arrived in North America they came in contact with many different native groups. These natives were familiar with the land that would become Canada. They knew how and where to get the best furs plus they understood how to best to travel the land, thus it was in the best interest of the French to make alliances with the indigenous people of the areas they lodged in. In terms of trade the French set up strong relationships with certain native groups, in particular the Huronia. These relationships were the beginnings of what we now call multiculturalism. This mingling between French and native people resulted in the trading of cultures in some ways. For example, the “coureur de bois adopted the native style of clothing as well as began to eat the same foods as the native people. The natives had lived in North America much longer than the French thus it was important for the French to learn the way natives survived in this new land.
However, the sense of multiculturalism seen in these early days of French exploration is different than what we today call multiculturalism. During the period of New France it was essential for the French to adopt some of the ways of the natives in order to survive. Furthermore to build good relationships with the indigenous peoples was important for trade, in particular the fur trade. Therefore, multiculturalism was more or less forced upon the French newcomers. It is clear, especially seen in the conflicts that were to come between the English and French, that the French were not particularly keen to share this newfound land with anyone but their own people. I would not doubt, therefore, that if there was the possibility for the French to put the natives under their control, they would have.
Multiculturalism today is defined in terms of acceptance and openness. Allowing different people to come make home in Canada without the pressure of having to give up their culture is not something forced upon us. Thus multiculturalism from the time of New France has much evolved to become the multiculturalism that thrives in Canada today.
Lindsay (Ruth) Wong
The simple definition of multiculturalism refers to a region or community containing multiple cultures. To say that Canada is a multicultural nation rings true, and taking into account the basic definition above, it can be established that the idea of multiculturalism in Canada is not a new concept, but one that has been engrained within Canadian history from the very beginning.
Connections between the First Nations tribes and the Scandinavian Vikings on the Canadian East Coast symbolize the early beginnings of the multicultural concept on Canadian soil, as both groups occupied the same area for a relative period of time. The same can be said when looking forward to the European explorers who came in contact with the First Nations peoples during their exploration of what would become Canada. These explorers, followed by the fur traders and colonizers after them, lived off of the territorial regions of the First Nations, thus creating a multicultural community during the time of European settlement. As well, the late 18th century saw the arrival of the first Chinese immigrants in Canada and, later in the 19th century, an even larger population of immigrants from China entered Canadian borders under a contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. This made Canada an even more culturally diverse region than before.
As per my initial definition of multiculturalism, Canada has always been and is to this day a multicultural nation. What can be debated is the degree to which multiculturalism was accepted among differing ethnic groups in Canada in the past, and compare that to Canada’s embracing of cultural diversity today. Throughout Canadian history, as much as there has been peaceful coexistence among multiple cultures in Canada, there has also been a fair share of cultural clashes between opposing ethnical groups that have resulted in racism, segregation, assimilation, and variations of ethnic cleansing. This is where the definition of multiculturalism is called into question. Does multiculturalism refer explicitly to the area of which many cultures form a community, or does the definition account for the types of relationships and interactions the cultural groups have with each other, whether good or bad? With a specific definition, we can truly establish whether Canada has always been a multicultural nation, or if the harmony of today’s multicultural Canada is something new, thus disproving that multiculturalism has always been present in Canada.
Aviaah Randhawa
Canada as a multicultural nation is completely true. I wander down the streets of any town in Canada and you can see the vast majority of people from all differing walks of life. More than that as an aboriginal person I have come across people that desire to learn as much as they can about their own culture and then learn of others cultures and try to relate it back to their own knowledge and what they have learned about themselves .
There is also the vast demand that we put on ourselves as a society to put forth our distinct cultures and to showcase them whether its a pow wow or a religious celebration that is put forefront for everyone to witness and to share in. I have been to many aboriginal celebrations where everyone in attendance has participated in some form or other right from sitting and smiling to outright dancing and laughing with other irregardless of background. So our desire to share our very own distinct cultures makes us not only tolerant, curious but also a understanding nation.
So to look at the question is multiculturalism a relatively new idea? I would say no, i would say that its always been here but what is new is our hopes of understanding, our dreams of being a complete nation while protecting and celebrating the rich and vast cultures of others. This hasn’t always been the case with “cultural genocide” committed at the hands of those in power but in full turn those now in power are seeking ways to make some amends and that is a far cry from the atrocities we committed against each other in the past.
Kenthen, In the future, please draw more directly on the material you learn in the lectures to write your posts. The blog is meant to get you to reflect on what you learn in class.
Canada is the most multicultural nation in the world. For how long? Well it dates back to what we covered in lecture within New France. As of now, people in the world see Canada as the most multicultural place to live in on the earth. Take a walk around UBC campus, you will see individuals of all ethnic backgrounds creating a very diverse lifestyle. These individuals spread multiculturalism throughout one another creating a country filled of different cultures.
The Empires of the St. Lawrence consisted of the Indigenous and European people mixing. There was an intertwining of history between the French and Aboriginals ( sparking multiculturalism here through languages and cultures). Jaques Cartier essentially was the catalyst in starting multiculturalism by attempting his voyages to establish North America. The Fur Trade began consisted of the Aboriginal peoples doing business with the French. The French had to learn the way the Aboriginals lived in order to barter with them. The French solidified fur trade by claiming territory and colonizing it.
Samuel D’Champlaine knew he needed alliances, so he made relationships with the Huron, Innu, and Annoshanabe. All which proved multiculturalism in Canada.
Multiculturalism isn’t necessarily a new idea as it has been around since the fur trade began. There has been situations of assimilation, racism and segregation however that has not depleted the multiculturalism idea in Canada.
The Native North American Tribes had not formal land borders and walls that defines nations in Europe in the 17th century, however, they were still a diverse population of people that had varying cultures and languages. As the Europeans came to North America, they saw a land that was not claimed despite the fact that there were already inhabitants. What we call Canada today is simply an imposed border established by conflicts between the British and french empires. If the First Nations population were not oppressed by the invading foreigners, North American would have been considered as many nations and countries. Within the modern borders of Canada, yes it can be said that Canada is a multicultural place even before the colonization of North America. However, to the indigenous people, we simply forcefully united an area of land that they were perfectly happy in as separate entities and nations.
-Harry Ze Zhong He
Canada is seen as the most multicultural nation in the world. It has been diverse since the origins dating back to when it was called New France. Now, Canada is still culturally diverse with many different people with many different backgrounds immigrating here. Canada’s multicultural history dates back to when Jaques Cartier arrived here on his voyages and established the fur trade and established contact with the indigenous people. With this contact began the making of more diverse people, these being the french and aboriginal people which are wildly known as Metis. This people were evidence of Canada becoming a multicultural nation with the collection of the two cultures and languages. The mating of the two cultures provides evidence of the type of multiculturalism in Canada and is proof that it has been like this for a long time despite multiple acts of assimilation.
The first question that comes to my mind in response is this: how do we decide what counts as being multicultural and what does not? Multiculturalism – a diverse collection of cultures within a certain area or place – itself is a fairly simple idea to understand, but the specifics of all of this are not actually very clear. How many “different cultures” must be evident within a given place? How big or small must this place be? And so forth.
Today, if I were to travel across the country, I can safely guess that just about everyone I meet would differ in some cultural aspect (such as religion, choice of dress, ethnicity, country of origin, political values, etc.) Thinking about it this way, I would certainly say that Canada is a multicultural nation. After all, there are so many people here and they are all so diverse! Thinking about it this way, I would look back on earlier times at the few groups of Native Canadians who inhabited this vast land in secluded (by today’s standards) groups and think that Canada was not very multicultural at all at that point. However, when I put myself in the shoes of one person in one of those groups and think about how culturally different any other Natives that I stumbled upon might have seemed, and how VERY culturally different the Norse and/or the French must have seemed when they first landed on my shores, it makes sense to say that Canada actually was a multicultural nation during that time period.
It seems that the idea of multiculturalism is all highly relative to what we are used to. While historians have the important job of providing us with information upon which to base new ideas, they cannot answer tough questions – such as whether or not Canada has only recently become multicultural – for us, because ideas like this require much more detailed and personal thought.
Canada’s existence is founded on the immigration of multiple cultures. French, British and Dutch in immediacy, then further exploration and immigration from other European countries and their enslaved populations. Taking into account the already present population of Indigenous peoples of separate beliefs and languages and those stated above it could be argued that Canada was a place of many cultures from its inception.
However most likely those colonial settlers did not think of their identity as multicultural. Therefore the idea itself is new, in the respect that it post-dates the colonial settlements of Canada. At this point Canada was not the nation we see day, rather no nation at all. Further it can be argued that to be ‘multicultural’ necessitates those mixed cultures must recognise, or be recognised by the state, as having an equal right to the place they live. Although the European colonial populations may have lived in close proximity to one another, e.g Tadousac, traded and allied with them and the indigenous peoples, e.g French alliance with the Huronian confederacy, that relationship did not resemble a multicultural nation as we think of it today.
To be sure, Canadians pride themselves on being a multicultural nation and it has seemed that the concept of this extends to only recent decades, but as history appears to show us, we have always been a country of multiple cultures — if we are to to take the term multiculturalism literally. Given what we have learned in lecture, it seems true that multiculturalism has existed for hundreds of years. With the co-existence of Aboriginal peoples, the French, the English, as well those from the US, we can almost tell ourselves that yes, Canada has always been a multicultural nation.
But that’s not really true, is it? The term multiculturalism would imply that these cultures lived in peaceful co-existence, and not in violence and bloodshed in order to ruthlessly conquer as much land as they could to prove their superiority. In reality, while it may be technically true to say that Canada has always been a nation of multiple cultures, I would very much hesitate to say it was always a multicultural nation.
Nevertheless, I always enjoy knowing that so many people from many different countries and parts of the world can come to Canada for a new life and still be able to retain their own culture and traditions today. Many people claim that Canada is a melting pot and I vehemently disagree with that. I believe that, for sure, the US is a melting pot, but never Canada. This is because, as I mentioned, people from different cultures are still able to continue celebrating their own holidays and traditions without fear of reprisal. Sometimes I think it is almost at the cost of being Canadian. For instance, there are so many people I know that do not celebrate being Canadian on Canada Day, but then there are many that do. I think it may in fact because we are a modest bunch of Canadians who quietly wear the pride of being a Canadian, though we definitely may not have been previously in history.
The idea of Canada being multicultural is not a novel concept however, it might seem that way since as a nation we have embraced that quality as part of our identity only recently. We have learned so far that in large settlements for trading, people from diverse areas of the world ranging from Africa and Portugal, arrived to what we predominantly see as a homogenous French settlement united by a desire for new opportunities and a better life (The idea of an American dream is far from unique). It has to be pointed out that while many different cultures were living together, tolerance and acceptance were not ideas that developed with the situation. Slavery was common, and society functioned in the same heirarchal fashion Europe did. Therefore even though Canada was technically multicultural, the romanticized harmony we associate with the concept was absent until relatively recently.
The idea we pride ourselves for personifying is still slightly misleading nonetheless as Canada has one of the worst records in theworldfor treatment of the aboriginal peoples, and countless Canadians are still suffering the ramifications of that. Furthermore, Quebec recently has been challenging one of the tenets of Canada by cutting down rights to religious self expression to “preserve their identity”–whatever that means.
Most importantly, I want to address that even though multiculturalism can exist in a place of immigrants like it has in the past and now, the “culture” every individual brings with them from their respective background will slowly evolve to suit the surroundings and assimilate until they cannot fully identify with their roots anymore. This is what happened to the French settlers and African slaves over generation so in a way it’s safe to say we kind of…lose our identity in a multicultural community that is a homogenous mixture of all cultures
The view that Canada’s multiculturalism is new to our society that can be argued either yes or no, based on many different factors. Already in this course, we have discussed or touched on Dutch, French, English and First Nations cultures being present in Canada in early times. These cultures mixed together, either by choice or force (i.e. marriages vs conversions) and those mixed cultures can still be seen today.
However… “Multicultural” is defined as being made up of many cultures, so in that case, Canada always has been and will be multicultural. Even within the First Nations communities before European contact, there were different views, values and cultures. But the term “society,” although it has many definitions, can be seen as a group of people who come together, a community, coming together for religious, cultural, & political reasons. It is clear that with the French settlers and colonies in New France there was no sense of this “society” although the two groups lived in the same regions. In this line, it can be argued that Canada is still not a completely “multicultural” society, as in present day we still see prejudice both socially and politically between cultural groups.
That said, I enjoy how we as Canadians do not take this term so literally, but rather as a representation of our “cultural mosaic,” implying that we are a country in which we are accepting and integrating of many different cultures.
Canada has one of the largest varieties of different cultures living within its country. We open our arms to diversity and multiculturalism. Today, we see many people of different races and ethnicities working together, going to school together and attending various events together. However, though we may be a harmonious multicultural nation now, does not mean that we were always this way. In a sense, Canada was multicultural since the beginning because we had the First Nations, the British, the French and the Americans living in one country. However, they were most definitely not living harmoniously. For example, during the 16th century, France voyaged over the Atlantic to Canada seeing a profitable business opportunity in fur trades. By the 1590s, the fur trade was booming and the French felt the need to claim the fur trade for their own and monopolize the business. In order to do so they needed to establish connections with the First Nations around the area of their settlement, Port Royal, otherwise known as Acadia or Annapolis Royal. Samuel de Champlain alliance with the Innu, the Huron and the Algonkin. Alliances with these aboriginals groups helped the French in raiding “The Five Nations”. While the Huron and the French were gaining strength the French felt that they did not have enough settlers, therefore the company of a hundred associates was called for by the French government. However, with the introduction of this company to the British North Americas, also came the introduction of disease which killed nearly half of the entire Huron nation and it also increased warfare due to the politics involving Dutch muskets and the Mohawk raids. Tension and disagreement was stirring between the French and Huron. Eventually due to the raids, the Huron spread out in all directions for Huronia causing the colony itself to disappear.
Canada’s multiculturalism does not seem like a new idea to me, as I have been taught this in schools since I can remember. From what we have learned in lectures, I would say that this is quite true. Canada was found by European travelers, who brought their people and their cultures across the Atlantic.
We would have met the requirements of multiculturalism in the simplest definition, that is to say having many cultures in one state, right from the beginning. The French were the first Europeans to create a permanent settlement on what would be Canada. Before them, the land was already filled with the aboriginals, and they had many different cultures of their own. These different groups would already meet the requirements for being multicultural, as we cannot just lump all natives together. Before the Europeans came over, there were just the natives, who interacted with each other, while still occupying their own territories and had their own traditions.
But from what we’ve learned in lectures, it seems that being accepting of the different cultures was not always the norm. The most important aspect of being a multicultural society is accepting people who are different from your own. This may be the aspect of multiculturalism that is relatively new. Before the Europeans arrived, the different groups of natives did not consider themselves part of one ‘country,’ and therefore not a multicultural nation. The Europeans brought the notion of a bordered territory, and created their colony. The respect for different cultures was not necessarily found with the French for the natives either, who only saw the natives as necessary for trade, and simply tolerated them. Today the idea of multicultural acceptance is much more widespread.
Canada’s been multicultural since before it was discovered by the Europeans. Each landscape of Canada had first nations people adapted to that specific area. The west coast itself had 17 or so different languages. There was no one language or group that controlled all of west coast. It was divided between all the groups living in BC. Each group had their own land to work off of and they also worked with their neighbors in barter and trade.
What made it more multicultural was the Europeans when they wanted to expand their empires after accidentally discovering Canada. Once they seen all the resources at their disposal, they dug in their feet and set up camp permanently making Canada their new home. They worked hard to set up farms, trading posts, ports, and a reputation with the First Nations to keep their trade routes. Then there was the integration of the french with the natives to create their own people. They were outcast ed by both the french and the natives so they became their own nation.
Canada as a Multicultural Nation is not new. Canada’s been always multicultural. The idea is something that was coined to describe the demographics of Canada as it couldn’t designate one nation as it’s symbol. There are way too many people that helped create Canada that we cannot just point out to one type of people to take the credit.
Luke, In the future, please draw more directly on the information you learn in lectures to write your posts. The blog is meant to get you to reflect on the lectures on a regular basis.
From what we have so far, Canada has a long history of being a multicultural nation. Even if we only consider the first peoples there, the aboriginal people, as the “people who turned right”, they went all the way from Africa, though Asia, Siberia, to North Canada. Once there, we know they separated into deferent tribes and communities, each having its own culture and language. It was, in a sense, already a multicultural country (though not yet a country…). But then again, this could be said about a lot of places in the world, and different communities almost never mixing together hardly makes for a multicultural country.
What is different, however, is the meeting of two entities as early as the tenth century. It is probable that the first encounter between indigeneous peoples in Canada and other peoples dates back from before Columbus ever set foot there, with the Norse people coming from Greenland, and it is suspected that many travels and some permanent settlements were made. Later came Columbus, the English people, the French, the Portuguese and so on.
On one hand, the large variety of cultures and peoples who met early on the now Canadian territories makes up for a long history of a multicultural nation, but on the other hand, much of that history is marked by wars and blood.
Today Canada is very multicultural nation. This is evident in our everyday lives for example just walking down the street you can see the diversity of Canadians. Also this may seem like a recent shift as a more globalized world, our country has always been a multicultural nation. It began with the different Indigenous groups who lived in Canada, such as the Huron, Innu, and Iroquois. While there were occasion conflicts between the Aboriginal groups, for the most part they were able to live beside one another cooperatively. This idea of multicultural became to change when the French created permanent settlements along Saint Lawrence River. Now a days idea of multiculturalism is more in tune with that the Aboriginal thought, with different culture living in harmony. Perhaps this transition from hostilely between different cultural groups to a more accepted view today because although there has always been multiculturalism in Canada it seems more accepted today because of globalization and how we are more aware of different cultures.
Comments on your posts for Week 2:
Just so you know, I will offer general comments on the blog entries most weeks. Some weeks I will comment on each student’s blog (I can’t do that every week so I am rotating among the 5 tutorial sections).
In general, you all did quite well. I would remind you that the blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lectures, so I expect you to draw on them directly in writing your entry.
Most of you appreciated that the place that became Canada was multicultural from the start in that it was home to many different nations and cultures; in other words, as many of you noted last week, what distinguished the place that became Canada was its diversity, which was there even before Canada existed!
However, some of you went on to make some important observations which I think all of us need to keep in mind: (1) that the place that would become Canada is more accurately described as multi-national; i.e. home to many different nations (Indigenous and European); in other words (2) the place that became Canada was diverse, but it wasn’t a single nation. In addition, and (3) there wasn’t the acceptance or even the tolerance of differences and the idea of equality that lies behind the modern notion of multiculturalism.
So…where does that leave us? In the 17th and 18th centuries, the place that would become Canada was a diverse, multi-national place. It was home to many cultures, but it wasn’t a single nation. Perhaps the story of Canada is how this multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state….
Communication across cultures is tricky. Do you have an experience of how you successfully or unsuccessfully negotiated a cultural boundary? Did you work out a “middle ground”? How?
Lost in translation.
Photo credit: John M. Unsworth, 2009
Cultural boundaries can cause issues in terms of settlement, trading, and cohabitation. As we have learned in lecture, early European settlers, be it the Norse, or the later French settlers, communicated in some respect across the cultural boundary that existed between them and the indigenous people of Canada. However, in an age like today of globalization and massive cultural integration, clearly I have much different experiences crossing cultural borders than the people of early Canada. The most common experience I have crossing cultural borders is international travel. Any travel to foreign countries often requires communication between people speaking two different languages. I have stayed in other family’s homes while traveling in Europe. I find that it is not a difficult task to make small adaptations to respect other’s culture. If you are accepting of them, they will do the same to you; especially when it comes to language. If one is to make an effort to speak the language of the nation in which he is traveling, the people will, from my experience, rather than ridicule him for lack of fluency, actually commend him for trying. Furthermore, food is another example of a cultural barrier. While I was in Europe, I tried many foods that I would have never thought to have eaten in Canada. Again, a middle ground can easily be created between you and the people you are staying with, as long as you make an effort to accommodate their cultural habits.
My roommates are all from the Middle East. This being so, they have a vastly different cultural background than myself. We often find aspects of our cultures that differ. The most striking example is religion. Some of the housemates are Muslim, some atheist, some Christian. Also, none of them eat pork. I eat pork on a fairly regular basis. It doesn’t bother my roommates, and if, for example, we make a meal for all four of us, we just refrain from adding pork. It does not cause tension in the house, because finding a middle ground for cultural interaction really just comes down to tolerance and understanding.
When one of my Catholic, Italian cousins was marrying a Muslim woman, tensions between both our families arose. While our side of the family hoped for my cousin to marry in the Catholic Church where we’ve all grown up, her side of the family wanted to celebrate with traditional, Muslim ceremonies. Neither side was willing to attend the opposition’s celebratory tradition. Both families were so angry; they did not speak for quite some time. In fact, they almost called off the wedding until the bride and groom decided to bring their parents together and find a “Middle Ground” to work with. Finally, together they all decided to celebrate both ceremonies. In Italian tradition, we attend the wedding ceremony in the morning around eleven o’clock and then there is a five-hour gap until the reception. This allowed both ceremonies to be held in one day, which is exactly what the bride and groom wanted. During the five-hour gap, the Muslim ceremony was to be held. Both sides of the family were welcomed to attend each other’s celebrations. Some attended, some did not. In the end, the bride and groom were extremely happy with the compromise made. What I find interesting between both my experience of “Middle grounds” and that made by the people of New France is the differences in the way the Middle Ground was established. While my family and the bride’s family met half way and did not need to sacrifice their own cultural traditions, the French completely adopted the ways of the Indigenous peoples by presenting their proposals in the form of wampum belts. I think that the Middle Ground can be looked upon in different lights. Middle Grounds can be found by having one group of people WILLING to sacrifice entirely, or in meeting half way by BOTH parties adopting each other’s cultural traditions.
I’ve been born and brought up in Canada, but despite that I was raised in a South Asian culture in my household. My parents are both from India and were married at a relatively young age, in their early twenties. I’m not currently informed of the present practices that occur in India before a girl marries, but it was the practice that females were not permitted to speak to or associate with men until it was ‘time’ to marry. This is because India is a patriarchal society, as are many other cultures around the world. As such, my parents strongly dislike the thought of me associating with or talking to boys, yet currently want me to get married soon because I am in my early twenties. They fail to understand that, as harsh as this sounds, we are in Canada and these kinds of practices are practically unheard of here. They believe that what matters most in life is being secure and settled down with a husband and a few kids. This is something that I do not desire as of yet and would not be amenable to the future life plans I have for myself. For this reason, I used their own beliefs to help negotiate a middle ground between myself and my parents. I told them that I have a career plan and will become secure in my own right and therefore do not plan to get married anytime soon, but that perhaps in 7-8 years when I have hopefully settled into my career path, I will give marriage a thought. For the other aspect of the boundary present in Indian culture I have let my parents know that what they want is completely unreasonable as it would be impossibly to live life without interacting with only females. But I have also made a sacrifice, and although it has been left unsaid, both my parents understand and know that I refrain from dating because of them. To you, this may sound utterly bizarre, but I do it because I highly respect my parents and if there’s something small I can do for them in return for all they do for me, I will do it. Not dating is my version of a sacrifice for talking and associating with guys as this something parents feel crosses a cultural boundary. In conclusion, I would say that the middle ground I have established with these cultural norms and practices required respect and sacrifices on both sides and that is exactly what the Iroquois and the French did. In order to develop peace between the two cultures, they had to have at the very least a small measure of respect. Barring that, they had to sacrifice a small measure of dignity as shown in the anecdote of an Iroquois attempting to look and behave like a European.
I don’t think it’s bizarre at all: and that you’re absolutely right that a middle ground can sometimes involve significant sacrifices on one side or another or both sides.
Finding a “middle ground” between different cultural groups in Canada began in New France with the French colonists and First Nations. Both groups adopted the customs and diplomatic procedures of the other in order to successfully negotiate and cement peace treaties with one another. Just as the French and First Nations had, I can personally relate to the process of finding a middle ground. Being a summer camp leader, I meet many children who are from different cultural backgrounds. Since they are typically 5 years in age, summer camp is really an eye-opener for many of them, as they are exposed to others from different cultures and backgrounds for the first time in their lives. There was one particular instance where a Canadian-born child, who was very outgoing and boisterous, met a quiet and reserved Japanese child who had recently moved to Vancouver from Tokyo. Having both laid eyes on the one-person trampoline, a quarrel broke out between the two of them over who would go on first. Not only was there a considerable language barrier, but the Japanese child was rather frighted by the overt expression of anger the Canadian child was displaying at not being able to use the trampoline first. To help find a common ground, I had to step in and mediate between the two of them by calmly talking about the situation. I explained, slowly and easily for both to understand, that they must take turns, and that their fight broke out because it was hard for the two of them to understand each other. Since they were children, I figured the best way to settle the disagreement would be “rock-paper-scissors”, and to my surprise, the Japanese child knew of the game, and was just as willing to play it as the Canadian child was. In the end, the Japanese child won, and the the Canadian was more than content to wait his turn, and by the end of it, they were quite friendly with one another despite their cultural and lingual differences. Their “middle ground’ was their shared love for play, as they both bonded over their appreciation for the trampoline, and the “rock-paper-scissors” game that was simple and known by the both of them. Therefore, because of this middle ground between the children was discovered, their dispute dissolved into a friendship, similar to French and First Nation’s peace treaties after finding a middle ground themselves.
Fantastic example!
I spent most of last year, on a gap year program in Israel, dealing with cultural boundaries. Twice a week, I worked in two different schools and then a connected after school program, where I – an American who spoke only very basic Hebrew – had to teach and talk to 4th through 6th grade Jewish Israelis – who spoke even less English. Actually, I would argue that in this situation, there happened to be a triple culture barrier: Israeli vs. American culture, lower vs. middle economic class culture, and child vs. youth culture. Both of these played into the way they acted and reacted to me, and the way I acted and reacted to them. These clashing cultures were especially apparently whenever it came to talking about my views with them, specifically about Israel and about gender identity.
As privileged American (and Canadian) youth, we are at least made aware of the idea of defining our gender identity. In many countries (especially countries with languages like Hebrew that have specific words for males and specific words for females), many things about gender identity are assumed that are not assumed (in some circles) in Canada. Male and female stereotypes about ability (and disability) are common everywhere, but even more so in Israel (and of course even more so with young children who have never thought of things any other way).
Also, as an American Jew, my views about Israel were pretty different from my childrens’ views.
Which brings me to the actual story: one time, when I was playing basketball (with a boy, because he didn’t want any girls to play), he told me that Arabs were bad people. In my excellent Hebrew, I asked him why, and he told me “I don’t know, they just are.” So asked him “but, do you really think they are?” and he said yes, and I said “really?” and he said “sort of”, and I said “really?” and he said “a little…” and that was as far as I could take him before he stuck with that answer. So I explained to him how Arabs were people, were individuals, just like he and I, and that it doesn’t make sense to hate a whole group of people that you don’t even know. And, you know, because I’m old and wise, he said “oh, yeah. I guess you’re right.” It didn’t even cross his mind, this idea that other groups of people were made up of individuals with identities and thoughts and feelings, just like him. But we were able to overcome the lingual and cultural barrier, as well as the age and economic barrier, to create at least a basic understanding of the concept of the value of a person.
During class we have discussed some inds of way of comunicating between cultures. But as I have interpreted the question, I should write about a personal experience relating to communications between cultures.
I have lived in Kenya for a couple of years. And the way we were taught to “access” this culture was mostly to embrace and respect their ways. I was a visitor in their country. And there were a lot of significant differencies in couminication. From the fact that you bargained when you were shopping to not dress in a certain way in certain places. All of this includes some way of communicating. However, communication between cultures isn’t much different from communicating in general. To reach a good coummunication both parts have to respect the other part as well as have an understaning for differencies. For example if I, as a stranger to a culture would do something that in an other culture would be a really bad thing, I would be forgiven.
But in a way you have to regard the consequenses of globalization as well as multiculturalism. Cultury is costantly changing and the borders between cultures are slowly erased. Therefore english has become an international language and an International Law is beginning to establish throughout the world.
Hmm…good point about globalization. Do you think if you went to Kenya now there would be less of a cultural gap because of increased globalization? In other words, does the process of globalization mean we might not have to negotiate middle grounds in the future because we will all be one big culture?
I do believe that the gap would have decreased, mostly due to globalization. The western culture, from manners to different kind of products, has become something that a lot of people seems to strive for. A long with the globalization, the availibility of these thing increases. In the same sence, the espression “exotic” will soon be out of meaning. And
around the world today we see people who really have to fight in order to preserve their culture. Personally, I don’t believe this to be a good thing. But yes, due to globalization a universal new culture will form. In time.
In 2011 I traveled to Nicaragua for volunteer work. When I first read the topic of this week’s blog, I didn’t automatically know if this experience would work. However, after reading another classmate’s response about how they believe middle ground can be achieved by a group willingly adopting the practices of another, I think it ca. While traveling, it was much easier my my group to adapt to ways of the locals simply because of the economic barrier. Also, we were totally immersed in their culture, so it was a lot easier for us to learn about and adopt their culture. For example, we change the way we dressed, made a sincere effort to learn Spanish, and participated in local events such as festivals. I do believe we achieved middle ground, even though we were taking on more of their practices, as it allowed us to build relationships with the people of Nicaragua. Our middle ground consisted of us making an effort to fit in and the locals accepting us and our efforts.
All my life I have been come into contact with many different cultures. I have grown up in a household where my father is a born and raised Nicaraguan and my mother is a born and raised Austrian. The fact that my two very culturally different parents fell in love and married each other proves, to me, that a middle ground can be reached. However, where I faced the struggles of attempting to create a middle ground came from the many travels we did.
Every few years my family and I go to visit my mom’s family in Austria. My mom did not grow up in the city but in a small town farther away from the cities. The towns are generally very traditional and hold onto old customs, traditions, etc. much more strongly than those people who live in Vienna for example.
Since I was visiting their place, it was expected that I would attempt to find a middle ground by adopting a lot of the German customs. In a sense Austrian people are very much like Canadians in terms of culture, but when factors such the language barrier and religion come into play it makes adapting to their lifestyle much more difficult. My oma (grandmother) is very tied up in the past and in particular she is a very strong catholic. My family and I are christians but of a different kind. Furthermore, I can only understand German, but my speaking abilities are poor. Thus in order to please my mom’s relatives I would do my best to speak what German I could and acknowledge their prayers, despite differences in religion, as opposed to have them accustom to my own lifestyle. In the end I would say that yes I have successfully negotiated a cultural boundary and created a middle ground between my relatives and I.
Lindsay (Ruth) Wong
Communication is defined as the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. It is not the easiest thing to do in general every day when even talking to your best friend. Imagine how hard it is across culture to be able to carry through ideas and exchange such information. Unsuccessfully I have experienced a cultural boundary in my life time. In grade 12 a foreign exchange from student from Asia visited my school for a semester. He played on the basketball team with me, and struggled immensely in speaking the English Language. Of course, myself and the other English speaking kids on the team and even Coach were not sure what to exactly do. We finally came up with an idea to overcome this problem, on how to communicate to him by getting a Cantonese speaking student who could translate to English for us. The idea worked and he was now able to understand the plays being called from the bench and understood how to maneuver around drills etc. Using our friend (the translator) to communicate to the non-speaking kid (that will remain unnamed) is how we established a middle ground. I believe we accomplished something remarkable here as obviously we wanted the student to play with us and enjoy basketball with us, but also we knew this language barrier would be a huge speed bump in the process. It was a success and I’m glad we carried through with this middle ground.
During a six-month stay in the Czech Republic where I lived and worked I found that I did reach a ‘middle ground’ between my home country’s culture and the local culture. Whilst the difference was not too great to begin with, the longer I spent in the country the more I came to realise that small behaviours clearly set me apart from the locals.
The way one behaves, speaks to and treats strangers was very different, as was the way one behaves in public and treats a client or customer. A more formal approach is the best way to explain those differences. This is not to suggest that the culture did not encourage warmth because respectfulness to both stranger and customer was strikingly a stronger practice there. How one treats friends and family in the C.R. was in my opinion better than in my home country, with greater expectations for loyalty and thoughtfulness.
Through learning their language and following their behaviours, and being open to learn about the country’s history, traditions and citizens I feel that I reached a ‘middle ground’. As well as through the proud representation of my country and helping people learn more about my home and traditions.
Cultural boundaries can be thought of as differences in language, religion, and/or values between two or more cultures that may create tension or some kind of obstacle to be overcome. Examples of cultural boundaries and how such boundaries have been addressed and (possibly) resolved by both/all parties throughout history is an interesting and important area of study. It is worthwhile to recognize that not all examples of cultural boundaries have large-scale implications; smaller, less significant examples occur all the time, likely all over the world – or at least wherever there is the possibility of people from different cultures interacting with one another.
I personally have experienced what it is like to deal with cultural boundaries. Unfortunately my experience was not a positive one. Last year, during my second year at UBC, I lived in residence housing with roommates that I had never met before; our rooming assignment had been randomized. Two of these roommates came from Japan. A great number of issues arose during the year, many of which can be attributed to our cultural differences. Following are some examples of cultural boundaries that caused tension and conflict between the three of us.
The first cultural boundary that we attempted to overcome related to time zones. Japan is approximately fifteen hours ahead of Canada. Because of this, neither of my roommates were adjusted to my version of a typical day (waking up in the morning and going to sleep before midnight). Instead, they would emerge from their bedrooms as I was preparing dinner, and would begin their day by attending night classes. They did their cooking in the latest hours of the night and into the earliest hours of the next morning, sometimes keeping me awake by cooking together or even inviting company over to join them for dinner. Unfortunately, instead of gradually adjusting to Canadian time, my roommates continued to operate on their own schedules for the entire year.
The second example relates to our different attitudes towards cleanliness. After confronting them several times about the state in which they would leave the kitchen, bathroom, and living area, the Residence Advisor had to be called in for a meeting to diffuse the situation. We came to find out that both of my roommates’ families had employed maids to clean up after them for their entire lives previous to moving to Canada for school. In the area that they were from, this was a common practice, and so these girls had never had the experience of cleaning their own homes, let alone cleaning a common space shared by others.
The reason that these cultural boundaries caused conflict was likely due to the third example: the language barrier. Being exchange students, these roommates of mine had had very limited exposure to English-speaking people. It seems that they did not retain a high level of whatever English they were taught in school, either. Whenever we tried to address an issue arising from one of our other cultural differences, it was very difficult to communicate our feelings. For this reason, we all ended up “giving up” in a way. Instead of working harder to find compromises and a middle ground, we eventually began to spend more time in our own bedrooms and considerably less time in the common areas of the residence apartment we shared. The closest that we came to a middle around was to avoid each other and ignore the issues as best we could.
These are all great examples Amanda, and they make an important point: sometimes efforts to make a middle ground fail! You need people to WANT to accommodate…. The French and British and First Nations all wanted peace and trade and were open to compromise.
Cultural boundaries spring up in all kinds of places, often in unexpected places. My personal experience comes from the cultural divide between China and Taiwan. Many people who consider themselves native to Taiwan actually come from immigrants that arrived from China several centuries ago, but do not identify with many things in Chinese culture anymore. They have built their own identity and culture and do not consider Taiwan a part of China, though in official Chinese records Taiwan is only a province. I was never much affected by this major political issue growing up in Canada. I also come from the second wave of immigrants to Taiwan, as my grandparents had escaped during the Cultural Revolution, which meant they still considered China to be their homeland. This meant that although my parents lived their whole lives in Taiwan, they were never strongly part of the separatist movement. To me Taiwan was my native home country; a country that was sort of part of another country.
People often ask me “Where are you from?” and “What are you, exactly?” to which I say, “I’m Chinese, and I’m from Taiwan.” Not Taiwanese, that is a language which I do not speak. But I would soon find out that other people had different, and very strong opinions.
In the eighth grade I was introducing myself to a new classmate, and went through the customary background questions, and I gave my usual answer. The boy across from me suddenly piped up “No, you’re Taiwanese!” and gave a whole speech about why that was. Which attracted the attention of another classmate, this time from China, with the complete opposite point of view.
That argument was never completely resolved, and it most likely never will be. The classroom squabble ended after the room full of freshmen found something else to yell about. But the Taiwan-is-a-Country versus Taiwan-is-a-Province was never resolved, and came up time and time again. I learned something very important after going home that day: that people are very touchy about where they’re from, and how they identify themselves. I realized not everyone was like us, neutral and indifferent. To those living in their native land, it mattered very much what country they belonged to. Now I understand how to better phrase my words, which makes history so fascinating when studying the path others took to bridge the divide between cultures.
Living in Canada we see Cultural boundaries very often since Canada is a very diverse place. I grew up here and where i grew up in Abbotsford I was always around different cultures in school, either East Indian or often Korean. Personally in the area I grew up there was a lot of East Indian people and often was faced with cultural boundaries along with communication issues. Middle ground was established in Abbotsford in the last few years in a substantial way. There are often signs with both languages in important places like banks and in most of the public places there are both english speaking Candians and punjabi speaking people that can provide translation for both cultures. Growing up in school often my East indian friends parents could not speak english well so another way that we established common ground was having the kids translate for us. Besides establishing middle ground in the communication there was also cultural events that helped us understand the east indian cultural, this event is called diwali. Growing up with that different type of culture allowed me to see how different it is in other parts of the world and establishing that middle ground between the two cultures was an essential part of growing up. Establishing middle ground between two cultures should always be a successful experience that allows you to learn about another culture and grow as a community.
Honestly I have spent most of my life trying to bridge a major cultural divide between myself and the peoples of my surroundings. My brothers and I are all Israeli born citizens who spent most of our lives in conservative Texas. The measure of how different these two cultures could be is no were near surprising, given the geographical, political, and major religious differences between the two nations. Growing up in Texas is a very interesting experience for a Jewish Israeli born American. I have plenty of examples of my search for equilibrium and a middle ground going poorly and well. For instance I was able to bond with many of my friends over our shared passion for hockey (surprising for both groups, I know). A successful middle ground there is the primal urge to compete and interact with peers. Very unsuccessful cultural bridge examples would be the common experiences of “boys being boys” in a grading school system that focus more on illegal substance control than deterring violence among its students. When all negotiations go badly, violence is the unifying force in understanding the motives of another person or peoples. I found that finding a common bonding force is much easier in peoples who wish to assimilate with others of heritages foreign to them, although many people wish to remain isolated and autonomous.
I grew up in the Cowichan Valley (funnily enough, very close to Salt Spring Island & Chemainus, both mentioned in our William Robinson Research), and as the court document and newspaper articles sort of alluded to, there is a very high First Nations population in the Valley. My elementary and middle school (Queen of Angels) found a middle ground between the Cowichan First Nations people & the school system we happened to be a part of. As a private school, we learned languages from kindergarten- mostly French, but we also studied Hul’qumi’num (hall-ka-mee-num), the language of the First Nations people who lived in the area. Queen of Angels was also a Catholic school, no naturally we had masses and celebrations according to the Catholic church. We also, however, celebrated First Nations holidays and once a year had a Cultural Day where we learned about traditional stories, food, games & ceremonies in the First Nations culture. No other schools in the area had such a day, and the Native Band in the area was 100% on board with the programs and very excited that the school was able to present them to us.
This middle ground reached by the practicing of both traditional Catholicism and facets of traditional Cowichan First Nations practices was not only very important to my community but taught all of us as students a lot about the culture and gave us a great amount of respect for it. Without those lessons, I’d probably still be ignorant of a major culture that I grew up in. I mean, the word Cowichan itself is a Hu’qumi’num word meaning “the warm land.”
Although Canada and its culture are new to me, I do not have much examples of negociated cultural boundary in that regard. The only one I would have is when I find myself not understanding what someone tells me. When that happens, either the person is nice, polite, and somehow tries to rephrase and slows their utterance, or I get the feeling the person is getting annoyed or is downright rude about it. In the second case, I usually end up answering yes, even if I did not understand one word of what has been said – this can probably be labelled as an unsuccessfully negociated cultural boundary.
The second example of negociated cultural boundary concerns religion. I grew up in with a (very) atheistic mother. My understanding until fairly recently was that religion brought the worse into people, instead of the contrary. And that only intellectually dim people could possibly believes such things. While I was first influenced by my mother, this stance was reinforced by what I would see at school.
During my first year in University, I met a girl who is now a close friend. She was and still is very much dedicated to religion. At first, I was very rude to her and would not hide my opinions regarding religion. However, with time, as I would see that religion helped her be a good person (though, it could be argued that without religion, her personality would stay the same and she is just a good person at heart), I began being more respectful of her beliefs and listenning to her talk about it when she needed to. I also learnt from it not to flaunt my political and religious stances to people who might not think the same, as we sometimes both knew we would disagree on certain topics.
I think a middle ground was reached by both of us accepting we had different opinions and beliefs, accepting and respecting them, and not trying to impose or convince at all costs the other of them.
In lecture this week we have been learning about how the French colonists and Indigenous people found a middle ground in order to end the fighting. They found the middle ground through understanding and adopting each other’s customs. An example of this from my own life is a few years an ago my sister went on a two-week exchange to Japan. Then the following month a Japanese exchange student around our age came and stayed with our family for two weeks. Although I did not have the full culture experience that my sister had by going to Japan, I definitely still think I saw a successful middle ground between our two cultures. Aki learned more about the American culture because she was an exchange student she but also shared hers with my family and me. A key element to finding a middle ground is sharing cultural customs with each other. I know things we shared typical American customs with her, like her first cheeseburger, went tubing down the lake, built a bear at Build-A-Bear, Pike Place. In return Aki shared a bit of her favorite activities, and Japanese food. Aki brought over lots of Japanese candy and even prepackaged food, which she was able to add the necessary ingredients to, to made dinner one night. Overall, my family and Aki were able to find a great middle ground and to share our different customs. However, one key element to a successful middle ground is communication and that is something, which was sometimes a problem. This is because Aki spoke Japanese and a little English while my whole family only English which caused a language barrier. Luckily, Aki had a portable translator, which allowed her to type a sentence, and it would translate into English and visa versa so we were still able to communicate.
One year, I participated in a Canoe Journey that paddled from Port Hardy down to Lummi, Washington. All through out the trip, we would stop at host communities for songs, dances and a meal. Each time we landed on a beach, we would follow protocol by stating where we are from then ask for permission to spend the night on their land. After each meal, the skippers (captains) of the canoes would hold skippers meetings to discuss the next day while we’re on the water and what to expect.
In my family’s canoe, we had a paddle with a white feather tied on by a string of leather. We took it as a momento for our fallen family members and friends that had passed on. We wanted to have a symbol to show that we were paddling and participating in honour of our friends and family and not only for ourselves. So, one day, when we landed on a beach, we had the paddle sitting at the bow of the canoe with the feather hanging over board. As per custom, we did our protocol and were granted permission to spend the night.
After the meal, we went to the ‘skippers meeting’ and there, the skippers would ask questions and share concerns. During the meeting, one of the cultural leaders of the host community stood up and made a reference of our feather. He didn’t call us out but he mentioned that, when a canoe came to their land with a feather hanging out of the canoe, their intentions were to start a war or a battle. Upon hearing this, I slumped in my chair knowing they were talking about my family canoe. They continued on to talk about other issues and ended soon after. After awhile, I picked up my pride and embarrassment, walked over to the leader and apologized about the feather and that we meant no harm. He said he was alright, knowing that we didn’t know but wanted us to respect their culture. With this, I made sure the feather of the paddle stayed into our canoe during the following protocols.
Our common ground was built with the reaction of the cultural leader. He understood that we were a different nation, and therefor, didn’t react by being hostile and disrespect my canoe family. I believed I helped by not overreacting to him during the meeting and by owning up to my mistake. If we had both reacted differently, our canoe journey’s would have ended with one of our families being sent home or ended early.
Some general comments on Week 4 :
Many people in the class brought up the fact that UBC is a very multicultural campus in a culturally diverse city, so that learning how to accommodate oneself to differences is something we have to do all the time. There were some great examples of how people react to differences – everything ranging from reacting with unease, frustration, and sometimes with aggression and bullying to making an effort to learn and adapt, whether through trying new foods, learning new words, figuring out new customs, or sharing (whether it be food or a love of football). But, as some of you pointed out, sometimes efforts to make a middle ground fail!
Your stories led me to think that the key to making a middle ground is a mutual interest and commitment in doing so. The French and Indigenous nations that met at Montreal really wanted the same thing – trade and above all, peace – to the extent they were willing to be hostages in the “enemy’s” camp. Most of us don’t engaged in treaty negotiations, but we do have to find a way to get along in the midst of different cultures, and doing so successfully seems to be premised on an ability to get beyond our fears and to be open to new experiences, to let go, to a certain extent, of some of the ways we do things. This begins by recognizing that the way we do things, the things we think are “normal” aren’t necessarily seen that way by everyone!
Given what you’ve learned this week about the politics of representation, what ideological purposes does the image below fulfill?
Mort du Montcalm, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, 1902
In order to understand this painting of Montcalm by Marc-Aurele de Foy Suzor-Cote, we must understand the context within which it was painted. Louis-Joseph de Montcalm was a French commander in North America during the Seven Years War (1756 – 1763) who died at the Battle of Quebec. The story of his death is not especially triumphant – he was shot by a British soldier while retreating from the battle that was the result of his bad military decision, and had the result of French surrender.
However, this painting portrays something quite different. Suzor-Cote, who was born in Quebec, is obviously portraying a strong sense of French Canadian nationalism. Montcalm, in his dying moments, is surrounded by many figures, who all look solemn – one man is even kissing Montcalm’s hand. The priest (in the only purple in the painting) and the nun (in the foreground) being there also suggests the importance of religion, and the importance of Montcalm’s death. Something else that might suggest religious connotation is the amount of white he is wearing, which connects him to many paintings of Jesus while Jesus was dying (Caravaggio’s Entombment of Christ, Mantegna’s Dead Christ, etc.). Finally, politically and historically, this painting elevates Montcalm and recognizes his importance in two ways: by making him the subject of the painting, and by painting so many French soldiers standing at his side while he dies (especially while there is the end of a battle going on outside!).
Lior Bar-El
In my English classes I have taken in the past there was always a focus on perception. In particular we talked about framing in novels: how the narrator frames or “displays” an event or part of the story so that it gives off a certain meaning. Framing adds context and meaning to the story but has the ability to change the meaning given off by the event thus changing one’s perception of the event.
Likewise in this painting, there is a framing of the event of Montcalm’s death to make it appear in a particular way to observers. Thus, framing is very important when used for ideological purposes. Marc-Aurèle painted this image in such a way that glorifies Montcalm. All the people surrounding his bed give off a sense that he was a highly respected person. Those kneeling around Montcalm, elevate his position as a leader of the people. Furthermore that fact that he is dressed in white is to show his type of character, and since white typically signifies purity, that is what is implied. In a sense, the painter connects Montcalm’s death to the many different portraits one sees of Christ’s crucifixion; almost putting Montcalm on the same level.
Whether Montcalm was truly this type of person, deserving of such respect and honour is not a question that arises in this painting. Instead this painting fulfills its ideological purpose of glorifying, the general of the French army, and thus glorifies the French people as well. Ideologically the painting shows the “greatness” of the French and their leader, and can be used to help boost the morale of the French people or give off a sense to others of the solidity of the French people. In the end the French had lost the battle that Montcalm died in, which suggests that he may not have been as as strong of a leader as this portrait implies, thus showing the manipulation one makes to portray an event in a particular way.
Lindsay (Ruth) Wong
The “Mort du Montcalm” is a painting that depicts just as it is named: the “Death of Montcalm”. In saying this, we can look at the painting with an observant eye, and extract from Montcalm’s dying moment a plethora of ideological and symbolic representations. The setting of the picture is that of Montcalm’s deathbed, and there is a grave tone to the painting. This can be inferred from the grey and brown undertones used by the artist to convey a solemn atmosphere, as well as the fact that those surrounding Montcalm, who appear to be soldiers or people of significance, are sullen and remorseful. Their hats are off to show respect to Montcalm, as well as to show that they are in the presence of someone, in this case the fallen lieutenant general of the French forces, who still deserves the respect of his superior position despite his vulnerable and weakened state. This picture also places heavy emphasis on religion and significant elements of Christianity. Firstly, the presence of the ornate priest and the kneeling nun place emphasis on the fact that the french, and the Canadiens, were devout Catholics. Catholicism was one of many attributes that separated the French from the British, the two groups that rallied against each other during the Battle of Quebec. From this battle, Montcalm earned a fatal shot from a british soldier, which is seen here in the painting: there is a red mark, a bloody wound, on Montcalm’s illuminated chest. As well, drawing attention to idea of light, it can be seen that Montcalm is the primary focus of this painting, as his bed is bathed in white light. His illumination is symbolic of the fact that he is depicted in this picture as pure, almost saintly, which links directly back to the religious elements of this painting. This saint-like portrayal plays upon the idea that Montcalm is being recognized for exceptionality, most likely for the fact that he led the battle against the British to defend their territory in North America. Because of this, the French most likely looked to Montcalm as a heroic figure and appreciated his contribution. What we must keep in mind, though, is the fact that this is a painting from a single hand, and therefore provides us with a single interpretation. We must ask ourselves: did everyone hold the same perception of Montcalm as the artist did? Whereas Suzor-Coté may have held certain opinions, and thus allowed his creation to exhibit his personal ideas, the painting does not account for the general perception of Montcalm that others may have held, and therefore we must take this into account when interpreting such work.
There is quite a few represents from the church portrayed in the picture, and due to their clothes I believe they belong to the Catholic Church. So you have the religious part. In the background it looks like poor people stand to grieve him, as well as people with higher social statuses. So the picture tries to visualize a representation from the whole society. In a situation where a whole country comes together and cross social-economical borders and grieve together there has to be a reason. The most likely would be that the dying man has done something for the whole country. Which is true, he fought for his country against a common enemy. The fact that there wasn’t anything special with his story is irrelevant though. That isn’t what the painter wants to mediate.
As you said in class, the winner always writes the history and therefore, the winner has the opportunity to interpret the outcome. The easiest way, and the way that has always been used is to divide everything in black and white, bad and good. The dying man himself are dressed in white along with his bed and linens, which gives the viewer the impression of him being heroic and innocent. This enhances the purpose of the picture. The picture represent how the situation should be looked upon at that time, everybody how gives their lives for the country is heroes and should be glorified. And its purpose is to unify the people against the enemy.
From the painting, a person could assume that Montcalm was a man of importance, and his death is of great significance. After some research, one can find that his death was in fact, not that special or heroic. However, the artist is able to make a person believe this is not the case if they do not have any background information.
Montcalm is the only character in the painting that has an abundance of light shining on him, drawing the attention of the observer to him. Also, being the only one dressed in, and surround by, the colour white, I would assume there is some significance to that. Perhaps it is representing his sacrifice and his heroic attributes. Painting people who kneeling, the artist has stressed Montcalm’s higher status and importance in the society. The man in the purple, who I am guessing to be a clergy member, paying his respects, reinforces the idea that Montcalm was important as the clergy had high status during this time period. Furthermore, the colour purple generally represents a person being high on the social ladder or belonging to royalty. The weeping people in the background are not as well dresses, and obviously not as well stressed by the artist, so maybe they are of the working or poorer class. With people from all ranks of society in the picture, it makes it seem that Montcalm is a well-known and liked man by many.
The above image of Montcalm’s death shows that both the painter and the intended audience had immense respect for Montcalm. The onlookers in the painting are praying, some sobbing and others deeply shocked. This suggests that Montcalm’s death was a serious loss to his New French comrades who surround him with expressions of love and adoration. The figure that kneels beside Montcalm, clutching his hand conveys a sense that even on his death-bed Montcalm is their leader and they looked to him for advice and wisdom. In this respect it also could be seen to suggest that Montcalm’s death lent to the defeat of Quebec against the British, as he died just one day into the conquest of Quebec.
The presence of the Roman Catholic Priest, possibly there to perform last rites on Montcalm, also reveals the significant religious ideology of the nation. The portrayal of his last moments, the way in which he is painted to look peaceful, clean and sage gives his death an honourable atmosphere and therefore gives the actions of the New French honour, that whilst they lost to the British they fought for valiant reasons.
The painter of this work used many details, some more subtle than others, to make implications about both the French general and the French people in general. There are several key factors that make the status of General Montcalm quite clear. Judging merely by the number of people beside his death bed indicates the massive level of respect this man had amongst his people. Men of wealth and importance, wearing redcoats, wielding finely made swords, and wearing powered wigs, signify the elite of society. In essence, within the painting, their purpose is to elevate the status of the general. They do so simply by their actions. Men are kneeling, praying, and crying; all due to the death of one man. As the general of the army and as a leader in the preservation and expansion of the French world, Montcalm’s ideological position is one of representation for all of France. The painter expands upon this position by dressing Montcalm in white garments. White is a symbol of purity, beauty, and grace. The painter implies that these traits are qualities of Montcalm, therefore qualities of France. He represents the glory of the entire nation, hence the beam of light shining upon him. Furthermore, the presence of the priest in the foreground of the painting indicates the importance that the Catholic Church had in influencing French people. He is dressed in extravagant robes, and is also under the beam of light. The priest looks down upon the French general with a solemn glance.This could be merely because he is mourning the loss of a great man, or, because during this era, the protestant church was gaining influence quickly; the priest may in fact be mourning at the loss of a French general who would have been a protector of the Catholic faith. Overall, this painting indicates certain French ideologies, specifically the role and preservation of the Church, as well as the characteristics of the French people and their leaders.
The painting by Marc-Aurèle of the “Mort du Montcalm” depicts the death of a commander who served in the Seven Years war, which was fought over the colonies in what would become Canada. He won several glorious battles, but was eventually shot on the Plains of Abraham and died the same night as Wolfe, the British commander.
In this painting, Montcalm is lying on his deathbed entirely in white robes, which can symbolize his purity or cleanliness from sin, signifying that he fought for what was right. He is surrounded by people of importance, such as generals and members of the church in their religious attire. They all have their hats removed, and have bowed their heads, and some are kneeling. All of them have sad or solemn looks on their downcast faces. The fact that these important figures are all present shows the reverence for whom the artist depicts as a holy, righteous man who was highly honored.
The ideological purpose of this painting was to celebrate the French people and bring them together. It celebrates the spirit of the French people, who fought with God on their side, as suggested by the religious figures present. By depicting Montcalm as holy and good, the picture tells the French people that they were the “good guys,” fighting against the evil forces who had come to take their land. Marc-Aurèle reproduces Montcalm in such a way that he becomes a martyr, which also affirms this point, that the French and Montcalm were soldiers of the righteous, and those that died had done so for the greater good in upholding their beliefs. Even though the French lost the war, the painter tells the story that they died for a good cause, and they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
The image that Marc-Aurèle depicts in this sketch is the death of a commander in the French army in New France. The commander, Montcalm, died from a musket wound in 1759 after the French army was defeated in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The painting shows that Marc-Aurèle believed in the goodness of Montcalm as illustrated by the symbolism present in the empty chair, the colour and lighting on the main character in question, as well as the number of people surrounding Montcalm’s deathbed. This painting may demonstrate that Marc-Aurèle had great admiration for the French of New France. For the first example, although it can be overlooked, there is an empty chair present. By itself, it may mean nothing, yet it could also represent the spirit of Christ or the person. It may show that that Montcalm was blessed and did no wrong in pursuing command and attempting to defeat the British. Secondly is the main object the sketch focuses on: Montcalm. He is shown dressed in white and lays on a bed covered with white sheets. Again, this could be something innocuous as many people do have white bedsheets and white dressing gowns, yet many cultures use white as a symbol of something pure and clean. It may be that the white shows the goodness of Montcalm and the brightness of the white in comparison to the darker colours also aids in emphasizing the elevated status of Montcalm. Lastly, we see that in his death Montcalm is surrounded by many people. These people could have been persons who served under his command, perhaps friends as well. We also see a nun and a priest. Everyone appears to be upset at his death which demonstrates the importance of Montcalm, as quite bluntly, there would be no need to show grief for someone who did not mean something to many people. In conclusion, the ideological purposes served by Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté’s painting shows the righteousness and greatness of Montcalm in leading the French army in the battles of the 1700’s.
The artist Marc-Aurele has painted a very significant photo here named “Mort du Montcalm” which provides a visual representing the death of Montcalm. Montcalm has many people surrounding him including a nun and a priest. This depicts that religion was quite present in this time, and the importance around it. Montcalm is in his deathbed , the French Canadian nationalism is present. It is made clear by the painter that their intention is to portray the man in his deathbed in the spotlight. There is a man kneeling kissing his hand while it seems the other are sulking over the death of him. The white clothing he is wearing is promoting the purity he holds, while being a key concept for the observer to see. The overall purpose of this painting is to glorify Montcalm and to show the hero Montcalm and his sacrifice for his country.
“Mort du Montcalm” is a striking representation of the death of General Montcalm, who died in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. The dark and neutral colours give the image a somber tone, which is reinforced by the stances of the people; some have their heads bent, some kneel, etc. Two figures in particular are made to stand out through use of brighter colour. The first is the Catholic priest dressed in traditional robes, who represents the significant role that religion played during the time (the praying nun further supports this). The second is Montcalm himself, whose white clothing and bedding draw the eye to him as the central subject of the image. The use of white also implies glory – Montcalm’s death is portrayed as somewhat glorious in this image. The men surrounding him can be assumed to be high ranking, prestigious figures as they are all dressed well. They have clearly come to pay their respects to Montcalm. When searching for more information on General Montcalm, I discovered that he was not loved by everyone; however, he died in the position of respect and that is the view that this artist has illuminated.
General Comments:
Good job everyone. Most of you picked up on the fact that this painting, like Benjamin West’s, makes a visual argument about their subjects; i.e. Generals Wolfe and Montcalm. That said, the two paintings are very different. Many of you commented on the significance of the colours used by Suzor-Coté as opposed to West, but not many of you picked up on the significance of portraying Montcalm dying in bed.
Why show Montcalm in bed rather than on the battlefield? Is it some sort of critical commentary; i.e. that generals die in bed while their troops suffer? Probably not in this case. Could it be that the painter wanted to avoid showing Montcalm dying on the battlefield because that would call attention to a French DEFEAT? He still wanted to portray the French general as a hero, though, so he showed him inside, with no reference to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (or any other battle for that matter). If you didn’t know anything about the circumstances of Montcalm’s death, you wouldn’t even know he’d been fighting….
That’s a good point. You don’t think the painter would assume that the person looking at his painting knows who the subject is, and his history, at least a little bit? Also, isn’t he surrounded by men with swords?
But maybe he could be saying Montcalm is a hero, despite his defeat (not in loo of it).
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
Economic behaviour is not universal. Different societies with differering economic cultures and values in relation to what is important engender people who have different economic behaviours from those in other societies. Furthermore, while generalizations can often be made about societal economic behaviour, individuals within each society often have different economic behaviours from what is expected of them, and from what they grew up with. A relevant modern example of this is the changing economic culture of Sweden, from a pseudo-socialist welfare state to a neo-liberal capitalist one. Those economic cultures, while very different from each other, were both put into place by government elected by people – which means that the opinions with regards to economics within Sweden have changed. (One might argue that both systems were created in order to maximize self-interest, but I would argue that the former system was created to pursue societal self-interest, with the self-benefit following from that.) Also, on an individual level, people act out of non-self interest every day, when they help someone with homework or with getting a job, etc. (again, one can argue that these actions can be done out of self-interest, but I believe that self-interest is most often not the motivating factor, and therefore not the reason for the action.)
An example of a backward sloping supply curve in my life would be summer camp. As a camper, there is no material benefit from attending summer camp. Furthermore, as a counselor, I am paid very little, yet I have worked for both of the past two summers where being a counselor was available to me – at the opportunity cost of finding a job that is better paying, and therefore more materially beneficial. I think that in general, non-material self-interest comes from two places, both of which I would say apply to me: from a non-material self-interest, like making friends and learning; and from a material or non-material interest in something “greater” than oneself (i.e. the collective, the group, the organization, etc.).
I do not believe that economic behaviour, when described in terms of the pursuit of material self-interest at all times, is universal. While it is not controversial to suggest that groups of people must pursue their own interests in certain ways at certain times (for the purposes of survival and health, or simply for comfort, security, and pleasure), to suggest that people pursue their material self-interest all the time would be too strong an argument. There are plenty of counterexamples to suggest otherwise. These can be found on both a group and individual level. One notable example of someone who consistently put herself at the service of others was Mother Theresa, who, despite numerous health issues, personal conflicts of faith, and other hardships dedicated the majority of her life to helping others in need. This kind of behaviour (in varying extremes) can be seen within certain religious groups in which people forgo material luxuries and dedicate their own lives to supporting greater purposes than their own. It could, of course, be argued that these people must emotionally or spiritually benefit from their service to others; however, I do not consider this self-interest to count as economic behaviour by which they are seeking to advance their material interest. In terms of a backward sloping supply curve, I think that there are certainly times in people’s lives when this description can be applied to their behaviour, especially as described by the example of a worker choosing to replace hours of work with more leisure time. Yet this does not seem to advance the worker’s own material self-interest so much as it is does help him gain comfort/happiness through other means. What I would truly consider acting out of material self-interest would be finding an even higher paying job and working more hours in order to make money that can be spent on luxury items.
I do not think economic behavior is universal. I strongly believe that depending on how or where someone was raised, one might be more inclined to pursue their material self-interest than others. For example, if a child were raised in Los Angeles by a wealthy, affluent, material seeking parent, I would assume that this child would grow up more predisposed to pursue material things. I say this because both, the way in which the child was probably brought up mixed with the type of society he or she occupies makes for a perfect economically, self-interested individual. Unfortunately, I must generalize using this example. On the other hand, if a child we raised in the small town of Spence’s Bridge, British Columbia and were raised in a modest home, struggling to make ends meet, I think this child would be less inclined to pursue material self-interest because he or she was probably taught to appreciate what little they have. While I say that not everyone in the world is self-interested, I believe that you could, in another light say that everyone has an instinctive right to pursue the necessities of life in order to sustain themselves. However, in looking at this, it is safe to say in order to sustain one’s life, materials are needed. Thus, is it appropriate to assume that even the homeless in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver are also inclined to pursue their material self-interest because they are trying to live for tomorrow?
No, economic behaviour is not universal, especially when it is described as the personal need to always pursue material self-interest. It appears that as a whole, industrialized societies have adopted this economic behaviour and consumerism as a way of life, but that’s not the case for all people or societies. If a society does not have their basic physiological needs, such as food, sleep and clean water, I doubt the people of that society would be immersed in economic behaviour and have need to pursue material self-interest. In addition, economic behaviour only plays a significant part of someone’s life if material items are what are valued in their society. Some cultures, societies or tribes do not place importance on physical material but rather spiritual growth or helping others. Also, one can argue that true altruism (if that does indeed exist) would promote a person to have selfless concern for others and not be concerned with materialism. Both Ghandi and Mother Teresa have seemed to demonstrate this. Of course some people would debate there is no true altruism, as everyone is trying to help themselves in some way. Another example is the Aboriginal potlatch. While the practice was used for elevating status, the Aboriginal tribes did not necessarily pursue their material self-interest as they would often give their best items away. Doing some research on the “backward sloping supply curve,” in labour terms, it would appear that a higher wage means workers can reach their target income by working fewer hours; so, because it is easier to get enough money they work less.
There is no universal economic behaviour. I believe that the economical behaviour is strongly connected with culture. Western societies is a consumer society and wealth gives you a higher social status so I believe that you even can say that people tend to develop greed in some extent in western societies. And it’s very much focus on material things, or it has been so for a long period of time. However, I do believe that things are changing a bit. Today, there are some tendencies towards another direction. Family, travelling, quality time and well being in general is the new “thing”. I believe that this trend actually will change prioritising people have today.
But there still is this problem that you can’t get around. For travelling, quality time etc. you do need money. Of course it differs depending on what you want to do but the more money you have the more you can travel and the destinations increases when the wallet is thicker. I read an article not long ago saying that money won’t make you happy, BUT the happiness is easier to access with money. Unfortunately I think that that actually is true. And as long as that is the case this economical behaviour will exist, at least in the western societies.
Economic behaviour could be qualified as universal when looked at on a world-market scale. Globalisation has ensured that for most transnational businesses to succeed they will run on according to certain well defined, well practiced behaviours (economic theories) e.g. profit margins go up when labor costs go down.
On a personal scale, economic behaviour may and may not qualify as universal. What a single male does with his per-annum earnings will differ significantly to the way two adults with three children will use their hourly-wage earnings. However given that, without thorough study, I could presume that the out of 100 single men the majority will spend their money in the same practice and the same for family units- this shows that economic behaviour for both groups is universal, but only with units alike.
The ‘backward bending supply curve’ applies to labor supply and wages, e.g skilled labourers that employers want to entice with higher wage. This theory is based on the premise that wages over a certain level will result in a universal economic behaviour; that workers will work less because the time they spend not working is compensated by a higher wage in their working hours. Leisure time is increased and as a result the worker feels less drawn to increase their working hours. The employer sees little improvement in labor supply and employee spends their wages at the same or even higher rate than before the pay rise.
I believe that a very basic level, the majority of people follow a set of fundamental economic laws. For example, laws of scarcity and opportunity costs are seen in everyday decisions. However, when it comes to material self-interest, it’s impossible to say that people act in a strictly universal manner. In the context of this week, the economic action shown by the Indians shows that even people thought of as backwards savages, were practicing universal laws of economics. Now, this in mind, to say that all people pursue this action all the time is incorrect. One can’t make the assumption that everyone on earth acts in the exact same way economically. To illustrate this principle, one can look at a backwards sloping supply curve; or in other words, something breaking a basic economic law. An example of a backward sloping supply curve would be something of limited exclusivity. For example, top end sports cars. A company, as the price and value of their car grew, would produce less due to an increase in status. In turn, creating a cycle of increased demand due to a status effect. Therefore, the value would increase even further, driving up the price with it.
In my opinion economic behaviour is dependent on country and therefore, culture. Some countries’ economic behaviour are similar if not near identical due to the physical proximity of particular countries resulting in similar cultures or simply due to the close economic relations between certain countries. For example, generally first world countries, such as China, the States, Britain and Canada, have close economic ties and economy is based on a consumerist society. Therefore in countries such as these, people generally tend to pursue their own material self-interest because the mentality in these countries is very much focused in making the best life for oneself and taking advantage of every opportunity. However, in other countries, such as developing nations, they don’t enjoy all the luxuries that the developed countries do. Therefore, their economic behaviour will be different and possibly not as focused on the pursuing of material self-interest.
The concept of a backward sloping supply curve does not well apply to me. As in the definition the idea is that, for example, a person who gets a pay increase would be able to obtain the same equivalent amount through working less, therefore it seems likely the person would work less. However, my mentality is very much that I would work just as much or more in order to earn just that much more than before. This is in the case when profit is involved, however, but for example in high school when I volunteered I would give the minimum amount of hours in order to meet the quota needed to graduate. So, in some volunteer positions I would have to volunteer about 2 hours once per week in order for me to obtain the hours I need. One volunteer position, however, would round up a few hours in order to help us meet our quota faster, therefore, I could volunteer less and still meet my quota. This behaviour depicted here is a good example of the type of economic behaviour generally present in developed countries where a backward sloping supply curve would be expected to happen, yet this is by no means a universal behaviour.
In today’s day, all countries and people would be involved in economic behaviours. Countries are importing and exporting trade goods to and from outside their country. They are trading to improve their status at the world scale. People are taught they need to work to pay for their basic needs. Some people even work more to gain more materialistic items they want. The elite people of social class are pursuing their self-interest all the time. They work strictly for money. Money is first and foremost while their families are second in terms of values. The lower class are not so lucky. They work at minimum wage to make ends meet and to survive.
The “backward sloping supply curve” idea is new but the one thing that I can make a connection to this is poker. Some guys are playing every hand to keep their head above water. They are constantly betting and calling but sometimes losing to better hands, therefor having to start from the bottom again. When they lose so many chips, they become selective of choosing their hands. They don’t make the right decisions, meaning the flop could go their way but they folded. Then you have the guys who have luck and win the one big pot, making them the chip leader. when they are chip leader, they can choose and pick which hands to play and muck. sometimes, they just sit there and wait until the blinds are high enought to jump into the action.
Economic behaviour is indeed universal, for as long as there is some monetary form and value, people will subconsciously follow economic rules. Economy is essentially a global enterprise, and does not only deal with the individual or a single society, but is characterized by the interconnection between state economies that rely on each other.
Economic behaviour as we see it so far is based on how people have acted thus far. People will always pursue their self-interest, for they want to better their condition and their lives. Whether that is material or immaterialistic is debatable, but again, monetary forms help make that decision and transition. The amount of fiscal goods you have will, of course, limit and define your self-interest. My example of this lies with the idea of the “backwards sloping supply curve”. Say that it is in your self-interest to go to University. But if the price to attend increases, it will naturally become more selective and exclusive. If the price rises up to a certain extent, it may be in your self-interest to not go to University for the time being, and instead get a job in order to attain other things that would serve to be in your interest. This is also a matter of opportunity cost, if one were to delve into the topic further.
No, economic behavior is not always universal. I think it greatly has to do with how you were raised. There are a couple different options for how you were raised will affect your economic behavior. One option is lets say you were born and raised in the Upper Eastside of New York, you have been raised with lots of money so material objects are of importance to you. If someone raised in the Upper Eastside was in this situation and offered a higher wage, they would mostly likely continue to work the same amount of hours. If you compare this to the backward sloping supply curve, this person does not follow the backward sloping supply curve and take more leisure time. They wouldn’t take the leisure time because they have been raised in an environment where earning more money is most important. However on the other hand take some one raised in a very family orientated environment, and is offered a higher wage would follow the backward sloping supply curve. They would choose to work less and spend the extra leisure time with their family as long as all of their basic needs were covered; this is because family is most important to them. In conclusion, someone’s economic behavior can be determined by their values: for example family or money.
I do not believe economic self interest is universal. Economic behaviour is how people act and make decisions in economics. Every society has their way of dealing with economics, and it is not necessarily in a self interested manner. Particularly with the natives, who appear to be more concerned with keeping the land and preserving their way of life than exchanging it for profit. We learned in the lectures that when given better offers for their furs, the natives would provide fewer furs to trade. This flies in the face of all that we understand to be modern economics. Clearly they were not acting in self interest in this early trading economy.
Their actions follow the backward sloping supply curve, but I do not believe the graph explains their motives. This figure explains the phenomenon where workers will eventually begin to work less after a certain point in rise of wages is reached. This is fairly self-explanatory, as having higher wages means less work needs to be done to acquire more money. In the case of trading goods however, the trend is often to acquire as much as you can. It is not until a person is so incredibly ‘saturated’ with material goods that they are satisfied, and will slow their intake of goods. In the case of the natives, they could have gained so much more for very little effort on their part, but as it was mentioned in the readings, they traded mainly for need, and were satisfied not because they had all they wanted, but because they had all they needed. This is a very different economic that we see almost anywhere else.
In terms of pursuing material self-interest, I doubt and disagree that economic behaviour is universal, as there are many indigenous cultures in the world who focus on the well-being of the society before they act out of their own self-interests. Yet I do agree that economic behaviour in the form of trading of items to obtain items is universal. For instance, there are cultures which exchange animals in order to trade their daughter or perhaps to gain land. Others exchange jewelry to obtain other materials they desire.
Asking if all people pursue material self-interest all the time rings a clear answer in my mind, and that would be a definite “no.” Of course, many people pursue material self-interest some or most of the time; for example we go to work to earn money so that we may obtain and buy material items only we desire, but saying all people all of the time is a bit of an obvious exaggeration.
In relation to the course, it is possible that the indigenous people, as the formalists say, were motivated by their own material self-interest to gain materials they may not have been able to utilize without participating in the fur trade. Seen at another angle, however, we could also say that the indigenous peoples participated not out of their own material self-interest, but for other altruistic reasons because generosity and helpfulness was a large of their culture.
I do not believe economic behaviour to be universal. It is based on politics and economics – for example, it is generally held true that a capitalist environment allows for a strong need for material self-interest. If we consider this week’s tutorial reading, this may not have been the case at all for some Native tribes. History of economics and politics also plays an important role, in that if the features of economics or politics change, the behaviour of people concerned by these changes will not change in the short term.
I think nowadays all people pursue their material self-interest all the time, albeit at different levels and to different extent. Poor people aspire for a greater wealth (I know “all you need is love”, but being able to eat every day has its perks too), and middle-class or rich people aspire to maintain their wealth, if not increase it. Except for potential still existing Indigenous peoples in the world (though, from what I gathered, many come to understand the importance money and material possessions have in industrial societies), everyone has to pursue material wealth in order to survive, or live. What changes it the ratio people applies to their pursuit of wealth and their social life and hobbies, or the importance they put on volunteering and similar activities.
I cannot think of any instances of my life when there has been a “backward-sloping supply curve” situation, as I never found myself in the position to earn enough money to be able to cut back work hours in favour of leisure time.
General Comments on Week 6:
What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone was at pains to be very careful about generalizing about human behaviour! That’s great. Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….
It would be hard to believe that economic behaviour is universal; i.e. that all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). Even within one time and place it doesn’t seem universal. Many of you gave me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?
Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and (in another tutorial) art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
Political, economic and social factors played a large part in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s.
It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as they could; for example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791 to try to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based they law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigneurial system. Also, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take.
However, we also have to think about the political system as well. Even with an elected assembly, the majority of the power was left to the elite Anglophones in both Upper and Lower Canada. The elite were also given large plots of land and had advantages that most people didn’t. In addition, they were able to keep their wealth by the booming timber trade that was caused by the Napoleonic Wars; this created a wider separation between the elite and the majority of people. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French. As for the Aboriginal, it appears the British didn’t do as well accommodating them as the some of the other groups of people. I believe the Indigenous people kept being pushed west of the colonies and if they chose to remain, found themselves being under the control of the British government system instead of their own. Plus with the British fear of the French Catholics in Lower Canada, and the Americans in Upper Canada, even though the British tried accommodating as many people as they could, they still couldn’t stop the tension between different groups and the fear of treason.
Many factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America. The British in many ways were less accommodating than the French toward the natives. The French learned the native traditions and customs, and kept up trade even when furs weren’t in demand, just to keep good relations. The British were not as accommodating, particularly towards the Métis, when the Governor of Assinaboia put up laws that went against their lifestyle. The factor here that limited their ability to be accommodating would be economics, as the governor wanted to maximize profits for his own people.
The British were somewhat accommodating towards the French. It was the British who had control of the land, but the majority of the settlers were French, and Catholic as well. The British desire to have the upper hand would have been a limiting factor in terms of accommodation. The Anglophones would have expected their mother land to take their side, and make sure they were well provided for ahead of the French. But they would have worried about possible separatist movements rising up if they did not give them some accommodations, and so some provisions were made to the French, such as dividing the colonies into Upper and Lower Canada, and giving them the right to vote and hold office.
The biggest limiting factor of accommodation however, is most likely greed. Governments always want the support of the wealthy, and so many provisions were given to the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact, namely large land grants. Things were not so good for you, whether you were a French or English farmer. Both groups had the right to vote, but their votes were essentially useless as the elected assembly could do nothing against the will of the executive legislature. Just like we learned in lectures, ordered liberty can only work with inequality.
You’re right that the British and French accommodated themselves to different groups, but why? What did they gain by doing so? And were they always accommodating? What factors affected how far they were willing to go?
Tarah, I think you’re right that the British did try to accommodate different kinds of people in their empire, but why did they do so? Because they were nice? 🙂 Or did they have particular motives for doing so? Why was it that certain people – like Indigenous people – were accommodated and then weren’t?
It seems from what we’ve learned so far that the British were willing to accommodate almost everything politically, socially, and economically, that didn’t threaten the inherently British national character (or the attempt to create a British national character) of Upper and Lower Canada.
In Britain, there was a parliamentary political system that had been around for 100 years (since the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and was relatively stable. And so, the British assumed that a replica of the British system in North America, with a couple changes, would be the most stable system. However, they were wrong, and soon they realized that the national characters of Upper and Lower Canada were very different than that of Great Britain, filled with republican, radical, revolutionary, enlightenment and nationalist ideals that could not be fulfilled in the context of the straight British system.
In Upper Canada, Britain was less accommodating. They tried to create a hierarchy by giving large land grants and high government posts to the Loyalists who had just come from America. But, probably because they had just dealt with Americans in the Revolutionary War and were tired of American ideals, when this idea was rejected, the opposition was crushed (as shown by the story Joseph Willcocks, who was removed from office for espousing the idea of ministerial responsibility).
In Lower Canada, however, the British were slightly more accommodating. When the same “create a pseudo-aristocracy” idea was tried there, and the Parti Canadien was started in response to protest a lack of ministerial responsibility, there was no response of dissolving that political party. A possible reason for this seemingly hypocritical juxtaposition of actions from the British is that in Upper Canada, the Americans were arguing for ministerial responsibility with their American ideals, which were seen as threatening to the British national character, whereas in Lower Canada, Pierre Bedard used the rhetoric from the British Constitution in order to argue for the same thing.
Lior, I like the idea that the British accommodated people when it was in their self-interest to do so. What was that self-interest, exactly?
The British took several different actions in attempting to adapt British North America to the diversity they were faced with. To begin, the British accepted those loyalists who fled from the America’s in search of some place safer. In moving to places such as Nova Scotia and Quebec, the loyalists ended up shaping the British colonies. Having to accommodate different types of groups, the British were forced to create imperial governance. Since the loyalists owned black slaves, they were forced to bring their property with them to British territory. In doing this, there was an influx of racism. Not only were the blacks a racial minority, but they were also given smaller areas of land than the whites. As a result, the blacks began to complain that Halifax was much too far from the area they were settled in and the loyalists voiced that they longed for an elective assembly. The British were then obliged to accommodate the black loyalist immigrants. In order to accommodate their demands, British in London, divided New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, into Upper and Lower Canada. By doing this, each colony would receive their own legislative council and consequently, the British would assure the “loyalists’” loyalty. Since the loyalists began to get their way, the Indigenous people felt as if they were displaced, ignored and betrayed because the blacks began to make their way through Indigenous land. Frederick Haldimand, the governor of Anishinabeg territory, was forced to accommodate his aboriginal peoples. Haldimand did this by making arrangements for attractive land to be set-aside for aboriginals. By accepting loyalists of both black and white, British North America was forced to acknowledge a domino affect that these diverse groups would bring to their colonies by accommodating three different races concurrently; blacks, whites and indigenous.
Jessica, you’ve got some good examples here of how the British tried to accommodate different groups. But the question is why? And why did they stop trying to accommodate certain groups, like Indigenous peoples?
British North America made attempts to accommodate loyalists during the American Revolution, including slave populations. To make room for this large growth in refugee population Nova Scotia was settled greatly and expansion westwards was made inevitable. This caused some dissonance amongst settlers because land promises to loyalists grew smaller in the later years of the Revolution. Those who arrived after would receive smaller parcels than those who came earlier, leading them to argue their loyalty was not as valued by the British. This came into conflict with land promises made to aboriginal people and resulted in additional treaties being made to appease them.
There was also anger because of the growing contact between Anglophone settlers and the black ex-slaves that sought sanctuary in Canada, and with the French Canadian peoples too. The British white elite were unhappy with this contact and effectively segregated the French. Resulting in Lower Canada and Upper Canada being created in 1791. This is a prime example of how British North America stopped accommodating challenges to their governance. This action was repeated when French elites attempted to secure political representation for themselves by creating an assembly and populated it by election, they dismantled their assembly and enforced stricter political restrictions on Lower Canada bringing them under the control of the executive branch of legislature.
Elizabeth, you’re right that one of the ways that the British accommodated diversity was to divide Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, and that there were limits to how far they would go in the examples of what happened to former Black slaves and freemen as well as Indigenous people – they were accommodated but in a limited way, and the extent of accommodation changed over time. What you need to think about is why; i.e. what was the context in which the British accommodated and then stopped accommodating?
A well-known idiom states, “You just can’t please everyone.” The act of redefining British North America (BNA) in the early 1800s is an excellent example of this. Following the American Revolution, immigration by a large number of Loyalists triggered what would be a series of major changes to the strategy of governance within BNA. While the British went to great lengths to accommodate themselves, not everyone around them was treated as well as. A number of factors shaped the limits of this accommodation, leading to a situation in which the British just couldn’t please everyone.
After the Constitutional Act was enacted in 1791, BNA was split into Upper Canada (UC) and Lower Canada (LC). This split allowed for a divide in the prevailing systems of law, land-holding, and so forth. Both the Anglophone majority in UC and the Francophone majority of LC were appeased in this way; both areas were represented by their own bicameral legislature. Unfortunately, in the early 1800s, seemingly arbitrary hierarchies developed, causing controversy and an upset to the balanced constitution.
Anglophone elite – known as the Chateau Clique – came to dominate both the appointed legislative and executive councils. Their growing wealth bought them most of the available land, giving them more power to vote. As their power grew, they posed a larger threat to Francophone identity. In UC, Loyalists – especially the Family Compact – were also favoured in order to create a “model British colony.” In these ways, the constitution which was supposed to create balance ended up strongly disfavouring the Francophones.
Furthermore, while the focus was centred heavily on loyalty issues between the British and the French in BNA, the interests of the Natives were largely overlooked. Even after the Aboriginal population supported BNA against Americans, the common enemy, their attempt at regaining their previous level of independence was ignored. The British did little to accommodate this group, showing a massive change in priorities from earlier centuries.
Because of the growing variety of cultures present in BNA, it is likely that it would have been impossible to accommodate all groups. However, despite the fact that the British seemingly went to greater lengths to accommodate themselves than others, the situation led to a number of positive outcomes, the most significant of which being the rise of modern-day nationalism.
Amanda, You’re right that the British accommodated Americans – and then stopped doing so. You’re also right that they accommodated French and English differences in Quebec by splitting the colony into Upper and Lower Canada. There are other examples too, but what you need to think about is why the British did so – and why they stopped.
The limits of accommodation by the British Governments were affected by the three major factors, the Indigenous First Nations, Loyalist immigrations and the original French Colonists. In order to get their house in order, the British Government had to make concessions, the most influential were the Haldimand proclamation of 1784 and the Constitution Act of 1791. The British knew that anarchy would prevail if they didn’t act to recognize the distinct nature of different cultures in their new territories. The creation of the upper and lower colonies of Canada accommodated the needs the English and French speaking citizens by giving a voice to Political autonomy. This being said, the British Government accomodation were limited by the hierarchy that it created.
Though divided by language and a new border, the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly were still controlled by the wealthy landowners who occupied the seats. In order to facilitate ongoing loyalty of the Six Nations, the Haldimand Proclamation satisfied the interests of the Mohawk Nation but ignored the Anishinabeg peoples to the west. The British Government could not answer every petition placed before them however British Sovereignty was always the cornerstone of any concessions granted.
Richard, you’ve given some good examples of accommodation and how their willingness to accommodate changed over time. But remember that the British didn’t just accommodate Indigenous peoples. They were willing to accommodate Catholics (in Acadia and Quebec) and Americans as well as former slaves and Black freemen, and they dealt with differences between French and English by creating the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada from the larger colony of Quebec. They also carved out New Brunswick from Nova Scotia in response to demands from Loyalists for more responsive government institutions.
I don’t expect people to include all these examples, mind you. But what I did want people to do was to think about the contexts in which accommodation occurred because as you point out, the willingness on the part of the British to do so changed over time. Why? In other words, what factor shaped their willingness to accommodate different groups of people?
Blog Week Seven
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
According to the Canadian history, politics, economic and social factors had an important role in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s. People who were there were the People of BNA, French people majority in Canada East, British people majority in Canada West and Maritime, First Nations and Metis majority in the Prairies, British and Americans majority in British Columbia. In addition to that The Great Migration attracted settlers. Many people moved from Europe in the 1830s and 1840 due to poverty and food shortages forced them to emigrate. Especially Newfound Diversity has a history of People from Netherlands, Germany and Ireland now part of Canada, and Irish came because of Potato Famine. It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as possible. For example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791, and tried to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based their law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigniorial system. Most importantly, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, people weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French.
The life in BNA was based on gender roles. For instance, women were responsible for domestic chores, men responsible for outside tasks, everyone helped with big jobs. The sad part of the history was the Social Characteristics, because Canada East was mostly French and Roman Catholic, West was mostly English and Protestant, the black communities in Nova Scotia, and in West First Nation people were apart from Europeans due to their distinct class divisions. Therefore, constant movement caused
people always looking to improve their quality of lives. Last but not least, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island united in 1866. Traditional British government system American influenced it for gold rush. There were thought it should join America, than being a British colony.
Friba, You’re right that the British tried to accommodate many different groups of people, but remember that their willingness to do so changed over time. To take one example, Indigenous people were accommodated through the Proclamation of 1763, but it wasn’t too long afterwards that they were placed on reserves. What was the context – in other words, what were the circumstances – that made the British more or less willing to accommodate different groups of people?
The British went to great lengths to accommodate the different groups of people in North America during the early 1800s. With the creation of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, each respectively dominated by Francophones or Anglophones, the British were able to adapt laws to suit each group best. In particular the French in Upper Canada were permitted to follow their own laws, such as the landholding system they followed was the seigneurial system despite being under British rule. Furthermore Britain was aware of the English minority that would be living in Lower Canada as well and thus still allowed to accommodate them according to British law. Furthermore, though the British were predominately protestant, they allowed for catholic representation in the government, in that they were allowed the right to vote. What was strictly to remain under British rule was the criminal law however. The British would tolerate only so much, but when it came to the court and punishment the British knew they had to be in control in order to keep the country in order.
Much accommodation was made for the Loyalist settlers coming from the States as well. As more and more Loyalists came they began to disperse further than Nova Scotia, many settling in Upper Canada. In Upper Canada concessions were made for the Loyalists as Britain knew it was important to have their support. But trying to settle these new groups of people resulted in a lack of accommodation for the native people. Natives were constantly being pushed off their lands and although they were granted reserves, they often weren’t large and also not as good of a quality of land as the settlers received.]
Overall, the British did do a lot in the way of accommodation as has not been done in the past. Factors for this were not only due to the increasing white settler population but also the need to have the majority backing the British in order for them to keep control of British North America. In the end to accommodate some groups meant that others would be left out. Therefore, Britain’s accommodation was limited to the groups that thy felt were the most vital to have support from.
YES! You are one of the few people to get to the heart of the matter, to address why the British were more or less willing at different times to accommodate different groups. It’s in your last sentence – I would have liked a little elaboration of this part and less of the description of accommodation, but great job!
The British implemented many factors into accommodating new settlers. Factors such as political, economic and social advances that adapted in to problems. The problem is that these factors didn’t always accommodate settlers and especially the indigeneous peoples. New settlers were often promised large parcels of land that would be granted to them in hopes of cultivating it and thriving economically. Later on this land continued to diminish for settlers which created social problems for the settlers. For the native peoples it was not very beneficial, they continued to not get respect from the new British colonists and were socially crippled by the British in an attempt to increase settlement population.
Dallas, can you elaborate on what you mean by political, economic, and social advances? I do think the political, economic, and social contexts shaped how and how much the British accommodated other people but it’s not entirely clear what you mean from this. Also, you’re right to point out that people who were accommodated at one time weren’t accommodated at other times, the best example being Indigenous peoples. So what made the difference?
From what we have learned so far the British in the early 1800’s were faced with a large amount of diversity, allowing them to accommodate anything that wasn’t a threat to British National character of upper and lower Canada. The British were significantly less accommodating towards the Native than the French were. This was evident through the French’s actions such as learning the culture and customs of the Natives and doing trade with them. Quebec was separated into two in order to please both the French and English. They based the law off the majority of people living there, and voting was changed through the special oath Catholic men could take.
Throughout time there has been a quite sufficient parliamentary political system already installed in Britain. They thought that this government would be fine to install with Upper and Lower Canada however this did not work out , they soon noticed that the national characters of Upper and lower Canada were different than Great Britain.
The Native peoples suffered essentially because of the British not wanting to accept them. They kicked the natives while they were down and did not let them get back up. Social problems like these occurred which significantly lowered their acceptance with natives.
Kyle, you’re right to say that the British viewed different groups differently with respect to how far they’d go to accommodate them. But what made the difference? Indigenous peoples were accommodated (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example), but later on they were not. What contexts shaped accommodation?
The British were at first not accommodating of the French Canadians, whom they tried to assimilate. However, they soon learnt that it was in their interests to be accommodating of them, for British immigration was not important enough to assimilate them. This led to the creation of Upper and Lower Canada, with a tolerance of French politics and law.
Similarly, accommodations were made for American Loyalists.
On the contrary, the British were a more less accommodating of the Natives than the French were. While the French conducted trade, going as far as to adopt some of the Natives’ custom in trade, with no intention of taking over Aboriginal land, the British did not understand this agreement and proceeded to take over lands they consider not to be properly exploited.
Vinciane, I think you are right to say the British acted differently towards different groups, but why? And was it not also the case that their attitudes towards a single group changed over time? Indigenous peoples are a good example: they were accommodated in the Proclamation of 1763 but pushed aside later. Why?
During this period of time there were a few different groups in Canada which led to some tensions. The aboriginals, the Americans, the Loyalist and the French populations. It must have been somehow strange since the size of the population didn’t represent the power.
I believe that when every country experience this situations, they try to please all groups in order to avoid aggravation and to much tensions. However, in Canada it seems like they went pretty far. The Quebec act in 1774 enabled for both English criminal law to be applied alongside French Civil Law. The Quebec act also recognized the Catholic church which aggravated the Americans. The Constitutional act divided Quebec and made an English speaking part. Although you could say that this is relative large changes that was approved, it didn’t seem to be enough to please everybody
What happened was that they tried to compromise in order to keep the different groups calm, in order to maintain the power of the colony. However, the diversity was to big, and the way I see it, the situation could be compared to a “triangle-drama”. The economical, social and political differences between the groups became limits that arose during their attempts to accommodate all the groups.
Karin, I think you are right that the British tried to accommodate different groups in order to be able to govern their colonies. But can you say more about why they stopped accommodating certain groups? For instance, they accommodated Indigenous peoples (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example of this) but later on they pushed them onto reserves. Why? Similarly, they welcomed Americans who were fleeing the American Revolution, but later they tried to take political rights away from them. Why?
When the large influx of loyalists came into Canada after te American revolution, which consisted of a diverse array of people in terms of gender, ethnicity, class and religion, the British accommodated the loyalists and indigenous peoples by making the Treaty of Paris, the haldimand proclamation, and the constitutional act. The treat of Paris in 1783 the British made caused the Mohawks to feel betrayed because of how little they got in return for what they had for the British, so in 1784, the British made the Haldimand Proclamation. This allowed the mohawks to settle near the Grand River. Seven years later, the british made the the constitutional act in 1791 to prevent many of the people from being swept away by republican notions. This act was mainlyfor the aforementioned reason, but also for the loyalists and to further accommodate the loyalists, the british ended up dividing Quebec into upper and lower Canada since the loyalists had petitioned for a representative government of the type they were used to. In short, the British made many special accommodations for the people of British North America.
Amrita, Yes, the British did try to accommodate people as you illustrate with your examples but why? What factors shaped their willingness to do so and what factors shaped their decision not to?
The British took it upon themselves to accommodate some of the numerous groups that resided and immigrated to British North America, such as the First Nations, the Francophone Canadiens, the American settlers, the black slaves who were deemed free when coming to British North America, and the loyalists who escaped from America to BNA due to their prosecution. One of the main accommodations the British made was establishing Upper and Lower Canada, where the Anglophones and Francophones resided respectfully. This territorial division aided in the process of mitigating any tensions between the groups and allowed the francophones to practice their laws, civil law, and seigneurial land-holding system that fundamentally differed from the the laws (i.e. common law) and landholding patterns of the Anglophones. As well, the British accommodated the loyalists by granting them complimentary land in Nova Scotia in promote growth in the province and also provide them with concessions to ensure their loyalty and repay them for their loyalty while they were in America. The British were rather fond of the loyalists for their patriotism and loyalty to Britain, but in doing so the aboriginals whose land was being handed over to the loyalists were put at disadvantage, as their land was being stripped from them. That being said, although the British did seek to accommodate those in British North America, they failed to maintain the relations that they had earlier with the Aboriginals, thus showing that their accommodation efforts were only directed to those of whom they considered important.
Aviaah, Your examples of accommodation are good, but you need to think about why the British did this? What led them to accommodate different people? Was it just because they were nice? And why did certain groups who were accommodated cease to be at other times? Indigenous peoples were accommodated by the British but later on they were put on reserves. What social, economic, and political contexts shaped how far the British were willing to go in accommodating diversity?
General comments on Week 7:
Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.
Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.
The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?
In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.
Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions around land. To begin, in Upper Canada, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.
In the Atlantic region of Prince Edward Island, there was also a problem with landholding systems. Since there was no crown land on PEI, townships were dispensed to those whom the government owed favors to. In doing this, proprietors were called on in hopes of colonizing the island with Scots and Roman Catholics. Spokesman, Cooper, takes part in an election of 1838 regarding the confiscation of this land because he, the Scots and the Roman Catholics believed that if you put work into the land, you should have the right to own it.
The 1830’s could be seen as an age of revolution for a number of reasons. For example, this time was the beginning of reform politics in Upper Canada. What this means is that the Tory’s desire to have a more “responsible government,” while the Family Compact believes they are already responsible. The radical reformers, who are in favor of the Tory’s, launched an attack on the Family Compact while voicing their belief that there is corruption in Upper Canada. This forces the British to replace their governor with Bond Head who creates a new executive council and calls for an election more favorable to him. As a result, the Family Compact and Tory’s try to push through the land, which eventually brings them back into power. Consequently, Mackenzie publishes a constitution for an independent Upper Canada in hopes of change, and attempts to overthrow the government. This should be seen as revolutionary because it displays the controversy over how far the Family Compact was willing to go to protect their colony and how far the Tory’s were willing to go to promote some kind of change.
Even though there was no real rebellion in the Atlantic region like that of the Canadas, the dissent expressed by Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came from similar causes. More specifically, both regions were upset with the economic and political power granted to those in the small group of elite. Like both of the Canadas, the Atlantic region was skeptical of the British control and government; they wanted a group to govern that would be responsive to the majority of the people and a government that would not only benefit the elite.
In Upper Canada, the “Alien Question” played a large part in the rebellion. The central conflict of land ownership, resulting in having the ability to participate in politics, was similar to that of Prince Edward Island. While in Upper Canada, the concern was based on making sure the Americans could not vote, in PEI, the Highland Scots were being kept from participating in the political system. In both regions, the elite (Family Compact in Upper Canada and Proprietors in the Atlantic) were able to use their power to influence who was gaining the ability to vote.
In addition, in the Canadas and in the Atlantic region, the majority of the people felt like elected assemblies (if there was one) did not actually hold any power compared to the appointed governors and council. What people in both regions really wanted was a responsible government who responded to the best interest of all the citizens.
The 1830s was definitely an age of revolution in British North America. We begin to see people taking a stand for what they want and believe, whether that is through newspapers, elected assemblies, or brining the government to a money halt. From this, we saw a significant change in the political system that was used to regulate British North America.
The insurrections of Upper and Lower Canada were direct results of the oligarchical undemocratic rule that had disenfranchised much of the population for many years. This reflects the same rise to rebellion that many Atlantic-bordering nations experienced in the surrounding decades. This includes the United States, France, Spanish America and Ireland and it was these examples that led Upper and Lower Canadian governments to become more oppressive in their handling, for fear the ‘republicanism’ might spread to Canada.
The rebellion of Lower Canada in 1837, which was raised earlier in the political sphere by James Stuart and Louis-Joseph Papineau, represented the desires of the French-speaking populace who were dominate by the small group of elite, the Chateau Clique. Their domination over trade, politics and religious regulation was challenged by the Parti Patriote. However this political rivalry failed to affect any change of consequence when it was undermined continuously by the larger political faction. This led to armed rebellion in the Spring of 1837, led by Papineau, bringing together both Quebecers and citizens of the newly formed United States, in the Patriot Wars of 1837-1838. It sparked a similar situation in Upper Canada, whose primarily English-speaking working class were dominated by the Family Compact. Reformer movements sought to bring an end to the feudalistic society. Upper Canada didn’t see the same level of armed rebellion as Lower Canada, nor some could argue, the same degree of challenge to British forces that quashed riots quickly.
Regardless of the fact that both cases resulted in continued civil oppression and directly caused the unification of the territories into the Province of Canada by the British Parliament, the 1830’s can most definitely be seen as an age of revolution, a revolution of ideology, if not in political representation.
The rebellions that took place in the Atlantic colonies, Upper, and Lower Canada, were a result of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers. The proprietors, Family Compact and the Chateau Clique were in control of power, and it was a widely held understanding that the current elected members had little to no power or influence. In each region, there were key aspects of politics and the economy that settlers felt decisions should be made by a responsible accountable elected legislature. However, this was not the case.
Power and land were interchangeable in this era. This being so, land claims were a major issue that caused unsettling feelings of hostility amongst the settlers towards the unaccountable elite. Settlers were not pleased with the fact that land was being granted to friends of the elites, or in the Atlantic region, people with whom the British owed favours. Furthermore, American settlers found it impossible to claim land without pledging allegiance to the King, and their status was highly questioned. American’s were not the only non-British settlers that found it difficult to be treated respectfully, or given political rights in the British North American colonies. It was a widespread issue.
In response to the oligarchical control exercised by colonial elites, settlers in all regions were calling for constitutional change in the form of responsible government. This was their overriding objective. Responsible government would ensure accountability, keep the executive in check, and give elected members far more influence.
The 1830’s served as an age of revolution in British North America. There was an overriding desire for change across all colonies, and cries for revolution were widespread. Settlers had grown tired of oligarchical rule, and felt it was time to progress. Mackenzie and Papineau’s rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada reflected this sentiment, as did the dissent expressed to London by the Atlantic regions. In other words, this period saw real action taken by settlers who felt that there was need for change; and change would ensue.
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
The rebellions of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Atlantic region are similar in that they all involved the post-Enlightenment republican and nationalistic idea of the power of the individual. The right to be represented by your government comes from the feeling that you are part of the nation in which you reside, and therefore it should at least partially reflect you and your opinions. So, the rebellions can be seen as outbursts of these ideals, in response to a lack of their being fulfilled – a lack of ministerial responsibility and responsiveness to the political/economic wills and weal of the people.
To me, the difference between an “age of revolution” and a rebellion is the level of involvement of the people, at least in its spirit if not physically. And from the lectures, insofar as it is possible, this kind of “spirit” does seem to be the case; that each rebellion was not isolated in itself, but that each was interconnected in its ideologies and built off of the others.
However, I would also like to point out that this age of revolution engendered a societal evolution, not revolution; that in many ways, what the colonists were protesting for was a nicer looking version of the system they were in – not a new one. So, perhaps I would argue that the 1830s should be considered an age of evolution, created by sometimes violent societal participation, and not a full-on “age of revolution”.
Fantastic Lior!
This dissatisfaction among the colonists that led to rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies was fuelled by the friction between the ruling classes and the middle class colonists themselves. In Upper Canada, social and cultural tensions were at its utmost peak between the British Loyalists of the Family Compact and those of the colonists, many of whom were American immigrants. Social and cultural tensions also prevailed within Lower Canada between anglophone merchants that formed the the Chateau Clique and the francophone middle class. As well, in Upper Canada, economic discontent among the colonists brewed from land policies implemented by the Family compact, and also from the fact that land was being granted to their supporters. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system was sparking tension with American settlers who were used to free-holding land. This widespread dissatisfaction within the two Canadas provided a platform for rebellion, a call for change to the government and political system, and a greater focus on individual participation and representation of ideas in government and politics. Such can be seen when looking at the rebellion in the Atlantic colonies, as discontent stemmed from the middle classes against those who held power. The ruling classes tried to stifle the middle class’s push towards political freedom, much like the the two Canadas, and in certain colonies, like Prince Edward Island, land holding was an a large issue as well, as William Copper sought to extract the land from Proprietors and rightfully pass it into the hands of the tenant farmers. Thus, political freedom and land ownership, propelled by the widespread dissatisfaction of the colonists and middle classes are among the primary similarities between the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies.
The 1830s can be considered an age of revolution in British North America, as the rebellions of this time marked as an push for change. People sought to be represented within the government and the political sphere, as they felt that their needs were considered subsidiary to those of the elites, who basically shaped laws and policies to their own benefit. As well, this time period further brought about an enlightened understanding of responsibility. The middle class colonists wanted the government to be responsible to them, the citizens, for nothing at that point was holding the governmental and political officials accountable to those they were governing. Thus exploitation and disregard for the populations was rampant. The rebellions sought to bring about a new age through reform politics and further the pursuits of the colonists and middle class people in establishing personal individuality, personal freedom, and political representation, thus characterizing this reformation period as an age of revolution.
Colonies in the Canadas and the Atlantic region had very similar uprisings in terms of reason and catalysts that lead to dissent among the general population. In both the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies there were issues in the landholding system in which an oligarchy took control of general affairs in the colonies and, in particular, would hand out lands based on favouritism. In Britain’s attempt to fix this situation the governors were replaced. However the new governors acted contrary to what the the general people wanted thus furthering the discontent in the colonies. The discontent in the colonies was expressed through key people: Gourlay in Upper Canada, Papineau in Lower Canada and a vocal middle class in the Atlantic colonies, in particular Joseph Howe. Though these people were tried for expressing their dissatisfaction with the government, the situation continued to escalate until in was the brink of full rebellion. These colonies’ rebellion was largely spurred on by the ideals brought about through the revolution in France and in the newly formed States.
Where the colonies differ is that this growing discontent turned into a full rebellion in the Canadas, but not in the Atlantic colonies. The British government was able to more effectively deal with the situation in the Atlantic colonies partly due to the fear of having to deal with the same situation as was happening in the Canadas. The British were also able to quench the rebellion in the Canadas, but the legacy of the uprising remained.
To a great extent the 1830s in British North America could be considered an age of rebellion. Or better, an age of revolution. With new ideals as a result of the Napoleonic War and the War of Independence, the people in the colonies in British North America became more aware of the corruption in their current colonies. This realization, carried out through key people, resulted in the rebellions. However the rebellions were short-lived. Britian was better prepared to deal with the rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies mainly due to their prior loss in the American Revolutionary War. Britain also realized the need to keep British North America on their side, thus making more concessions in favour of the majority in these colonies than they had done in the past. Therefore, this age of rebellion, had a much different outcome than prior rebellions had in the past.
The similarity between the rebellions in the two regions is mainly that they originated with dissent against the elites, who had much more that the lower classes while doing very little. For example, the seigneurs in Lower Canada who owned all the land, which was very much like the land holding system in PEI. There was also a lot of dissent against the political policies that were put in place, such as the Naturalization Act in in Upper Canada, and the taxes and restrictions placed on the logging industry that made people very upset. Most of all, the settlers all wanted a government that was responsible to the people. Upper and Lower Canada Had elected assemblies, but they had very little power and were controlled by the executive council. Several of the Atlantic colonies did not have and form of elected government.
General resentment towards the economy was also a factor that lead to the rising idea of rebellion in the colonies. Land was becoming scarce and the quality was bad in Lower Canada, and the farmers could not yield as many crops. The Americans in Upper Canada had their land rights taken away in 1818, which meant they could not make a living. The Atlantic colonies were also suffering in their economies as well, as most of their industry had been in supplying the British troops with timber, and building their ships. After the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the Atlantic colonies were no longer needed to provide large quantities of material, and they had no more ships to privateer, and so their economy fell, and the people became unhappy.
The 1830s could be seen as an Age of Revolution in British North America, although very little rebelling actually happened. I believe An Age of Revolution is when the majority of people have a need for change stirring in their minds, and this was definitely demonstrated by the lower and middle classes. Rebellions did not break out in the Atlantic colonies, but the masses recognized a need for change in the political system. They were very lucky that the British government recognized this need and made changes before and one was hurt. Revolution can also refer to change, which did happen, and so the Age of Revolution would be an acceptable term for the 1830s.
Similarities between the “rebellions” in the Atlantic region and Upper and Lower Canada stem from a common dissatisfaction amongst the people in regard to the distribution of power. In Upper and Lower Canada, the Family Compact and Chateau Clique (respectively) dominated the communities through abuse of land-holding and political rights. In LC, differing political opinions of the Anglophone and Candien groups caused controversy among the people. In UC matters were made worse by tension involving the large number of American immigrants as well as blatant favouritism of the British. Since the Atlantic regions adopted similar styles of government, similar issues of abuse of power – especially in regards to landholding – were bound to arise, and a similar goal of accountability for those in power was bound to develop.
The 1830s was certainly a decade in which change was desired, but when the lack of radical change is considered, labelling these years an age of revolution may be too strong. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the 1830s can be seen as a time of obvious desire for change. Political, social-cultural, and economic changes were desired in the various colonies, and the people were prepared to act in order to have their desires heard. Reformers such as William Lyon Mackenzie and the Baldwins made considerable arguments in UC while a change from Parti canadien to Parti patriote in LC drew much attention to the need for reform. Despite all of this, there was little action that can be strongly labelled as rebellion, least of all (it seems) in the Atlantic regions.
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.
The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
During the 1800s, Canada could be seen as a type of “Métis Civilization.” John Ralston associated Canada to this term as a result of the view Baldwin put forward in his view that responsible government was the only way for to create harmony of the state, or of the “two sides” which consisted of the French and English. The aboriginal idea of harmony was similar to this in that it was an idea of an “ever-widening web circle of interconnected beings.” Combine this aboriginal view to the European view, i.e. Baldwin’s view, of responsible government, the idea of a “Métis Civilization” is born. However, despite this term only came into being in the 1800s, the “Métis Civilization” had been growing since the beginning of colonization.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between the natives and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics as well. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt the native rituals or customs in order to better work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the the French political, cultural and social systems.
Even with the arrival and dominance of the British, relationships with the natives, such as the French had, continued. During the War of 1812, the natives, under Tecumseh, proved to be of great help to the British effort to ward off the Americans. Thus this furthered to strengthen relationships and ties between Europeans a natives.
As result of the many years of close association and relationship building between diverse groups of people the native culture became so intertwined with the European way of life. Thus Baldwin’s idea of responsible government could be seen to be simply a reflection of this European and native mixing of ideals, and, therefore, a “Métis Civilization” is the result. Perhaps the native influence also aided in the eventual acceptance of unity between the French and English.
Canada can be considered a Metis civilization to a large extent not only due to the fact that Aboriginal peoples are native to the land, but because of the long-term, positive influences that the Aboriginal’s had on the country.
Most obviously, Canada can be seen as a Metis civilization because of the actual emergence of the Metis culture. After the Europeans settled in the West, the collaboration of French culture and Indigenous culture took place. The North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company began inter-marrying with Aboriginal women. The children produced by these groups of people would be considered the Metis Nation.
Another reason that Canada should be considered a Metis civilization is because the Aboriginals are responsible for much of the economic success Canada has had. While the fur trade brought political tensions, it did more good than bad because without it, the country would not have had foot forward when it came to prosperity in Canada. The fur trade was a huge stepping-stone for the unraveling of economic history in the country.
Aboriginal people of Canada also influenced the democratic system of the country. It is in the 1840’s that the Aboriginal desire for democracy surfaced. The Aboriginals drew this from the idea of social equality and the idea of harmony, created by Lafontaine and Baldwin respectively. In putting these two ideas together, the Aboriginals influenced the formation of what would later be called “Responsible Government.”
In looking back at the history of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, it is safe to say that they were accommodating to European settlers. It is due to the Aboriginal willingness to accommodate or find, “middle grounds” that Canada has come to the place that it is at. Using the examples provided, we can see that the Aboriginals shaped numerous aspects of Canadian civilization.
The question that is sort of behind this question is the idea of collective memory, and how far back exactly collective memory goes. Can it be said that Canada’s collective memory is unconsciously linked to its entire history as a people? In some ways, saying “yes” to this question can be seen as an Aboriginal idea in and of itself, and in some ways the answer to this question is in fact yes.
But Canada is a colonizer. In many ways, its collective consciousness is in direct opposition to First Nations culture. And it’s collective unconsciousness is in that case probably just as repressed as its colonization (which, some would argue, is pretty extensive).
Examined from the reverse extreme, Ralston Saul’s argument also doesn’t make complete sense. Because, if it can be argued that Canadians’ ontological epistemological reality – that is, their way of viewing their existence and knowledge – is unconsciously rooted in their repressed Aboriginal culture, then it also stands that Canada’s actions stem from every culture, well, ever. Because Canada has interacted with almost every culture ever, through some medium. Furthermore, if Saul’s theory is true, then it would seem to me that it should apply to the U.S., and I don’t see any connection there.
However (and this is the last however), there is an extent to which I believe this to be true. Why it can be at least partially true for Canada and much less so for the U.S. is a question I can not historically answer, but there must be something that accounts for Canada’s perceived “niceness” – and it’s definitely not the colonial chapter of its history. Stereotypes are often individually untrue, and collectively shaky, but there is some unconscious truth in them. And I would be willing to say that Canada can be seen to a small extent – in its collective unconscious, represented through its stereotypes – as a Metis civilization.
John Ralston Saul makes a bold statement with his opinion that Canadian history is that of a Metis civilization. From what we have learned so far in this course, the aboriginal people’s of this land have had profound influence on the shaping of longstanding political, economic, and social spheres. This in mind, it is an interesting task to try and understand whether or not this influence had more of an impact than we had previously thought. Ralston Saul argues that Canada is a product of Metis principles, however, I believe that while our nation does reflect many Metis principles it is impossible to entirely credit Metis people with shaping the positive qualities of Canada.
Canada today, is a multicultural nation that praises tolerance and assimilation of cultures. It prides itself as a nation that respects differences and that has an effective way of ensuring that the rights of all its citizens are upheld at all times. Considering this, in the CBC article, “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” Ralston Saul claims that “we’d be mistaken if we thought our ‘institutional and cultural inheritance’ came from the usual suspects:” He then goes on to claim that our principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness, that we believe were inherited through Western Civilization, actually come from Canadian aboriginal people. I have trouble fully agreeing with this statement, however I understand why Ralston Saul came to this conclusion. The First Nations people of Canada, especially the Metis, embodied these principles within their civilizations, and this is clearly why Ralston Saul views Canada as a nation built on Metis civilization.
However, to back up claims like this, one must look at evidence. Thankfully, so far in this course we have learned many aspects of Canadian history that lend themselves to increasing the credibility of John Ralston Saul’s opinion. For example, it is undoubted that the First Nations people in Canada helped lay an economic fabric that encouraged interracial communication and tolerance. The Metis civilization that ensued as a result of French and First Nation interracial marriage saw a difference in culture. However, these two groups intermingled with relative success, and displayed signs of cultural tolerance and acceptance.
Making comparisons, one can look at responsible government as a reflection of this cultural tolerance and acceptance. In a way, responsible government acted as a way to ensure that neither the English, or the French would be subjected to unfair rule by the hands of the opposing culture. It embodies Metis principles of tolerance and fairness.
All of this evidence seems beneficial to John Ralston Saul’s argument. However, John Ralston Saul’s argument regarding Metis civilization as the framework of Canadian society is difficult to accept in entirety. I believe its merit is the enlightenment as to the importance of how Metis civilization influenced the shaping of a tolerant and cooperative nation. However, I find it a stretch to accept that our nation is strictly a product of Metis principles and that all of our vices as a nation are merely European characteristics outweighing the benevolent Metis values.
Ralston Saul even uses direct examples, claiming that Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping efforts as well as our esteemed universal healthcare are actually an unconscious response to Metis values. This assumption places Metis civilization in high esteem, and European civilization in disgrace and contempt.
Even Richard Handler, the author of “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” argues that Ralston Saul’s argument stretches boundaries. After examining Ralston Saul’s opinions, I fully agree with him to the extent that many defining positive aspects of Canadian culture in fact reflect the embodied principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness that were held in high esteem by the Metis. However, in the words of Handler, “are we then to believe that all the European ideals that flowed into the making of Canada just deceptive junk?”
I believe the Metis culture has positively influenced Canada to a large extent; however, to say that Canada is a “Metis civilization,” as John Ralston Saul does, may be a bit of a stretch. It is true that traits such as tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, attributed by Saul to the Indigenous nations, can be seen in many aspect of Canadian life as claimed by Saul, but that does not mean Canada is solely built on Metis civilization. Today, Canadians pride ourselves on having a culture that represents the diversity present in Canada, so while many founding ideas can be traced back to Native ideology, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a “Metis civilization.” It’s almost like the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, which are the roots of many Canadian systems, came from the Indigenous people, but were then expanded and built upon by other cultural influences. In some instances, it can also be argued that these traits were not present.
For example, the economic success of the fur trade can largely be accounted for by the Natives. Without their help and willingness to tolerate the European traders Canada’s history could possibly look very different. Also, the first real permanent mixing of the two cultures was between the Native women when they married a European man. More recently in class, we learned about Canada gaining a responsible government, which was based on the idea of fairness. Something we recently learned about in class, which may possibly differ from the “Metis civilization,” is the police system. I don’t know of anything like this law system in the Metis culture, and furthermore, it isn’t like this system was exactly fair or inclusive. As the numbers proved in class, the system favoured those who were of the elite and put many men in jail.
Lastly, these great traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness taught to the Europeans by the Natives were not always present in Canada once there was more outside influence. Saul argues the Indigenous were very egalitarian, but it wasn’t until the 1920s when women won the suffrage movement, so it would appear that Canada isn’t as “Metis” as we would think. Today, although we are not fully there, we are starting to see tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness put back into our society.
John Ralston Saul’s depiction of Canada as a Métis civilisation bases it’s argument on a cohesion of Aboriginal ideology and colonial politics. This intermingling of ideas is what defines Canada as Metis, and was brought about through the intermarriage of First Nations and European colonists. I understand from our studies so far that First Nations and French colonists did have high numbers of cross cultural relationships, and First Nations significantly affected the success of the immediate colonists survival and success of the fur trade.
However I do not agree with Saul assumption that intermarriage, which in the progressing years of colonisation resulted in a one way cultural transmission not shared, can be recognised as an attempt to bring the two cultures together. Rather the immediate relationships were a product of the male-only groups of explorers that ventured to the New World. I also believe that the attempted genocide of First Nations culture should not be overwritten with theory that throughout all that, Canada was using First Nations ideologies at heart and that their principles have guided Canada to through that to a Metis civilisation. Although some First Nations governing structures may have influenced the New England political system, as Richard Handler suggests, as well as French colonial systems, their recognition does little to change how those political systems in turn dealt with aboriginal peoples and how those systems can be regarded as Metis in practice, rather than in design, escapes me. Finally I would point out that Raul’s theory similarly could work in design, that Canada has attempted to progress in a Metis fashion, but considering the continued racial stigma’s attached to First Nations peoples and their disenfranchisement, it has failed.
In my opinion, John Ralston Saul’s description of a Metis civilization is not one that fully and accurately characterizes Canada. Although peace, fairness, and good governance – characteristics drawn from Metis ideologies, according to Saul – have been present throughout much of Canada’s history, it seems somewhat arbitrary to assign so much importance to these characteristics when so many bits and pieces of other cultures have played an integral part in shaping the nation. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge the Metis influence on past as well as modern day social, economic, and political practices in Canada; on the other hand, it makes more sense to think of this influence as a jumping-off point from which French, British, American, and other European cultures have shaped and molded society.
John Ralston Saul labels Canada as a “Metis Civilization”, and maintains that Canadian history, “consensual politics and negotiation,” pay homage to aboriginal roots rather than those of European origin. There is no doubt that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have greatly influenced and contributed to the foundations of today’s political, economic, and social structures, but to say that they are the sole implementers is a rather limited and narrow assumption. This being said, Saul’s conceptual idea does not mesh with his use of the term “Metis Civilization”. The Metis population trace their descent to mixed First Nations and European heritage, and Saul’s entire championing of aboriginal influence while disregarding the influence of European political thought renders his use of the term inconstant with its inherent meaning, as he fails to recognize that both groups have influenced Canada much to the same degree. Such can be explicated by recognizing that First Nation’s diplomacy, cooperation, and tolerance were met with the similar minded openness of the French explorers when they first struck up trade agreements through intercommunication relations. Both groups adopted the practices of the other, reciprocating their respect for one another, and in turn meshing their own ideas and practices with their newly acquired ones. This exchange of ideas and adoption of customs to establish the agreements between the two groups reflects the broader composition of Canada. The Canadian framework is reflective of the diversity of Canada’s ethnic composition, an even influential mixture of both Aboriginal and European ideologies and methodologies, and thus it can be seen as a “Metis Civilization”, when using the term correctly and not by Saul’s terms.
As the fur trade moved into the Western Great Lake in the early 1800s, the Métis developed a distinct identity, language and culture. By the 1870s, Métis lived throughout Canada, and in parts of the United States and Mexico. Métis people in different regions developed their own cultural features. Also called half-breeds, michif or bois-brulé, they contributed to North America’s economic growth as fur trade entrepreneurs, hunters trappers, guides, interpreters, cattlemen and artists.
Metis civilization is considered the root of Canada according to Saul, because by that time, some Métis were gravitating to permanent settlements at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine rivers. In the fall of 1801, a group of Metis settled on the banks of the Red River where Winnipeg now stands. They were called “freemen” because they were bound neither by Aboriginal custom nor fur trade company law. Their long, narrow river lots were reminiscent of farms along the St. Lawrence Valley. Three main groups emerged — buffalo hunters, traders, and voyageurs — and their cultural characteristics varied greatly depending on how much they had retained of the original Native and European cultures. John Saul suggests that we should train ourselves to say “Lafontaine and Baldwin not Baldwin and Lafontaine ”. He agrees that it is difficult to explain or reveal or lay out the Aboriginal roots of Canadian civilization whilte avoiding a simplistic sense that it is just matter of joining the dots. Certianly we are not use to digging around for the roots of our way of doing things at any rate the non-European roots. The
Metis played a central role in fur trade business with Europeans in 1800s.
One sector of the Metis population depended primarily on the bison hunt for its livelihood. These Metis left their settlements every June to hunt bison. The Metis fiercely guarded their customary rights to hunt and trade freely throughout the prairies. Rallying together under the cry le commerce est libre! (freedom of trade!), the Metis effectively ended the Hudson’s Bay Company’s trade monopoly.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between Aboriginals and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics too. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt Aboriginal rituals or customs in order to improve work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the French political, cultural and social systems.
Canada is a multicultural country, as we established in the first blog entry. The people are made up of many cultures and nationalities, and all of these cultures have contributed in some way to what makes Canada today. John Ralston Saul’s claim that Canada is a Metis civilization is far too narrow, and does not cover the wide extent of Canada’s origins. His claim would perhaps be more valid if he limited his argument to Canada’s early history.
In Canada’s early history, the Aboriginal people were heavily integrated into the new settler society, and taught the European settlers many things. The Natives were a significant part of their economy, and provided the furs the Europeans so badly wanted. It was this interaction with the natives that the European settlers learned about the Aboriginal civilization, and the customs and traditions they used to interact with each other. Saul makes the argument that these Aboriginal customs are where the “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness” in Canadian culture comes from. I agree that the trade agreements between the different native tribes showed a lot of fairness and respect for each other, but to say that it has persisted to this day in Canadian society is a bit of a stretch. I would argue that the European settlers did not pick up much of this positive sentiment from the natives, especially after the French lost the war with the British, and most of them were evacuated from the colony. The French perhaps had the best relations with the Aboriginals, and learned a lot about their culture and were very accommodating in many ways. The European-Native relations only went downhill after the war, and the treatment of natives became more and more unfair, which we learned all about in the discussions.
I would not dispute the fact that the natives were extremely important in the development of Canadian history, but I do not agree with Saul’s claim that we are still a Metis civilization today.
“Métis” can be understood as the mix of white parentage and Native American parentage, or can take a more general meaning, referring to all sorts of mixed parentage. John Ralston Saul only uses the first meaning to define Canada as a “Métis civilization”, which is true to some extent, but far too superficial, if we consider both the British and French heritages in the past, and more recent immigration.
The first and most obvious element proving Canada to be a “Métis civilization” is its people. Since the very beginning of European’s arrival, Métis appeared in the form of children of fur traders and Native women. Then, we can consider both the cohabitation and the mixing between people of French parentage and British parentage within the same country, and later, with American immigrantsFinally, we can extent this observation to more recent occurrences, focusing for instance the large Asian-origin population in British Columbia.
The second element that concurs with Canada being a “Métis civilization” is the analysis of the country in terms of politics. While John Ralston Saul might be true when underlining the importance of the Natives’ ideals’ influence in Canada’s political system, this point of view seems to be too shallow. Indeed, we saw in class that from the start, French fur traders adopted some Natives’ customs to trade with them, and the opposite was also true. However, this analysis omits the succession between French and British governance, and the consequent heritage of those countries with two different political systems, as well as new political elements created in Canada in order to satisfied both parties.
Finally, the third viewpoint that confirms Canada as a “Métis civilization” is its language. The first obvious element of that is the state of Canada as a multilingual country, with the cohabitation of French and English. Considering French, its great difference from France’s French proves it to be a “Métis” language, with obvious English influences. As for Canadian English, some British influences and American influences can be found. More subtle, though, is the Natives’ influence in Canadian English (and not doubt French, though I do not know enough about that). Indeed, a closer look at Canadian English reveals words and concepts that are not present in other English “varieties”, but coincides with Natives’ words or concepts.
The term ‘Metis Civilization’, termed by John Ralston Saul, means that Canada was predominantly built by the mix of Aboriginal and European white settler culture. Many people have the misconception that Canada was a European creation, however, Saul argues otherwise. It may seem so because most of the history recorded in Canada was taken down after the Europeans began to conquer the land that had actually already been inhabited by the First Nations. Also, much of the history had been recorded from the white settlers point of view, which leaves out the voice of the aboriginals who were already here. Looking to the very beginnings of the fur trade, which was what attracted the Europeans at first, the traditions of trading were mainly adopted from indigenous practices, such as gift giving and rituals. The natives also played a huge role in making the fur trade possible for the Europeans. The natives were the ones actually acquainted with land and the ones who acquired the furs so that the Europeans do the trading.
As John Ralston Saul defines it Canada can be consider a Metis civilization for many reasons. Saul makes the point that European setters survived after first moving in the western world because the aboriginal people helped them adapt to living on the land. This means that the first settlers lived as the Metis people did. Furthermore, after first moving here settlers married aboriginal further integrating them into the Metis society and adapting the Metis customs and traditions. Saul continues to make the argument that values we pride ourselves on having as a country such as tolerance, and fairness we have actually learned from aboriginal people. However, currently many Canadians do not understand how much of our initial roots come from aboriginal people because that part of history has been left out.
General Comments on this week’s blog.
This week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. I especially liked how many of you took pains to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.
Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?
Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011
Team sports can definitely be considered as part of governmentality as there a lot of parallels between the underlying principles taught through team sports and government institutions.
For example, as learned in lecture, schools, as well as other government organizations such as the police force or prisons, were first made to support ideas like respect for authority, nationalism, assimilation, and conformity, among others. Similarly, team sports follow along these lines. Team sports often include having a coach and some sort of officials or referees; if you don’t respect and obey the head figures, the situation will most likely end with sort of punishment. Also, team sports often focus on building team pride and a sense of community within your team, which is similar to nationalism. As for assimilation and conformity, you frequently see those who play on sport teams start to act like each other or perhaps dress the same way.
But that isn’t where the similarities stop. A big part of the reform in school systems was because the old structure wasn’t building character as the middle class would like. Having participated in a team sport for over ten years, I would say that being part of a team definitely builds a person’s character. It develops who you are as a person, teaching you certain characteristics such as self-control and teamwork skills. In addition, there is certainly a sense of discipline found in both team sports and other institutions that are part of governmentality, such as prisons.
Lastly, today we think of schools as having the function of socializing children. Just like schools, team sports can also act as a socialization tool for children if they start participating at young age.
Terrific answer!
Team sports and governmentality share some similar characteristics. Governmentalilty advocates strongly organized practices in which to govern subjects. Sports teams follow similar technical practices in order to maintain authority over players, as well as produce the best possible player for competition and team progression. Governmentality focuses heavily on adjusting behaviour in a way that best serves the state. Penitentiaries, the education system, and the health system are the best examples of this. All three are regulated in such a way to provide the greatest returns, subsequently allowing for effective rule and advancement of the state. Sports teams act in a similar way. Teams have set techniques in regards to discipline, training, and medical attention; all of which are intended to provide the best possible returns for the team, ultimately allowing them to win. Discipline, will in essence allow a team player to recognize his mistakes by serving time away from the team. The goal is that he will correct his behaviour to that of being beneficial to the team. Health care, as a principle of govrenmentality, suggests that regulated clinical processes across the state are changed and perfected in order to, again, provide the best returns for the state. The goal is to have healthy citizens that can contribute to state functioning. The same principle applies to sports teams. Teams will have injury rehabilitation guidelines and physiotherapy practices that will provide the quickest and most efficient way to get players healthy, and therefore give them the ability to contribute to the good of the team. Education in the state, and training on a sports team is where I believe the greatest similarities are shown. Governmentality suggests that education is the primal way to get people to follow the track that the government has decided will progress the state in the best way. The citizens will in essence be productive as a result of proper education. Training for a sports team is exactly the same. The team will have players train and practice in a set way, educating them on plays, tactics, formations, etc. in order to give them the best possible chance of winning.
Sports teams can definitely be considered part of governmentality, because both the state and a sports team have similar fundamental principles that guide progression, maximization of happiness and effectiveness within their respective institution.
Tyler, I think the similarities between team sports and govern mentality lie in the inculcation of discipline and deference to authority and the focus on character building.
Yes, I think we can consider sports as part of governmentality because it’s goals as well as what sport stand for are similar to that of the qualities that this organization tries to implement. Similarly to how the government directs its people to live a life of success and prosperity, a coach is in charge of guiding his players into the right areas of the field or rink in hopes that the players win. Like the government of British North America implemented banishing, whipping or transportation system for those who did not abide by the laws, the players on a team who crosscheck an opposing group are faced with time in a penalty box or bench time. For those who committed serious crimes, colonists would face the blood code. As for the players on a team who physically hurt someone on the opposition, players might face being suspended. In order to force the players to follow the rules, they are faced with fear of that penalty box or bench time. In doing so, the coach is acting in a similar manner to that of the monarchy. Another way we can look at sports as part of governmentality is because a goal of it is to build character and therefore, morals. Like the Educational Reform, coaches build character into the players. They do this buy reminding the players to have good work ethic, team effort, problem solving skills and a trusting environment. However, if players fail to work with these ethics, they may often have to have a talk with the coach to see where they went wrong. Like the prisoners of Kingston Penitentiary, upon arrival they are sent to speak with the Warden who then determined what moral weakness caused the prisoner to commit a crime. Sports can be seen as part of this organization because it imitates many of the objectives that the government implements.
Yes! I think the character-building aspects of team sports is the key similarity to governmentality.
Governmentality is defined by wikipedia as “the way governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill those governments’ policies”, “the organized practices (mentalities, rationalities, and techniques) through which subjects are governed”, and “the techniques and strategies by which a society is rendered governable”.
I would say that sports teams apply most to the first definition – that many of the values in sports are emulations of what it means to be a “good” citizen. In sports, you must always be obedient – you must at the same time think for your self and do exactly what the coach says, when he says it, without thought. In the same way, you have to be an individual player and put yourself and your career first, while at the same time being a good team member. In sports, you learn how to relate to your peers, you learn how to be on time, how to act so that you’re in a good social spot, how to have good work ethic, and most importantly, how to respond to orders by taking them, with obedience.
I would also argue that the higher the level of sport you are in, the stronger that sport is related to governmentality. That is, the higher the level, the more “real” it is, the more winning is important, the more capitalism plays a role monetarily and ideologically.
Good points: I’d also say that when athletes play for national teams, like in the Olympics, the parallels are greatest.
In a way, yes, sports teams can be seen as a part of governmentality. In a sports team, members have to work together in a orderly and organized fashion in order to obtain their end, which is ultimately to win the goal. Not only are there members of the team, there is perhaps one of the most important people, the coach. The coach is the one who has the final say and directs where and how the players of the team should conduct themselves on the field. The coach needs to implement certain techniques and strategies to ensure that the team wins, and conversely, the team players must follow those guidelines to reach their ultimate goal.
This can be an analogy for government (in Canada) in the sense that the coach would represent the prime minister or governor general and the team players are those underneath him representing the house of commons and the senate. The government must all work together and listen to each other so that order can be implemented into the system, a fully functional government.
Team sports try to inculcate the same qualities in people that government institutions do; they build character specifically by encouraging deference to authority.
The characteristics that pertain to team sports are very similar to those of govermentality, even from the time of the 19thC. Responsible government, that the BNA colonies fought so hard to obtain, is the idea that the government is responsible to and represents the general population. Therefore, in a sense it was the people who were put in power. As a result, people were expected to be in a position where they themselves would also to responsible to handle a government that placed more power in the hands of the people. Institutionalizing education and setting up penitentiaries were some ways the state ensured that people would receive the education, training, or punishment needed in order to set them up to be those who could properly take care of colony in the future. In the government these aspects continue to play a role as the people, who influence the government, have been shaped by education or punishment. The people “created” can work well with others and are intelligent which adds good dynamic to governmentality.
Likewise team sports attract a lot of young people, some entering these sports at a very young age. Athletes go through a lot of training to learn how to work with and coordinate with team mates as well as learn how to play the sport and perfect their skills. Punishment can also come into play in team sports for example, if an athlete refuses to listen to the coach or isn’t playing to their best of their ability, they may be “benched” for some games. over the years these youn g athletes mature and become quite experience in their sport. Their ability to work with others is honed through frequent practices with team mates, and tus a great team dynamic is created in the end.
Likewise, today, our government needs to consist of people who are educated and mature. They also need to be able to work well with people in their cabinet or party as well as other party members. Thus, the idea of team sport correlates quite well with governmentality and even, in a sense, plays a role in it.
Sport teams can be considered apart of governmentality for they share similar aims, as well as have overlapping functional principles that they utilize and apply to their members. Firstly, sports teams and governmentality share the characteristic of authoritative imposition. Sports teams are controlled by the centralized figure that is the coach. The coach hold ultimate authority over the team, and commands the group as he sees fit. The same can be said for governmentality in terms of the body having authority over their constituent institutions, such as school and correctional penitentiaries. As discussed earlier this week in lectures, governments held the authority to establish institutions based on their own principles and aims, ensuring that the institutions follow the expectations of the governmentality that initiated them. This leads to the second similarity between both sports teams and governmentality: that both bodies have the aim, whether direct or indirect, to mild their members to the norms and conventions by which the system was established upon. Within context of a sports team, the general aim of the team is to have the players conform and moulded to the guidelines of the sport itself. An example of this can be made by looking at the concept of a lacrosse team. The team itself aims to have the players perform their best, all the while employing skills of agility, precision, and endurance. That being said, the players must be trained and shaped to represent and embody these qualities in order to be considered and exemplary players of the game. The same can be said for governmentality, which uses its institutions to mild and shape their members. Regarding education, the government of Upper and Lower Canada used the system to educate students based on curriculums that were state-devised. Such was imposed in schools to ensure that younger generations would be educated sufficiently to the standards of the government and come to understand politics and issues in order to be well-rounded and intelligible citizens when they reach the appropriate age to engage with such matters. As well, the government at the time also implemented the same reasoning and method with correction facilities and penitentiaries, keeping the prisoners from interacting with others, yet encouraging them to work side by side with other prisoners to promote teamwork while instating discipline at the same side. Therefore, it can be conclusively established that sports teams go hand in hand with governmentality because they hold similar principles and have the corresponding methods.
Yes. Team Sports can be considered part of governmentality. Anyone that has been part of a team sport would agree with this , as there are many similarities between team sports and governmentality.
A team sport includes players working together against a set of another players for the same objective. Whether it be football, hockey, soccer or many other team sports this is the common goal which is present. I play on the UBC football team, and we are taught that communication is key in achieving this common goal. Without communication, success will not be achieved as there will be no way of channeling ideas through to one another.
A responsible government, is the idea that the government has a set of responsibilities to look out for the people. A governementality is that which consists of a prime minister (Like a Coach in a team sport) that over looks the team and makes decisions for the team. For example, a coach would make a line change between player A and player B to accomodate for player C, because player C works well with player B. The same sense is in government, how the prime minister works together with the senate to make decisions.
Great answer.
Sports teams are definitely a part of governmentality, and arguably a very important aspect of it as well. Education is no doubt the most important aspect of governmentality, and sports teach people the same values as the ones taught in the education system. The goal of governmentality is to create a society full of well-behaved citizens who can govern themselves, and this is illustrated very well in sports teams, where you have specific positions to play, and everyone depends on each other to keep up their end. I would argue that sports teams can implement governmentality better than education in some areas. For example, while it is difficult to remain seated for hours on end doing difficult equations, people can often find enjoyment in doing physical activities.
These sports can teach members important values for assimilating into societies, such as discipline, respect and working together to achieve a common goal. Perhaps the most important aspect of governmentality that sport teaches us is the idea of reward and punishment. We learn to do what is right and achieve our goals, because when we do there is a shiny golden trophy waiting for us. It creates a feeling of pride in ourselves, and we feel even better knowing there are people who are giving us their approval. But when we break the rules, there are consequences and we must accept those punishments, be it a red card or a time out. These punishments are small, but it is the meaning behind them that affect us significantly, and make us want to do our best to prevent the disappointment and humiliation that comes with punishment.
National sports teams are also a part of governmentality, because they create a sense of pride in the citizens, and are an important way in which the people can be united. When our sports team wins a competition, we feel pride and accomplishment at having done better than someone else at something, which contributes to the aspect of govenmentality that makes us not want to let our peers down, by being the best we can be.
Terrific!
Team sports are part of governmentality for multiple reasons.
First, as a team, the idea is to be united in order to achieve a common goal. This unity or cohesiveness causes the people making up the team to influence one another, in a way that they share common personality features. The process is that of a standardization of the minds, so to speak. This could be compared to the standardization of the textbooks, if it take the case of schools, as we have seen in class.
The second element is the presence of a “higher power”, a ruler, which would be the coach. His role is to control where this standardization leads, and what common features are to be adopted. He is also here to make sure everyone works and trains to achieve the common goal (no idleness). His role is similar to that of a responsible government.
The last element is aim of success, and the absence of “outcasts”. The principle of “team work” is that no one is to be cast aside, and everyone should be part of this unity, and as a result, this standardization. In addition, the goal the team work towards is that of success. To put it simply, there is no room for losers. If we take the case of schools studied in class, this could be compared to their being compulsory and the progression through a curriculum with a system of grades.
I believe that certain aspects of team sports are somewhat parallel to those of governmentality, and also that team sports can be considered part of the process of governmentality. Similar goals are achieved through both governmentality and team sports. For example, while governmentality seeks to shape a population into a model society, a significant goal of team sports is character building. When everyone on the team abides by the ruled of their specific team as well the rules of broader leagues, play is fair, which benefits more people. Achievements and commendable behaviour are rewarded, and bad behaviour is punished, though not in too harsh a way. What I mean by this is that when a player breaks a rule, he/she is not immediately kicked off the team (well, not usually). Similarly, when someone in a given population breaks a law, he/she is not immediately exiled from the country! In both cases, steps are taken in order to reform that wrong-doer into someone who learns the consequences of their actions and refrains from acting negatively in the future. Furthermore, when the teammates are considered good people, and even friends in many cases, often the play is more interesting and entertaining. Team members look forward to games and put in more effort. In a population, when people are courteous and make an attempt to get along with one another, life runs smoothly and is probably better for most people. Stressing these points is an important role of a coach, and of a government (both are in charge of ensuring the continued well-being of the team/population).
Sports team can be considered as part of the governmentality, because there are many of parallels between the principles that are taught through teams sports and government institutions. Because the sports team has rule, authorities like a government in a state who enforces the rules and the regulations. Furthermore, it represents a nation in the world stage. For example, summer Olympic, it is an event which is held in every four years in different parts of the world. Different counties compete to host this historical event. By hosting it shows countries wealth, care, and hospitality and moreover it shows the organization of a country. For instance, Brazil won the bid of Olympic 2016 in the city of Rio the Jenrio. This is the first time that latin America will be hosting this event. Brazil wants to compete in world class, and this is a huge opportunity for it. Brazil is working very hard in the frenzy to prepare this city for its big moment as host of next year’s World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics, the authorities are razing slums, upgrading stadiums and shuttering some of the city’s red-light emporiums, hoping to present a cleaned-up image of Brazil’s sexiest metropolis.
An online article from News states the hard of of Brazil Olympic Committee “Race against time” and delegates heard a less than flattering assessment of Rio’s current construction progress against agreed benchmarks and schedules. Furthermore, host counties want a legacy of sports because the Olympics create something of an conundrum for successful bidding cities. According to his article “The $4.3 billion redevelopment of Rio’s Port precinct is also completely being paid for by private investment.” As much as a government in a given city, the government tries to improve the economy in the country, so does the sports team.
GENERAL COMMENTS: Great job everyone. Most of you made very insightful links between team sports and governmentality. The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.
So what is Canada? Specifically, what are the storylines running through the first half of this course?
Yeah, baby! After the men’s hockey gold medal game, Vancouver 2010 Olympics
Canada is a country with a very similar history to the U.S. (at least up until the American Revolution). Canada began with an indigenous population, made up of the “people who turned left” and the “people who turned right.” After a while, a new population – the Europeans – came into the picture, sailing towards Canada while looking for “God, glory, gold” i.e. to spread Christianity and become famous and wealthy. When these two populations interacted, it was sometimes peaceful (when they could figure out how to make compromises over the land that they were both trying to have access to, albeit in different ways), and sometimes violent (when a middle ground could not be found, and a battle over who would have resources and dominance ensued). Eventually, the Europeans, now Canadians, won this battle for dominance, and began to reify their culture – generally at the expense of First Nations cultures, but sometimes with regard to them – expanding the reaches of their government more and more into all people’s lives. A major shift in ideology came not when the idea of government expansion was questioned, but when the idea of who was in control of this government expansion was questioned. Were the people in charge of their government, or was the government (the rich) in charge of its people? This questioning led to the rebellions of 1837-1838 in Upper and Lower Canada, and eventually to the establishment of responsible/representative government in Canada in the 1840s. In the first half of this course, the ideology that people are responsible over each other, and therefore responsible over how society looks and functions, culminated in the materialization of government institutions like the police, public schools and penitentiaries.
There are a few storylines that seem to best describe the progression from early settlement to confederation within the nation of Canada. A storyline of that defines Canadian identity is that of escaping annexation by the USA. Throughout this early period of Canadian existence, there were often threats by the USA to take over parts, or all of Canada. Whether it be politically or militarily, Canadians can take pride and define themselves as successfully resisting this aggressive USA policy of manifest destiny. Next, one must consider the great importance multiculturalism has played in shaping Canada. The story has greatly developed from the first meetings between French explorers and indigenous First Nations. From early on, traders were forced to develop positive relationships that crossed cultural barriers, and eventually we saw the creation of a Metis Nation, as well as various treaties between European settlers and indigenous groups. Even during wars, the importance of multicultural cooperation was evident, through the value of Tecumseh’s aid during the War of 1812. Continuing on this trend, in a broader context, one can view Canada’s storyline as one of progression, and in my opinion, liberal progression. However, to say that the road has been free of controversy and steps in the wrong direction is an outright incorrect statement. This can be seen through the elimination of French as an official language of parliament, just prior to confederation. This in mind, it is more important to look at the positive liberal action taken by Canadians during this period, that created precedent, and in a way set the tone for liberal conventions that are most prevalent in modern day Canadian political, social, and economic society. Religious tolerance, liberal political change, and abolition of slavery are perfect examples. Furthermore, one can observe the loss of influence of the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact as further liberal progression. Also, rebellions in the name of progress showed that it was not in Canadian’s interests to accept what they believed to be as unfair. Responsible government is the ultimate prize achieved in this era. It embodies the goal of democracy, and it can be seen through Lord Elgin’s actions to make himself, as governor, accountable to the elected assembly. Canadians can look back on this era with extremely positive feelings. Canadians during this period set the stage worldwide for ideals of tolerance, multiculturalism, and liberal progression.
Canada is a place that is defined by three specific words; they are, diversity, isolation and uniformity. While these three words describe a world of approximately ten thousand years ago, they also parallel to Canada as a country. Canada can be seen as diverse because of the different ethnic groups that arrived here to settle from Europe. Even though this diversity is what makes our country unique today, it was not always a place of equality. Isolation often erupted from this dominating diversity. More importantly, what stands out most, as defining Canada, is the way in which the people of this country were at continuous states of contentment and revolution. For example, The Great Peace would substantiate as the contentment and The Seven Years War would display the revolution. These alternating states are what represent the isolation between different cultural groups in Canada. The people were in constant search of a stable government who would look out for the best interest of them. Achieving responsible government in 1848 is one aspect of history that demonstrates the uniformity in Canada.
A significant piece of history that deserves a substantial amount of recognition is the fur trade. The industry not only brought positivity to the country but also negative aspects as well, further creating an alternating state of contentment and revolution. From the emergence of the fur trade, the North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, created the Métis nation. This was an historical influence for First Nations people.
Finally, one of the most essential parts of Canadian history to remember is the areas that regard Educational Reform. Similarly to present educational institutions, the formation and significance of school architecture influenced the way people would be taught and the way they would learn for years to come. For example, a fenced school, fixed seating and the obedience to the school bell are all factors of education still used presently. The use of standardized textbooks imposed a different type of learning that would affect education of all levels in the future.
In summation, Canada is a place where people came to prosper. In doing so, they were forced to learn how to conform, compromise and adapt. Throughout all of this, huge stepping-stones were made creating many important historical tales of our country.
Although Canada’s history is relatively peaceful, it is definitely revolutionary. Themes of dominance and union run though our story.
When the British first arrived, they wanted to exert authority over the Aboriginals; they automatically assumed their ways were the right ways compared to those of “savages.” Again, moving along in the timeline, the French and British butt heads, ending up with the creation of Upper and Lower Canada. This power was not only sought for between different cultural groups. Within both the French and British communities, there were elites – whether that is the Family Compact or the Chateau Clique. In addition, with the creation of the school system, and improvements and solidification of the judiciary system, we can see people wanting to be able to control others. This need for dominance seems to stem from the fear of the unknown and a lack of understanding.
Even though it appears the majority of Canadian history is an on-going battle to fight for your own culture, there are times where we see unity between different groups. In the fur trade, to an extent, both the British and Indigenous peoples mixed cultures. They adopted traditional ceremonies and customs, such as clothes and gift trading. In the later part of the course so far, we began to see coalitions within government between the Canada East and Canada West; furthermore, last day we saw the joining of the Canada’s and other BNA colonies with the Maritimes in a hope for confederation.
We see Canadian history move from an extremely individualistic and authoritative way of life, to one that somewhat incorporates thoughts and ideas of different cultures. Although, at this point in the course, we still have a long way to go to reach what Canadians now would call a multicultural country.
Canada is first defined by a long history of multiculturalism. Or rather, a long history of battle for dominance, ultimately ending in multiculturalism. It began with the fur trading, between Aboriginal peoples and Europeans (French, British, Spanish), and then European settlers. It continued with the recognition and eventually acceptation of different cultures within a same country by establishing Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Then came Americans.
However, if this multiculturalism is seen with pride, it must not be forgotten that it was sometimes source of violence and will to subdue assert domination, before it was eventually accepted. Indeed, if the relations between fur traders and Aboriginal peoples were initially pacific for the most part, with mutual understanding and respect, it changed when British settlers came and took over Native lands. Similarly, compromises between French Canadians and English Canadians took time, and the situation in this respect is still arguably tense to this day. The same happened with Americans.
Canada is a multicultural country with people from all different cultures, races and beliefs living peacefully and harmoniously. However, it was not always this way. It has taken centuries of history for people to learn from their past and improve relationships and the way their society cooperates. Canada had originally been inhabited by the first nations peoples. Eventually European voyagers came to Canada with original intentions of just discovery. Gradually they found a opportunity from profiting in the fur trade. The fur trade benefited both the aboriginals and the white settlers; they worked together to improve economically. Because white settlers knew that the indigenous groups had more knowledge about this new found land, the Europeans found common grounds for them to communicate upon to allow their profits to grow in terms of the fur trade. They learned the aboriginal traditions such as, gift giving and smoking of the peace pipe. However, eventually Europeans tried to push their white settler culture upon aboriginals and relationships began to fall apart as the fur trade was coming to an end. White settlers wanted to establish permanent settlements in different parts of Canada, taking away land from the first nations.
The British and the French began conquering different parts of the land and claiming it for themselves. With the arrival of the French, hostility not only grew between the aboriginals, but also towards the francophones now residing in Canada. The central parts of Canada decided to split into Upper and Lower Canada to accommodate for the disagreeing beliefs and values of the French and the English. The French were Catholic, believed in the preservation of the French language and preferred the seigneurial land systems, where as the English were mainly Protestant, were not for the preservation of French and preferred the feudal land tenure system.
Due to politics and government disputes on terms of different views of how the government should be structured and run, Canada then parted into East and West Canada. The government of Canada as a whole began to divide into different political parties, such as the Tories and the Loyalists. Eventually these two parties became, what we now know today as, the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Even though Canada is still considered one of the most multicultural countries in the world, it still arguably has its individuals in its society living with differences. And the disputes over government matters still exist, but the country as a whole has come a long way from when it first began.
The answer I gave for this question has not changed much from the first journal entry. Canada is still a multicultural country that has a rich background from cultures all over the world. But looking at Canada historically is not as bright an image. The creation of Canada was not as smooth and bloodless as we like to think, as there were wars and invasions that went on as different groups of people fought for land. On the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the French fought the British for the right to control this piece of land, and the natives fought and invaded settlers for the right to their homes. For a country that is today known for being multicultural, we have many disputes in our history based on which groups of people would rule over the others. But to say that our past is defined by cultural disputes would be incorrect as well. Perhaps what defines Canada is the fact that we worked hard to overcome those boundaries, which is especially exhibited in the fur trade. The French and the British both had different ways of accommodating the natives, and learning how to interact with them is a very important part of our history. The colonies which made up Canada did not always get along with each other as well. During the Confederation talks, we see that the Maritime colonies did not want to join the Canadas at all, and Canada East and Canada West had very different values and traditions. All the Colonies had their separate opinions of how they wanted to be governed, and had different ideas of what suited them politically, socially and economically. But the colonies were able to work together and overcome those boundaries, which is really what defines Canada and our history.
Canada has evolved into what it is today through many trials and tribulations. It was at first occupied by many nations, the people inhabited it as a series of territories, then its identity was founded on another country and ruler’s ideology. It moved through this time, developing a sense of nationhood and identity that would bring it equal to the countries that had first ruled over it. Canada’s history has not been without violence or cruelty, but then no country could claim that. Defining Canada now is a desire not only to be home to many cultures, but to earn the right to called multicultural; through the acceptance, understanding and equality that each culture should be afforded. This is itself a hard task, a task many countries choose not to taken on because government and law will always demand dominance over someone, even if it means limiting the rights of people to ensure control. However from what I have learnt of Canada’s history so far, there seems to be few times in its past when there has not been a person willing to struggle for better.
Throughout the first half of this course, I have come to understand that Canada is a nation of inherent progression. Such can be seen throughout Canadian history, from the initial occupation of Canadian territory by the aboriginals, to the landing of the French and British who sough to make our present day state a colony under their colonial rule, through the economic rise of the fur trade enterprise that saw the emergence of the Northwestern Tradition Company and the Hudson’s Bay Trading Company. These enterprises gave rise to prosperity that lead to intercultural connections and relations, and the larger implementation of a governance in North America. With the rise of America to the south, and the subsequent revolutions and ward that sparked to life among emerging and stable state alike, Canada was holding on for the ride, and experiencing changes of its own internally, while being influenced by external sources. Thus, the emergence of British North America, along with influxes of population that was variant and diverse, and the multiple peaceful and reformist stages in Canadian politics ultimately led to the Confederation of Canada, where the widely-scattered BNA colonies were brought together under a mutual desire for strength and protection as a coherent whole.
friba235, 
amrita, 
amandawoodland, and 23 others are discussing. 
jenniferbishop, and 20 others are discussing. 
karinbjorkdahl, 
lsmack, and 16 others are discussing. 
liorbarel, 
Vinciane Boisson, 
aviaah, 
chliane, and 7 others are discussing. 
doraleung, and 11 others are discussing. 
ecopeland,
hartcamp 8:17 pm on September 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is one of three countries in North America, and borders the United States. Some of the bigger cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are very diverse, whereas the smaller communities spread among the nation may not be as such. Canada is a peaceful country but is well aware of international affairs. Canadian history is something that I know very little about. I am a Canadian citizen, however I was born in the US and lived there my entire life. As history is one of my favorite subjects however, it bothers me that I know very little about it’s history (I practically know nothing other than a bit about the French and Indian War) and I am taking this course to get to know some of the countries essential history and have a better understanding of the nation that I study in, and may potentially live in for the rest of my life.
Tina Loo 6:52 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So Canada is diverse, peaceful, and aware of its position in the world. What about the second question? And for the record, so I can record your blog, what is your full name?
jbachynski 12:29 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I was born in Canada and have lived here my whole life. During my travels throughout the country, I have learned that it is not only vast in open space and size, but in cultures as well. Being a country that developed through the immigration of many different nationalities, our identity as a nation is harder to pin point. There is not necessarily a “Canadian way” of doing certain things, and I feel that customs and traditions are constantly evolving. It seems very common as a Canadian to have grandparents or parents that have come from somewhere else, for example, my grandparents are from Poland. When traveling to other older countries, it becomes very clear how young and adaptable Canada truly is. I feel that Canadian history is not something that is as widely talked about. Perhaps it is because we are a younger country, or maybe it is because of our peaceful reputation and lack of dominance in world history. Besides having some basic knowledge of famous Canadians like Louis Riel, Laura Secord and Terry Fox, I know less than I feel I should about my country. I love how Canadians have preserved so many amazing lakes and national parks, and really seem to appreciate the nature that surrounds us. I am interested to learn more about how Canada came into existence and developed into one of the most beautiful countries there is.
Tina Loo 6:53 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So, Canada is a nation of immigrants and lots of different cultures, and it’s a place that is always changing. It’s also a place of natural beauty.
madden34 12:30 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a country located in North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Geographically, Canada is the second largest country by total area and is stereotyped as hockey intensive and a very cold region. Filled with many cultures and races there is a high level of multi-culturalism throughout the nation creating many diverse households. The country is officially bilingual and has a population of approximately 35 million. Canadian history is very interesting , such as the European colonization impacting the country and Aboriginal peoples lives and how assimilation occurred. Canadians in general are analyzed into being good people, with good intentions. Many Canadians travelling put the national flag on their backpack as a symbol of peace. As a Canadian, I feel this class is essential in understanding my country and will provide helpful knowledge in my life to come.
Tina Loo 6:55 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is big, multicultural, and while it has a good reputation abroad, its relations with aboriginal people have been characterized by attempts to assimilate aboriginal peoples…. Can you go back and edit your entry to give me your full name so I can record you’ve completed the blog?
amrita 2:59 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is the second largest country in the world, but considering the extreme cold weather that occurs in some parts, it may be unsurprising to note that Canada is one of the least densely populated countries in the world. Believe it or not, Canada sits at place 228 out of 243 in the list of most densely populated countries. That’s one little piece of trivia I was amazed to know when I learned about Canada in elementary school as part of my social studies class.
From what I learned about Canada in school, I believe that what Canadian history is about can be summed up in one word: emigration. Settlers from all over the world from many different time periods in history have come to explore this vast and beautiful country, whether that be the indigenous peoples that travelled all the way from Africa, the Europeans from the 1500’s, or the more recent immigrants that come from all over the world for a better life.
I was born and raised in this country, and with a little hint of pride, I believe this to be the most multicultural country in the world. In main part, I think that Canada’s identity stems from its role in peace-keeping missions and from being under the thumb of the English monarchy. I don’t know if this is definitively true or not, but I hope to find out in this course.
Tina Loo 6:57 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So Canada is a country of immigrants and very multicultural; its identity comes also from its English inheritance and its role in peace keeping.. Can you go back and edit your entry and include your full name so I can give you credit for completing it?
amrita 10:12 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Tina, I’m not sure how to edit my entry, but my full name is Amrita Parmar. Thank you for commenting on/summarizing my post! 🙂
Pierre-Marie B. 5:00 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Located in North America, Canada is widely known for being one the largest countries in the world, it is ranked in the second place after Russia, it spreads between the Pacific Ocean to the West and the Atlantic Ocean to the East. The country shares borders with the United States of America in the South and in the northwestern part with Alaska. Canada is divided in three territories and ten provinces, they are all mostly bilingual but English prevails over French except in the province of Québec which is mainly and officially French speaking. The capital is Ottawa in Ontario.
I come from France and unfortunately I don’t know much about the history of Canada although there are special links between these two countries. Of course some of the basics, for instance that it was discovered by a French explorer called Jacques Cartier and that the city of Quebec was founded by another famous Frenchman, Samuel Champlain. When the first settlers arrived the country was inhabited by native tribes. Then there were times of war between the multiple colonies, the French and Indian Wars.
As far as I am concerned, many popular beliefs about Canada and Canadians have turned out to be true since I arrived : people are friendly, very polite and willing to help whether or not they know you. They are also really concerned about environment and health, consequently it is shown through the landscape and in the nature. I have the feeling that the sense of belonging is very important here in Canada, almost every person I have talked with seemed so proud of their hometown. Now I’m discovering what a real campus is and the way of life which goes with it.
Tina Loo 6:59 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is big! It also shares a dual inheritance from France and England, each of which colonized the country. Canadians are polite and concerned with the environment. We’ll see if your views change by the end of the course!
jpellegrino 5:16 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a diverse country, not only in land but also in environment and culture. When I think of the word Canada, I think of lush greenery and mountainous views. While this is not the case in every area of Canada, British Columbia is especially blessed with its beautiful nature. Unfortunately, a cold climate is the price we Canadians must pay for. After all, people from all different areas of the world believe we live in igloos! I have lived in Canada my whole life and have never actually seen an igloo. (When I visited Mexico, some locals were floored when I explained to them we live in heated homes!) When I think of Canadian history, I think of peace and loyalty (for the most part). I tend to (stereotypically) believe that Canada simply follows everything that the USA does, and that is where the loyalty comes in. We as a country have always been supportive of their decisions and agreed to stay dependable to them in times of crisis. Some of the most interesting, (but saddest) parts of Canadian history to me are the Residential Schools. I took a Women’s Studies class at Langara and was shocked to hear about this horrifying event that took place in my home country for a number of years. I was surprised to see that Canada was not always as welcoming a place as it is now. Canada’s multiculturalism is fascinating because some cities, like Vancouver, have a diverse number of cultures living in one area meanwhile other areas do not. My grandparents and their several Italian family members immigrated to Vancouver via boat in 1957. Their first stop was Halifax where they were all force to make the choice to move to Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto or New York. I’m glad they wound up here in Vancouver because I love this beautiful city. Who wouldn’t eh?
Tina Loo 7:01 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So Canada is a place people think is cold! 🙂 It has a reputation for being peaceable, except perhaps when it came to First Nations. It’s also a very multicultural place, a country of immigrants. We’ll see if your views change over the course of the class.
liorbarel 7:26 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a sparsely populated and generally peaceful country in North America (with the exception of Canada’s participation in World War 2 on D-Day, which I’ve heard they’re pretty proud of). Canada’s government is based on the parliamentary system, which they kept after becoming independent of Great Britain. Currently, the head of government is prime minister Stephen Harper, who is spending his time in government extremely productively; he’s coming out with a book on the history of Canadian hockey soon.
I also recently learned that the history of Canada is one of emigration, and someone (though I can’t remember who) claimed that Canada can in some ways be seen as the point at which the beginning of globalization occurred. But in less of a USA melting pot form, and in more of a nicely tossed salad form.
Canada is also vying with the US to be my home, as it will be for at least the next four years. And if any of you have ever flown to the US (as I’m doing right now – by the way I won’t be in class on Friday), the US Department of Homeland Security is doing a pretty good job of turning me off by being more invasive than any other country.
Since I have more words left, and I don’t know much about the history of Canada, Canada is also home to Camp Miriam, a Socialist Zionist Jewish camp that is part of a global youth movement called Habonim Dror, of which I am a part. Oh, and I also know that you say thank you when you get off of a bus.
Tina Loo 7:03 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
LOL. Can you go back and edit your entry and include your full name so I can give you credit?
oftheawkwards 7:04 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is the home of many. Ever since the first explorers entered Canada some 12,000-100,000 years ago to the ever emergent immigrants that seek a new home and opportunity. The Diversity of this nation and the hospitality of this place give it a reputation that lures in the world. The Progression of Canada from a wilderness first founded by the people-who-turned-right up until the emergent world power in the 21st century. Its people proves time and time again that we are a part of the global community and we will do our part to make it better
The history of Canada is about a great stretch of land that invited the first inhabitants to live in it’s domain. How it tried to protect it’s natives from the outside influences but ultimately gave way due to the determination and ambition of foreigners. With the arrival of new ideals and technology, Canada emerged as a colony that soon gained their own independence. The acceptance of immigrants paced ways to a culturally diverse nation and a neutral world leader striving for harmony.
-Harry He
karinbjorkdahl 7:14 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Since I arrived to Canada no more than two weeks ago and doesn’t really know so much about the country I will present the image I have of Canada.
Sweden is my home country and on somewhat the same latitude as Canada so I think that the countries are a bit similiar in many ways; the climate, the animals, the environment and so on. For example we also have bears and mooses in Sweden, but compared to the canadian version of these animals they are a lot smaller. Here they are huge! And after China, it’s the biggest country in the world. So, my general opinion is that Canada is big in every aspect. Apart from being a big country I think it’s a friendly country. We studied WWII in shool alot when I grew up and I remember that Canada also was participating on D-day and was almost the only country that hadn’t been attacked in some way but still decided to fight the Nazis. Beside from that I can say that every Canadian I have met has been friendly, and everybody I talk to has the impression that Canadians are very friendly.
This is actually the main reason why I wan’t to study it’s history, since the history has formed the country in a way that has led up to being a big and friendly country!
shogo2230 10:28 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Because I am an exchange student, I haven’t grown up in Canada. That’s why following statement is just my impression.
Canada is an eco-friendly country. You can see so many recycle boxes on the road and you have to sort out your trash. Not only there is a recycle box but most people actually seem to be careful and responsible for saving the nature. Because of the high level of eco-friendly consciousness, Canada can prevent the great nature from being destroyed. Therefore, you can enjoy breathtaking scenery. For example, in Vancouver, you can go to Capilano Suspension Bridge, Stanley Park, Queen Elizabeth Park, Grouse Mountain and so on.
And Canadian history is about development of co-existence society of different ethnicity and culture. Canada is one of the most famous multinational and multicultural countries in the world. Though I have just arrived here about two weeks ago, I already saw and interacted with many people who have various cultural backgrounds. That tells us Canada is a really generous nation to foreigners or immigrants. Canada was once colonized by French and the UK as well as the U.S. However, Canada experiences distinct history from one of the U.S and as time goes on Canada gradually constructs a multicultural and unique society.
Tina Loo 7:05 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Good answer! You’re one of the few who have answered my question about what you think the storyline of Canadian history is. We’ll see if your views change over the course of the term. Can you go back and edit your entry to include your full name so I can give you credit?
tazizi 9:12 am on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is one of the largest countries located in North America, based on both population and land mass; its immediate boarders are connected with the United States. Stereotypically, Canada is known for being a multicultural country whose population, as they age, learn to love hockey and maple syrup, are always polite and love to say “eh.” Universally, we like to think Canada is known for its universal health care, equality, peace-keeping efforts, and for being friendly people. As a first generation Canadian, I grew up being taught to see Canadian history through a lens of patriotism, just like people in most other countries. However, as I have advanced higher in my education, I learned Canada’s history is not necessarily better than any others; it is dynamic, having both dark and light-filled moments. As a country founded fully on emigration, Canada does not have the cleanest track record of prejudice and fair treatment. Like most countries, we have a long history of sexism, as well as our efforts to try and assimilate the First Nations through the use of residential schools. Furthermore, at one point in our history, Canada adopted a closed-door policy to try to keep out those of Asian descent, and the incident of the Komagata Maru and the Japanese work camps are examples of this hate.
Tina Loo 7:06 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This is a good and full answer; it will be interesting to see if you think there’s more to the country’s history than dark and light. Would you go back and edit your entry to include your full name so I can give you credit?
tazizi 3:02 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thank you! My full name is Taraneh (Tara) Azizi.
jamesrm 4:25 pm on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is my home. I have lived in Canada my whole life, spending brief amounts of time living abroad in England, the United States and France and whenever I return home, I am flooded with patriotism and pride, stemming from the pleasant demeanour of the Canadian population and by Canada’s own natural beauty. Having lived in the Lower Mainland my whole life and having connections in Ontario, my current dream is to take a month to drive across Canada and experience everything this vast country has to offer.
Unfortunately, like everything in this world, Canada is not without its controversies. Whether it’s Residential Schools scarring our nation’s history or the refusal of the Komagata Maru boat into Vancouver’s port, Canadian history is tattered with racism, sexism and bigotry. Despite Canada’s historical controversies, Canada has set many international benchmarks that make me extremely proud to call myself Canadian. Being the first non-European country and the fourth country overall to legalize gay marriage, having a huge part in both World Wars, as well as contributing Penicillin, Standard Time and the Canadarm to the modern world are all prime examples of International Canadian contribution. And hey, being the best in the world at hockey doesn’t hurt either.
To me, Canada represents my home, my identity and my favourite place on the planet.
Tina Loo 8:38 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
James, this is an interesting answer – we’ll see if there are more ways to see Canadian history than to understand it in good/bad terms. Could you edit your post to include your full name so I could give you credit?
amandawoodland 6:44 pm on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
When many people think of Canada, they think of it as a “mosaic” – a metaphor for a diverse and multicultural country in which the differences of each individual are accepted and respected, and thought to make the whole more beautiful. Although this is a lovely idea for how a country could (and perhaps should) be, I do not believe that Canada is a “mosaic;” rather, I think of Canada as more of a “melting-pot,” like its downstairs neighbour, the United States of America. “Melting-pot” is a metaphor for a country in which the many different values, religions, and so forth have largely become assimilated into one or few general culture(s). Whether or not this is a good thing is difficult to say without inviting intense debate. Based on my limited knowledge of Canadian History (mainly centred around Aboriginal and women’s history), I have decided that Canada could and should strive to become even more of a “mosaic” and less of a “melting-pot.” How will this happen? I don’t know. I am eager to learn more about this country’s interesting and complicated history, because we learn from the past and can hopefully use it to create a brighter future.
Tina Loo 8:41 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Interesting response Amanda. Would you say that the story line of Canadian history is how and why Canada became a melting pot instead of a mosaic?
amandawoodland 9:27 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Professor Loo,
Thank you for your comment. I think it makes sense to say that. I am interesting in learning more about Canadian history with other points of view in mind, but will probably keep this specific notion in the back of my mind throughout the course so that I can answer your question at the end of the term!
tyler5 12:17 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a vast and unique country. Perhaps some of the most defining characteristics of this land include the acceptance of a multicultural society, high living standards, an environment unparalleled by countries worldwide, and a liberal, progressive state, focused on providing the best care for citizens. It is an impossible task to pinpoint “Canadian” culture. Since this land consists of so many different nations within its borders, Canadian culture can best be defined as the acceptance of multiculturalism. Canadian living standards are some of the highest in the world. Cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal are consistently rated in the top five livable cities in the world; by magazines such as the Economist. Not only are Canadian living standards high, but Canadian government and lifestyle is one of progression and liberalism. Canadians have led in areas of peacekeeping, health care and education, and humanitarian rights. Canadians also find a way to unite as one behind a sports team. Hockey and other winter sports are defining characteristics of Canadian lifestyle, and have historically created friendly rivalries with other countries. Finally, the Canadian landscape is the most unique and beautiful in the world. The West Coast is full of mystically rain forest islands like the Haida Gwaii and the Gulf Islands. Moving eastwards, the Rocky Mountains attract a great number of tourists. There are vast, awe inspiring prairies, the Great Lakes, Niagra Falls, Cape Breton Island, and Hudson Bay; just to name a few.
To define Canadian history in general, one must take into account Canada’s key characteristics. In a brief look at the history of this country, the overpowering conflict has been between cultures, and how they have progressed and learned to peacefully coexist. The French, English, and First Nations struggled to live side by side in early pre-confederation and post confederation.
Hopefully, in this class I will gain a better understanding of the country that I live in. The knowledge will give me a broader perspective on the struggles we have overcome, and the struggles we now face.
Tina Loo 8:42 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So the story of Canada is the story of cultural conflict. How does that fit in with your earlier observation about Canada being multicultural and a place with a high standard of living? I guess we’ll see! 🙂 Would you edit your post to include your full name so I can give you credit?
tyler5 5:25 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
My full name is Tyler Norman!
aviaah 2:30 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is respected. Our nation has a reputation that precedes us, as Canada is known to produce the most amiable of people. Canadians are recognized as peacemakers, not peace-disrupters. We extend our open arms to those in need, providing a haven to those who seek refuge, and a home to all, no matter their religion, ethnicity, age, or sex.
Born and raised a proud Canadian, I have come to learn that Canadian history is about fighting for what is right. Now, it may seem inconsistent for me to say that Canadians are peacemakers, and then contradict such as statement by following it with a word that brings to mind violence and aggression, but hear me out. There’s a reason why Canada is respected in the international arena, and we did not earn this esteem through brutality and force. Our nation earned its gleaming reputation from its actors.
Sifting through hundreds of years of raw history, we find that there are always names that tend to stick out to us. One is none other than Louis Riel, who fought long and hard against all odds to preserve the Metis culture and their rights. There’s Lester B. Pearson, a Nobel Prize winning diplomat and politician whose notable contributions included helping to resolve the Suez Crisis and abolishing the Death Penalty in Canada. A group of women known as the Famous Five, one of which was Nellie McClung, took it upon themselves to have women recognized as persons under Canadian law so that women could be appointed to the Canadian Senate. Pierre Trudeau, a former Canadian Prime Minister, is another historical vigilante who defended the decriminalization of homosexuality, paving a way for gay rights in a time where radical change was otherwise frowned upon. And lets not forget Terry Fox, the widely celebrated humanitarian who trekked across Canada to raise awareness for cancer research all the while battling cancer himself.
Our nation’s history is imprinted upon our present lives, as one does not have to look far in Canada to understand that we are a nation of acceptance and congruent strength. We are as diverse as we are one. Comprised of people from a plethora of different backgrounds, Canada is truly a unique country, and this distinctness is build upon foundations that have been laid by Canadians who never feared to take a stand against what they felt was unjust.
Tina Loo 8:43 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Interesting view. Do you think everyone in Canada would share it? Is the story of Canada the story of how and why it became the place you describe? Would you edit your post so that it contains your full name – that way I can give you credit.
aviaahrandhawa 7:57 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There are many who would disagree with my viewpoint, and that’s understandable considering I’ve only incorporated the better aspects of Canadian history! I’m definitely aware that there are less than favourable aspects of Canadian history that have left many people in rightful resentment, though much of my knowledge on Canada before the 20th century is quite limited. I hope to learn more throughout this course about Canada’s establishments and historical ties before the 20th century, and build upon my current knowledge and perception of Canada! As well, my full name is Aviaah Randhawa!
lindswong 3:52 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The word that comes to mind when I hear Canada is home. Not home for those who were born and raised here but home for anyone who comes to start a new life here. My parents both had come from completely different ethnic and cultural roots. My mom, a born and raised Austrian, decided at the age of twenty to start a new chapter of her life by moving to Canada where she then found acceptance and easily slipped into the new the culture of a new country. My father came to Canada under very different circumstances. Unlike my mother who came alone, he came with his family who, at the time, were fleeing the communist oppression in Nicaragua. Canada accepted them as refugees, which gave them the opportunity to start a new life in a free country. Thus, Canada means to me a place of refuge, security and acceptance. It is a place that embraces multiculturalism and allows for people from all over the world to call Canada home.
Often people regard Canada as an insignificant country, constantly overshadowed by the U.S. This view could not be farther form the truth. Canada is known to be a country that always takes a backseat role in global events. However, nonetheless, Canada has always been a strong country holding up its allies and making decisions with the best interests of it citizens and the world in view. Canada takes a different approach to global events, an approach that may keep us more in the background, but it is in this way that Canada has gained respect, trust and loyalty from not only its citizens but also many other countries. For this reason Canada holds more power than it is given credit for having.
Over the years Canada has evolved from a country once under strong influence from the British Empire to one that can stand alone in face of adversity and succeed. We may be that “mosaic” country that stands more in the background, but that does not mean we are not strong. This country may be filled with people of many different ethnic backgrounds but we all hold our loyalties to Canada and not to the past, for this reason we are strong and we are respected and thus, we can call Canada home.
Tina Loo 8:45 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Would you say the story of Canada is how and why it came to be a country of immigrants with the respect of other countries in the world? Would you edit your post so that it includes your full name so I can give you credit?
lindswong 7:28 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Lindsay (Ruth) Wong
cammejil 5:15 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I was born in Canada but was raised in America. What little I remember of Canadian history is the shared history with America – I remember a french explorer discovering Canada and many British “loyalists” fleeing to Canada during the American Revolution. My class spent a day talking about the war of 1812 – America lost apparently. From my various relatives i recall there being some sort of rift between French Canada and the rest of Canada and a previous threat of succession and my family threw a big party every July 1st with a bunch of fireworks for Canada day, although I don’t know what Canada day is for – though my thought is the day Canada became its own country. That’s what little I know of Canadian History, but what Canada means to me is uniqueness. It became a symbol for me when I got teased all the time about Canada, “America’s hat” and I loved that it made me stand out. Canada is generally known for being very nice and few of my classmates realized they were in WW2 even. And more, Canada is known for it’s universal healthcare, liberal and extra-liberal views and equality in gay marriage. I am proud to be Canadian – to be known as Canada is – involved in global politics, known as generally nice and most importantly, a country that cares about its people – who wouldn’t proud of that?
Tina Loo 8:47 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So the story of Canada is how and why it came to be different from its more powerful neighbour? We’ll see if that’s the case! Would you edit your post to include your full name so I can give you credit?
friba235 10:08 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I am pleased to write about this extraordinary country. Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Situated in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Canada is the world’s second-largest country by total area, and its common border with the United States is the world’s longest land border shared by the same two countries. One of its famous, and busiest border is in White Rock, where it shares with Washington State.
Its most immerse beauty is; first, its natural beauty such as, ocean, mountain, wildlife, and secondly its multiculturalism community. People around the world such as, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UEA and so on come to seek a life here, and contribute back to Canadian society by their talents, ambition, hard work, and nevertheless an authentic food, and brings its unique cultural knowledge. Along its attraction to immigrants, its beauty attracts thousands of tourists from around the globe to spend time, and explore its sights every year from early Spring to late Fall. Canadians are friendly with tourist, and happy to see them and meet them in person if the tourists need help for directions around the city.
The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonial expeditions explored, and settled here. As its politics, Canada is a federal state governed as a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.
Its hospitality will continue open to the world, and is welcoming new ideas, and cultures, and will remain the best country in the world.
All the best
Tina Loo 8:48 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So…Canada is multicultural. Is the story of Canada about how it came to be that way? We’ll see…. Would you edit your post so it includes your full name – I need to know to give you credit for the blog.
brendanjf 11:34 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada has been many things to different people and at different times. Canada is one of the largest nations on Earth, and yet it is also one of the least densely populated, with vast swathes of pristine natural beauty. It’s a country whose history involves interactions, disagreements, treaties and wars between multiple groups all with strong cultural identities. It has been host to an enormous multitude of distinct independent aboriginal tribes. It was the location of the first European settlements in North America when the Vikings landed in Newfoundland. It saw the establishment of the French colony of Canada, the subsequent wars between the French and the British, and the handover of French territories to the British at the end of these wars. The Hudson’s Bay company laid claim to and administered vast swathes of territory. It saw conflicts between some of the indigenous tribes and the European colonists, cooperation and trade with other tribes, and even the creation of entirely new cultural groups like the Metis from the mixing of European and indigenous peoples. Though its much of its history as the nation we know today stems from European colonization, unlike many other American nations, whose identity was forged in fire and revolution, Canada attained its independence through peaceful negotiation and diplomacy, and maintained good relationships with their former British owners. As a nation, Canada fought in several wars, experienced rapid territorial expansion, and saw the growth of large migrant populations. The predominant theme of Canadian history, at least in my perspective, has been a search for identity. The history of Canada has been dominated by the interactions and disputes between a number of cultural groups with strong senses of self-identity, and it has struggled to define itself outside of its relationship to its boisterous neighbour to the south. It has attempted to construct a unique cultural identity through all of this, while still maintaining, all of the separate cultures of its citizens, resulting in the multicultural approach we see today. It has attempted to make a place which all may call home, regardless of background, welcoming variety and celebrating diversity.
Tina Loo 8:55 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So… Canada’s history is the result of its relationships with other countries and empires, and its search to make an identity out of the many peoples the place was home to. We’ll see how much of this is reflected in the version of Canadian history I give you! Would you edit your post so that it includes your full name please?
jenniferbishop 10:51 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories. It is a large country, which is unevenly populated; most people live in the southern parts of Canada where is it warmer. Honestly, these are the only few facts I know about Canada. I was born and raised in the States and although I have dual citizenship, I was never taught anything about Canada. Now that I am entering my second year at UBC, I want to learn more about the history of the country I am currently living in. One of the main preconceptions I had before moving to Canada was that everyone loves maple syrup, which I have found to be quite true! I also believed that most Canadians love hockey, and living in Vancouver during the NHL lockout showed me how passionate Canadians are about this sport. Lastly, I always thought Canadians were peaceful people who get along with everyone. However after living here for a year, I realized that there are some obvious tensions between different parts of the country, such as in Quebec. It would be interesting to learn and understand the background of these conflicts and how they are rooted in history.
Tina Loo 8:53 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So…the history of Canada is the history of its regions and how they relate to each other. This is an interesting answer – different from the others here. We’ll see how this is borne out through the course!
mwaldron 1:49 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is the second largest country in the world, and one of three countries in North America. Although large, Canada’s population is anything but dense in comparison to other countries; Northern Canada is far less populated due to the colder climate. I am lucky to call Canada my home, and it has been all my life. Our country is one of great beauty, especially here on the West Coast (although, I may be a bit biased). From mountains to oceans, to prairies and the Great Lakes, its vast beauty is truly remarkable. Canada is also bilingual, having both French and English as it’s official languages. We are also known as having a “cultural mosaic,” giving Canada a diverse body of cultures, religions and values across the country.
Canadian history is something that I only remember vaguely from grade school years (and I’m sure many other non-History majors can agree), which I believe is a shame. From early settlers and the First Nations people, to the Hudson’s Bay Company and our country’s link to the British before and after Confederation, the history is rich and interesting. I am very much looking forward to this course to re-learn the history that made this wonderful country we call home.
Tina Loo 8:52 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is big, beautiful, home to indigenous peoples and many other cultures. Its history has to do with the fur trade and the British link…. We’ll see how much of this will be reflected in the version of Canadian history I give you! Would you edit your post to include your full name please? I need to record it in my gradebook.
doraleung 3:49 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is my motherland. I was born and raised here my entire life. I may come from a Chinese background with parents who are Chinese through and through, I feel as if I embody what Canada is all about; a country where different cultures from all across the globe, from England to Japan, Mexico to Russia, come together and become one gigantic harmonious mosaic. Some may say Canada does not have a culture, but that statement is completely false. Canada is not simply just a culture made up of maple syrup, igloos, hockey and lacrosse, but in fact a country with so much culture made up of bits and pieces of various other cultures. Canadians have a strong sense of respect and pride for the diversity in our country; different religions, values and cultures.
Historically, Canada is the place where “the people who turned left” and “the people who turned right” met. Since the beginning of time, human evolution began in Africa and spread from there west, east, or north-ward. Those people who traveled out in opposite directions finally reunited in L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, many thousands of years later after crossing the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. This reconnection of humans is a significant indication of Canada being the birth place of globalization. It is no surprise that the birth place of globalization would be so open-armed to and welcoming of the different cultures that the rest of the world brings with them.
Tina Loo 8:50 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So Canada is the sum of its diversity. Is the story of Canada about how it came to be peaceful and diverse? We will see!
vinciane 4:37 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As an exchange student, I didn’t know much about Canada prior to my arrival, and I actually still don’t – if I did, why would I have chosen this course? – but some of the views I had of this country may have changed or evolved.
I would see Canada as that big, vast country situated just next to the United States. What is interesting in this phrasing is that most foreigners tend to situate Canada by comparing it with the United States. That fact is part of why I chose Canada for my year in exchange; because we don’t learn much about Canada (not nearly as much as we should), but we do learn quite a lot about the United States. The maple syrup may have been a bonus.
I was aware of all the stereotypes that we as foreigners know: the said maple syrup, the bears, the cold, the quebequois and their Poutine fries, the red leaf flag, the nice people, the weird accent and the ‘eh’s. It is rather interesting to note that there are just as much jokes about the French-speaking Canadians’ accent as there are about the English-speaking Canadians’ one.
Upon my arrival, I was surprised to discover just how much diversified Vancouver. In a first place, this can be seen in terms of ethnicity, by surveying the people and the stores there. More surprising for me, it can be seen at the University, with events organized for all kind of communities of different faiths or origins. All in all, it seems to me that in Canada, peace and respect between people of different origin, faith, gender, and upbringing has been achieved, and this should probably serves as an example in a lot of countries.
As a foreigner, thus being used to another culture, I can certify that the belief that Canadian people are very nice is quite true – at least when I make the comparison with my home country, – though every country has its load of rude people. The difference isn’t so much visible in terms of casual encounter. However, what I found to be very unsettling is the kindness, apparent proximity and laid-back attitude of people in a professional setting. This might actually be part of the explanation of why people are able to respect one another in Canada.
As sappy as this blog entry may sound, I see Canada as a peaceful place.
Tina Loo 8:50 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
So Canada is multicultural and peaceful – and the story of Canada is how it came to be this way? We will see! Please edit your post so it includes your full name so I can give you credit.
daverob1 12:04 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
My name is Dave Robinson I am an Algonquin of the Timiskaming First Nation in North Western Quebec. I was born in Windsor Ontario and have lived in BC as many years as Ontario. Canada to me is a great Nation that is home to many Nations within it’s borders. Canada is the true land of opportunity, creativity and innovation are promoted. The multicultural communities that exist in Canada create a different way of seeing and understanding the cultural heritage persons are born into. Youth of tomorrow will be exposed to a culturally diverse community and will be much more globally connected than previous generations.
kenthen 1:43 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Weytkp, (hello in the shuswap language); my name is Kenthen Thomas I am a Secwepemc Abriginal from the Salmon Arm area where most of my family has resided for years. Looking at the question, “what is Canada, what are my preconceptions, what is Canada, Canada is…. and Canadian history is about? I have to say that to me Canada is my home, its the home of my family and it will be the home for our younger generations. My family and ancestors endured quiet a bit of harm from the people and leaders of Canada, ie residential school, displacement etc. But I truly believe that this is still one of the greatest nations one could ever call home. From the harm caused at the hands of others we can learn how not repeat the past and learn from each other and move forth finding ways to enhance this country and all that comes with it. Canada to myself is the greatest place on earth
FribaRezayee235 5:36 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Week 8 blog
The origins of slavery can be traced back much further than the 18th and 19th century plantations in the southern United States. By the time the English had begun to settle permanent colonies in North America, the Spanish and Portuguese had developed a model of slavery to provide labor for commercial agriculture. This model was critical for the development of slavery in Anglo-America.
While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions regarding land. In order to begin, in UC, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.
The rebellions of 1837 were two armed uprisings that took place in Lower and Upper Canada in 1837-37. Both rebellions were motivated by frustration with political reform. A key began goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incident’s aftermath. The rebellions led directly to Lord Durham’s report on the affairs of BNA and to the BNA Act, 1840 which partially reformed the British into a unitary.