Updates from tamyers Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • tamyers 4:23 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 8 T2 WW2 and women 

    comment on the primary sources by women during WW2

     

    • jpellegrino 6:19 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Since the floor was left pretty open about what to comment on, I’ve decided to critique the sources and discuss that which I found confusing, challenging and poor about each article.

      To start off, Mattie Rotenburg’s article, “It’s a Woman’s War” comments on the difficulties women faced during World War Two, suggesting that it is just as much a woman’s war as it is a man’s war. Throughout this article, there are a number of important things I have noted. To begin, the author, who I am assuming is a man by his name, is discussing the role of women in the war. While I am sure that he has educated himself thoroughly on this topic, it is concerning that he uses both first and second person in his article. This confused me. In the first half of Rotenburg’s article, he comments on the women using second person to describe some events that they faced. For example, Rotenburg writes about the role of officials when he says “They interfere in everything. Not only tell you what to cook and how to cook it” (290). On the next page, Rotenburg quickly turns to first person when describing how the women suffer. He tells us that, “We and our children are the ones who suffer from low wages an unemploy-ment (sic) – we have seen people starving while food was being destroyed” (291). This shift from second to first person provides for an incredible article, from the perspective of a reader. This makes me question how reliable this author is and where his (or her) facts derived from. It is inconsistent.

      With regards to the content of the article, I disagree with Rotenburg’s implication that because, “women are being used, relentlessly moulded, to the needs and ambitions of the State – made to unthinkable, obedient robots” that “this is a woman’s war” (289). Providing us with information about the unequal positions women were put in does suggest reason for the assumption that this is more of a woman’s war, however, Rotenburg does not provide his readers with an oppositional take. What I mean by this is that the author does not discuss the role of men that might make it more of a man’s war.

      Anne Frances’ article, “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” touches on the question of whether women will return to their usual place of the home-maker, after the war is complete. Frances’ first section of the article is titled, “Can Do Double Job.” At first, she discusses the desire that women have to continue having a place in the working industry. She then provides reason as to why, but by the end of that section, she suggests that this poses a problem because, “After the war, the need for workers will not be as obvious as it was during the war” (293). I feel that this weakens her argument.

      Another problem I noted regards that of Frances’ second section of her article. She begins this part by stating “needs will be there” (293). What needs is she talking about? The needs of women? The needs of working opportunities for women? Frances then suggests that women can act as citizens through their government. Similarly to her previous claim, she tells us that this will take a great deal of studying and thought to approach this problem. Rather than providing reason why this will pose a problem, as a reader, I would like to hear how the women can go about acting as citizens through the government and what measures they can take to do so.

      The primary sources provide us with a lot of information, however I am unsure that I would use them to strengthen or support my argument in an essay.

    • tyler5 8:35 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The message within these primary sources is an advocate of a greater role for women in society; most notably the Second World War. Rotenberg’s article explores female participation in the war, and pushes for an expansionary position. She condemns the situation for women in Germany brought forth by the Nazis, and calls it a movement contemptuous of women. She talks about how rights and privileges that women had fought for were now disregarded, and that women were, in Germany, thought to be best suited for traditional patriarchal roles. She goes on to outline several aspects of traditional female life, referred to as “Kuche, Kinder, and Kirche,” and then criticizes Nazi support of these values. However, her most profound point is the conveyance of the fact that she believes WW2 is a “woman’s war.” She argues that women must cure poverty and ignorance, and take a far more active role in righting injustice.

      Rotenberg has an interesting viewpoint. It is one purely based on equality and justice. Clearly, throughout the transcript, she denounces totalitarianism, especially fascism. With this denouncing, she makes it undoubtedly clear that progress and development should always take a backseat to fundamental rights and freedoms, most notably gender equality and opportunity. She therefore states that women must take a larger role in the war effort. In her opinion, this role manifests itself through education and enlightenment into women’s rights and the destruction of traditional female values.

      I like the enthusiasm in here article. It is without a doubt an inspiring piece, and probably was of great motivation to many women during this era. However, in my personal opinion, while Rotenberg does effectively argue as to why totalitarian regimes are harmful to women, she does little more than offer normative statements as to what needs to be done in order to correct the equality. There is very little substance regarding actual action; rather, there are merely statements ordering for more thought, work, education and strengthening of ideals. I like her enthusiasm, but for this piece to have been more of a visionary statement, I would have liked to have seen better outlines for collective action.

      Anne Frances’ piece is also one that advocates a stronger role for women in society. However, her piece focuses more on the importance of the perpetuation of female labour following the war. She asks fundamental questions regarding what the status of women volunteers’ and workers’ interest in community affairs and continuation of work will be when the war effort has ceased. She believes that women in the armed forces will return home with specialized skills and want to continue to utilize these skills in them labour market.

      However, while advocating this position of status for women, Frances also understands that women must take into the account the fact that the jobs that they had during the war would most likely not be available following it; therefore, they must study and educate themselves as to what the job opportunities will look like in a post-war world, and how they can train and work towards being an effective contributor to that sector.

      I like Frances’ piece. In my opinion, it is more practical than Rotenburg’s. While Frances does offer many normative statements that do not seem to have an immediate answer, she does at least offer some examples of the role of women in the labour market that could exist following the war. She says that they can participate in areas like adult cultural enrichment, and juvenile education.

      I like both pieces, but I do also argue that they have their limitations. Clearly, both Rotenburg and Frances approach this topic from an extremely biased feminist perspective and this bias shapes their argument immensely. Therefore, both works are riddled with normative statements, and condemnation of a traditional order. I think however that these sources are important for the awareness and understanding of female gender inequality that existed at the time of World War 2, and probably had a lasting impact on the feminist movement.

    • ecopeland 2:20 am on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both these sources reflect a forward thinking strand of feminism, almost post-modern in its message, and one that is uniquely spawned from a national need for women’s help as part of the wartime effort. Both draw the reader in with an evocative fluency and lyricism; both their statements are strong and persuasive without being forceful. However the way they go about laying out their opinions is very different. Rotenberg focuses on educating the listener on the lives of the women on the other side of the battlefield, whilst Frances’ message is more succinct and practical in her advice for women moving forward.

      Rotenberg speaks of women exercising a moral participation in the national debate by simply understanding that it is their war too. Rotenberg wants the listener to understand the backward-moving practices that women suffered under the Nazi regime and be inspired in spite of it, to open their eyes to the opportunities that their democratic nation offers them.

      Rotenberg gives a clear and decided opinion that her listeners deserve more than the Nazi party offers its women. Purposefully striking a patriotic chord, she attempts to play upon the idea that with such freedom it is their duty to participate and engage more. But what I feel this broadcast does not give its listeners with enough emphasis is any actual instruction or any visible platforms by which to reach equality with men or gain greater status in the post WWII landscape. The last paragraph of the script brings this to the attention, but touches on it lightly as if afraid that physical, practical involvement of women, outside of ones head and heart, might be too much of a step forward in these troubled times.

      Frances’ piece in comparison offers these kinds of practical initiatives in abundance. Frances delivers a speech not just stirring up the spirit of its female audience but gives real advice on how women can exercise their newly gained skills and confidence beyond the wartime effort.

      Frances knows that for women- their lives, spirits, and notions of their limitations were thoroughly challenged and changed by the war. Not just in their own eyes, but the government’s too. She implores the reader to push onwards and seek new ways to use their skills and knowledge. To wage war on local problems and she emphasises the incredible benefits that could be derived from them should they be determined and brave in the face of post war pressures to reassemble the old ways.

    • lindswong 9:52 am on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The articles have one central theme that connects them and that is their focus on the role of women during WWII. Despite the common central theme, however, I found the two articles to be focused on different messages and different ideas. Each portrayed the war in two different lights, one being women on the home front and the other on women in Nazi Germany.

      Mattie Rotenberg’s article denounces the communist and fascist ideals for embodying the ideology on inferiority and superiority, in which women were found to be of the inferior. She focuses on the degradation of the women role under the Nazi dictatorship, such as the ways their role in society has been diminished in order to fit the “needs” and ideology of the Nazi party. “It’s a women’s war” because to Rotenberg it is their duty to make the female presence more prominent; to save women from the fate that they face in Nazi Germany. Throughout the document, there is an aura of propaganda; western propaganda. Although Rotenberg is ultimately fighting for the rights of these women who have lost it in Germany, she also seems to act as an advocate for democracy. Therefore, possibly a reason this had been aired over the CBC radio is because she intertwines politics with her argument in favour, of course, of the Western, Canadian idealogy.

      In contrast to Rotenberg, Anne Frances focuses on the home front. The war put many women into the workforce in order to fuel the war effort and replace the working men who are in the war. Frances sees the opportunities that arise from the ability to work in jobs that in the past were not acceptable for women to be in. Now, women receive training for work and are given the opportunity to study to gain a broader skill set. As a result, Frances realizes the advantage women now have and advocates that even after the war they be allowed to continue working. Frances’ message is different than Rotenberg’s because instead of focusing on the oppression of women under dictatorship and how women can “fight” to fix this, she focuses on how women can continue to work as they do during wartime, in the future peacetime. She focuses on the ability of women to keep receiving education and skills needed in the world outside of the household, thus expanding women’s role outside of the household.

      However, overall, the main theme of the articles are quite the same. Both Rotenberg and Frances believe women can possess positions outside of the household, not for their own benefit but for the improvement and strengthening of the nation. Rotenberg’s ultimate argument on the idea that “it’s a women’s war” is that only women have the capability to correct the standards that have been brought down on the German women and to do so is to create a better democracy in Canada, so that they themselves can have this opportunity to live and work as they please. In this way they can be strong and provide moral support to their troops fighting to free Germany from its evil dictatorship. Likewise, Frances focuses on the strengthening of women’s position for the improvement of the nation as well. If women can continue on volunteering, working, facilitating camps for children, etc., they can also increase the morale in the country by strengthening its internal condition. For both, it is a “women’s war” because they believe women are the ones who are needed to continue to aid the country into a better version of itself.

    • chliane 1:59 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I found Mattie Rotenberg’s “It’s a Woman’s War” to be an easy and well-articulated article. This was more of an inspiring piece, where she was encouraging women to become involved, instead of suggestions on how to take action, which the second piece covers. The arguments she makes are that women should not be idle in the war, and they should do their part first by understanding what part they should take. She lists that reasons why Fascism is an attack on women, most obviously the “Kuche, Kinder, Kirche,” the Nazi slogan which demands women stay in the kitchen, tend to her children (of which she must have many), and go to church. Rotenberg understand the Nazi strategies very well, especially how they use ideology to fight the war, and stresses how important it is for everyone, including women, to educate themselves on the circumstances of the war, and not blindly depend on the opinion of their husbands. By pointing out the fact that democracy itself is flawed, she demonstrates her ability, or at least that she is attempting to be a fair judge to all political systems and that there is no one perfect system. Democracy may not be perfect, and she knows their own lives are hard at the moment, but the Nazi regime has chosen methods to rule that are inhumane, and will never provide a peace of mind for the people who live in constant fears of spies. I particularly love her last sentence on page 291, where she declares that women must fight for a “new world order,” taking Hitler’s phrase, but instead demanding one that is “beyond the boundaries of race or creed.” Her argument does imply that this type of war must be fought by women because men have a superiority complex and simply won’t, which is unfair to men. But I suppose, in the context of the time period, it wasn’t exactly untrue either.

      Anne Frances’ “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future” promotes action on women’s behalf, especially the women in the work force. In this article she recognizes that the sudden surge of women in the workforce cannot last very long after the war is over, and the men return home. She encourages them to continue to do good work, and praises all the good work they have done already. The women were able to prove their ability to work outside of the home, and take care of their domestic duties. But the return of men into the workforce would mean women are no longer needed. She did not appear to be making argument that women should back down and give the men their jobs back, but I wonder why it was that she did not make the argument women should have the right to fight for keeping the jobs they currently had. Frances’ main argument is that there is a place for women to work in the community, and that is to aid the sick and needy. She urges more women to go and experience the community by “seeing and smelling and feeling” the need for change in the community, such as visiting children in hospitals, or doing social work with juvenile delinquents. By having hands on experience in the field, women could make a difference in the moral structure of society. If the women could go out and see the need for social welfare, Francis argues that there would be less protest and more support for funding these types of programs. Her arguments and suggestions for women in the workforce are completely valid; however, I found it very interesting that she kept using the phase “more intelligent women,” as though only the less intelligent would want to retire out of the workforce once the men had returned. It is very important that women remain in the workforce, but I do not think it is an indicator of intelligence if the woman chooses to go back to her stay-at-home job.

    • aviaah 2:35 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The works of both Mattie Rotenberg and Anne Francis speak to the same core message: women should have a greater role in the war/post-war period, and that women possess the ability to enhance their societies’ efficiency and social collectivity if empowered. Rotenberg and Francis employ a post-modern feminist stance to deliver their message. In “It’s a Women’s War,” Rotenberg essentially advocates that WWI is a women’s war just as much as it is a man’s war, despite women not fighting in the front lines and engaging in direct combat. Rotenberg focuses on how fascism and authoritarianism are detrimental to women’s roles domestically and further prevent them from taking on greater roles in society. Thus, the politics of fascist war fundamentally impede upon freedom and liberty for all, and most especially for women, making the First World War, from Rotenberg’s point of view, a “women’s war”.

      Rotenberg makes valid points in that fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian regimes are detrimental to social, political, and economics freedoms of a nation’s denizens, and she provides intriguing insight on the perspective of women and how they were affected by the war in fascist Germany at the time. From reading Rotenberg’s piece, we gain an in-depth understanding of the difficulties women and children face during wartime in such states, as well as the fact that fascist and authoritarian regimes are facades that advocate efficiency and shadow elements of slavery, brutality, and restriction. In saying this though, Rotenberg provides a normative delineation that offers nothing in terms of suggestions or solutions to help women, and society as a whole, rise above the plethora of problems and barriers they face in these tyrannical regimes. Yes, authoritarianism is bloodstained and corrupt; yes, women are oppressed and striped of self-determination, but how does one rise above such a situation? If Rotenberg could have provided an action plan of some sort, or at least some examples to alleviate the detrimental effects of tyrannical regimes upon women’s roles, her piece would have been far more substantial.

      On that note, I believe Francis’s piece embodied all that Rotenberg did and failed to do. “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future” oozes with substance, as Francis provides a normative account of the roles women played during the wartime, and the problems they will face in the post-war period; that is, if women will continue with their public-realm roles that they held prior to the war during the post-war period, and how significant these roles will be after the threat of war has diminished. Where Rotenberg fails to provide a substantive action plan to how women should establish themselves and their freedom/liberty, Francis does. In addition to placing emphasis on the importance of female labour during the war, and advocating for their continued labour presence in society following the war, Francis provides ways in which women can retain their significance and importance as productive members of society when such war-time tasks disappear along with the war itself. Thus, Francis highlights how education will help to provide women with job opportunities in the post-war world, making them more qualified for new occupations that the public realm has to offer.

      Though it is not expected that both authors provide immediate solutions to the problems that they highlight in their works, they should at least highlight potential solutions as to how they believe the problems they pose should be targeted. Not only does this provide the reader with a better understanding of what they are reading, but it also helps to substantiate the writer’s points and makes for a coherent piece. Though Rotenberg’s piece was an easy and interesting read, it lacked the coherency I was looking for. Not all was lost though, as I found that missing coherency in Francis’s piece, and therefore felt that the two authors’ works complemented one another.

    • amandawoodland 3:01 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As made evident by the two primary sources, Mattie Rotenberg’s “It’s a Women’s War” and Anne Frances’ “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” the events of World War II affected Canadian women to a high degree. Instead of allowing men to control and take on full responsibility for handling the situation – which, until this point in time, had been the prescribed behavior for women – Canadian women recognized that they has a significant role to play in getting their country successfully through this difficult time. Both Rotenberg and Frances put forth this viewpoint, though each communicates it in a distinct way: Frances through a practical and persuasive angle; Rotenberg through use of clever rhetoric.
      Focussing firstly on “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” I notice a sense of accomplishment coming through Frances’ words. She points out the many important things that Canadian women have done to contribute directly to the war effort. She also praises the progress they, as a group, have made, despite previous notions of what women can and cannot do: “women have proved that they can run a home efficiently or carry a professional job and still do useful outsider community work,” “have acquired special skills,” and “have found that they enjoy working together” in teams (293). Moreover, Frances appears to be confident that, as long as they plan ahead, women will be able to hold their places in the public sphere even after the war is over.
      Rotenberg’s opinions are more radical than Frances; while Frances focuses on the contributions that Canadian women have made to World War II, Rotenberg puts forth the idea that these women are actually fighting their own war “in a special way” (289). It seems like her words are directed primarily at women (as opposed to a general audience) in order to appeal to their emotions and sense of duty. By speaking in first-person and incorporating rhetorical questions, Rotenberg causes women to personally connect to her message. By using strongly worded phrases, she emphasizes women’s importance in such a way that makes it difficult not to agree with her; for example, when she says “the time for us to start building that new order is now,” it is almost as if she is actually standing before Canadian women as a group, ready to lead them into a battle for progress (292).
      Both Frances and Rotenberg have important messages to relay regarding Canadian women’s involvement in World War II, and each does so successfully in different ways. Although these women were not present on the battlefield – as pointed out in “It’s a Women’s War” – they had an important role to play in the war and continued to have a positive influence on their country even after was war was over.

    • Vinciane Boisson 6:52 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both Frances’s and Rotenberg’s texts are very important as they aim to show that there is a need for a greater role of women in the public sphere during the war, as well as after it.

      Although I do understand the point Frances argues, I am uneasy with the comparison she makes between the Nazi’s treatments of women and of Jews: “we’ve heard a great deal of Jews and Socialists being driven from their jobs, forbidden to practice their professions – but the same thing happened to women, too.” Certainly, women were not sent to camps in order to be exterminated.
      The feeling I get from this speech is a very important contribution for a greater role of women in the public sphere, but also the speech of someone being very far from the realities of the WWII.
      It also strikes me that many criticisms made on Nazi Germany and its treatment of women as low-class citizens was actually true in many – most – countries at the time: “in Nazi Germany, women are being used, relentlessly moulded to the needs and ambitions of the State, — made into unthinking obedient robots.

      Rotenberg’s text strikes me as much more emancipating, as it cuts with the sort of victimizing that Frances uses, and advocates a greater role for women in the public life, insisting on the positive consequences it would have. However, it is striking how Rotenberg insists on volunteer work for women… but not paid work.
      I am also very intrigued in the wording “the most intelligent women want to carry on when the war is over,” implying that a woman refusing to continue volunteering is not.

    • Marissa Waldron 7:01 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both the readings by Rotenberg and Frances have strong feminist and nationalistic themes throughout. Both carry a similar message – women are also a critical feature in the World War that they must act now to have a lasting effect once the shooting overseas ends.
      Rotenberg uses the first person in her broadcast to appeal to the ego of the women listening to the program. She wants to unite the country to stand up and fight their own “war” here in the home country. Throughout the broadcast, Rotenberg frequently refers and compares Canada to the fascist leadership taking place in Germany, warning many that they must take action to not fall into the same forms. She makes a point of stressing her worry about religious freedom using the changing of the quote “Thy will be done” (part of the Lord’s Prayer) to “my will be done,” in reference to the oppressive attitudes laid down by Hitler and his Nazism (pg. 291). Rotenberg also phrases many “us” versus “them” arguments, in an attempt to build nationalism within the female community, while playing to their feminist side as well.
      Frances takes a much less radical approach to delivering her message of girl power to her listeners. She cites examples of women wanting to continue working after the war, and there is no reason for them to stop. She also dispels the rumour of the time that women cannot work together, as they have in multiple different occasions throughout the war effort. Frances shows her feminism (and disdain for sexism) in her comment “I still refuse to believe that a woman’s place is behind a bridge table in the afternoon” (pg. 293). In contrast to Rotenberg, Frances sympathizes that there are women who may not want to be as radical as she and who may want to continue on with raising a family, and other tasks considered the “job of women” at the time.
      Overall, both articles work to persuade women to become involved in their own war, fighting for equal rights and freedoms, and putting the feminist bug into the ears of listeners of the broadcast.

    • lsmack 8:00 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both articles, Mattie Rotenburg’s ‘It’s a Women’s war’ and Anne France’s ‘Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future’, write the state of women during world war two. Both articles have different views of how women were a part of the WWII. Both stated that women did work behind the scenes and on home turf, rather than at the front line.

      Rottenburg’s article writes of how the women were treated and viewed, inferior to men. Rottenburg sheds light on the fact that women were being ‘enslaved’ under this National Socialist movement driven by Hitler. She says women were the first to fall in the way of fascism in Italy years before the war. ‘We’ve heard a great deal of Jews and Socialists being driven from their jobs, forbidden to practice their professions’ is a bit of stretch but it still holds true because women were stripped of their rights and privileges in the war torn European countries. She writes this article as if all women all over the world were experiencing the same thing as the European women. It felt as if this article was more emotional and heartfelt, which is understandable because women would be more affected by war because of their husband or son having to fight.

      Frances’s article shows the more proactive role women played during the war. She states the women did more to be productive by aiding families torn by war, soldiers families needing welfare, fundraising for comforts like cigarettes. They didn’t sit idly but rather, did more things to help alleviate the burdens of war on Canadian soil.

    • tazizi 11:04 am on March 5, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Sorry it’s late Kaitlin! When I first checked, the question wasn’t posted yet.

      From what I understand, a watershed moment is one that can be considered a turning point. Therefore, WWII was definitely a watershed moment in Canadian history. During, and even after the war, we see a shift in ideologies; women were no longer happy with being passive participants in society. Compared to WWI, which could have been seen as a man (and boy’s) war, WWII was a woman’s war. They were called to fight for democracy and keep the fascist threats out of Canada. Propaganda played on the ideas that if totalitarianism was to come to Canada, the women would be under strict control. Government and secret police would tell women how to pretty much run their lives, anywhere from what they’re cooking to how many children they’re having, and what religion to follow, such as happened in Germany. Canadian women were fighting against the ideologies of fascism such as women being a lesser sex. They wanted to challenge the belief that the kitchen, children, and church were fields reserved for women, and prove that they could handle and deserved a job, education, and a profession. The women were fighting to keep the gains they had made in history towards equality. WWII proved to be a time to challenge the notion of women relying on their husbands and actually study, work, and think for themselves. It was a chance to realize that while women could go back to knitting and cooking after the war was over, they could also use their minds to find a prominent place for themselves in Canada’s future.

      • Kaitlin 3:27 pm on March 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging responses to Rotenberg and Frances’ pieces, L1A! It sounds like you read them carefully, and have varied opinions as to how effective their authors were in convincing you of their messages.

        Many of you identified the lens of gender to read the sources through, and some of you hinted at the presence of what you term “normative” femininity–but what other analytic lenses could we apply to the sources? What do we know about their authors’ backgrounds? About the mediums the sources originally appeared in? Who the intended audiences were?

        We’ll talk more in depth about how to unpack primary sources in class tomorrow, but you can start thinking about the questions you would ask the sources if you could have a conversation with them!

        Good work!

    • FribaRezayee235 6:13 pm on March 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Comments on Primary Source

      This is a primary source because this sources comes directly from Rotenberg.
      These two articles emphasis on women’s rule in WW2. They both trying to highlight women’s rule in the war period. Frances, argues that women took a large part by settling community serices, including fundraising by embroidery, and by any other method possible to raise fund for the freedom fighters, and defeating Hitlar’s fascism regime. Rotenburg’s message was broadcasted in 1944 through CBC. It was the era this was the most advanced technology which it could convey ones’ message across country in Canada. I am sure Rotenburg had a large number of listeners, however, not necessarily those listener agreed with her. Because women’s rights did not have as importance as today. It was also the period that CBC over the 20th century, legal standards for censorship in Canada shifted from a “strong state-central practice”, intended to protect the community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralized form of censorship often instigated by societal groups invoking state support to restrict the public expression of political and ideological opponents. She focuses on women’s participation in WW2. She discusses the importance of determine Canada’s future and women’s place in it. She argues that women were able to initiate, organize, and lead various fundraising or raise fund for the war effectively and affectingly within a short time. She further argues that this is a war to sweep Nazi tyranny from the world to librates the peoples who have been enslave by it, and at the top of the list of those enslaved were women. All women. She argues. It is commonly heard that Jews, and Socialists being driven from their jobs, forbidden to practice their professions, but the same thing happened to women too. She argues that among the inferior groups are women, all women, but there is even more to it than that. Nazi treatment of women is something more than reaction and suppression, more than throwing women doctors, and teachers our of work. However, I disagree with her comment “In Nazi Germany, women are being used relentlessly moulded to the needs and ambitions of the State, and made into unthinking, obedient robots. So this is women’s war” this is a big claim that she makes. I would appreciate that if she had any comparison with men’s rule, and what men did comparing to women in the WW2. Nevertheless, Rotenburg has an interesting perspective of women in WW2. Because it is one purely based gender equality, and justice. She beautifully throughout that transcript denounces totalitarians, fascism in particular. Therefore, she suggests us by denouncing it very clear that progress and development should always take the top position in fundamental rights of freedom. She further emphasis on women’s rule and women’s effort in the world. She is trying to educate her audience in gender equality.

    • richardj 8:13 pm on March 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Authors Rotenberg and Frances offer two view different and compelling commentaries on the roles women playing during WW2. Rotenberg wasted no time is denouncing Nazi practices when it came to the role that German women were to play prior too and during the WW2 conflict. She points out that equality in the German state during the war did not exist; woman existed to serve the Nationalist war machine and its leadership without question. Author Frances on the other hand paints a different view of Canadian women during the war; they stepped up and volunteered to keep the industrial war machine running while the men were overseas. Frances indicated this was a turning point of sorts in the roles of women in Canadian society; they (women) proved they could fill the gaps left by men and still carry on being homemakers, mothers and productive workers.

  • tamyers 5:48 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 6 T2 Wall 

    In 1919 social class united people in a struggle against the state. What identity today do you think would unify Canadians for change?

     

    • jpellegrino 5:51 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I have replied to the question you gave us in the email about the blog for week 6. The question was, “Please blog about your response to the novel – what is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?” Hope this is okay!

      This graphic novel conveys its argument through its use of pictures and text, but more importantly through the combination of both. The story discusses the desire for shorter hours and more pay in the working class of the 1880’s. I comprehended the argument however as the author’s persuading their readers to reclaim May Day and keep its memory alive by supporting and becoming aware of the struggles that many people were faced with. Using the graphics allowed for these struggles to come alive. Folvik and his fellow authors presented a number of events, which with the pictures, remain vivid in my mind. For example, on page fourteen, the novel tells us of an event that happened in Montreal in the year 1907. A number of students and socialists who were prevented the right to protest in the streets, decided to stop all means of transportation from proceeding. The authors also mention that this event was known as the “Monster Demonstration.” The image next to this text displays a number of people who are holding signs while trying to tie a cobblestone street in half with a large rope. While I am aware that this did not actually take place and that the protesters simply stood in the way of traffic, this image completely exhibits the meaning of the “Monster Demonstration” and will keep it fresh in my mind. While the argument is definitely present, I felt that the number of graphics on each page was overwhelming. While trying to read the text, I was often distracted by the images and large bold words on each page. Had the amount of images been reduced and the significant ones kept, I feel as if the novel could have conveyed much more than it currently does. Another critique I feel worth mentioning is the way in which the text drifts from one area of the page to another. As a reader, I was often unsure of where or which box to read next, causing confusion for the over all plot. Taken as a whole however, the graphic novel is memorable and its argument thoroughly conveyed.

      • tyler5 6:20 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        In 1919, and before, Canada was divided across lines of class struggle. The struggle was that of a social class of workers against industrial capitalist elites. May Day was an effective method in which workers could voice their displeasure regarding their lack of rights as employees. May Day protests worldwide were important for the advancement of worker rights, but at the same time defined strict social class lines. These class lines created a feeling of solidarity amongst the population of workers, and subsequently pitted them against the elites in society. It was a way in which people from all over Canada could unite through the identification of a common struggle as workers searching for rights. The year, 1919 was a time in which General Strikes were arising throughout Canada, making it the record year for number of days lost to strike activity in Canada. The strikes and class lines united those oppressed as workers during the World Wars, the Great Depression, and even into the post-boom era of the late twentieth-century. However, these class lines that have united the population for over a century have had limitations. Those identifying themselves as a working class, especially those who participated in protests, were subject to fierce opposition: sometimes violent. The Haymarket protests were an early example of violent resistance towards a growing class of unsatisfied workers. The protests symbolized the spirit that identifying as an oppressed class could create, but at the same time showed the limitations of workers attempting to obtain rights. This trend continued with the quelling of the On-to-Ottawa-Trek and the accusations of Communist activity during the Cold War. The working class has united across Canada with a strong voice for fair treatment, but they have also distinguished themselves from the elite society and made enemies out of them.

        The May Day protests have long been a symbol of resistance against poor working conditions and oppression of the working class. The movement has continued into the twenty-first century as a method to unite those in the population who identify as workers and who seek fundamental workers’ rights, better conditions, and justice.

        My personal feelings towards the book are positive. I believe that the information I have talked about above was well conveyed in the graphic style novel, and I also found it quite compelling. The pictures brought a bit of excitement to the history of May Day protests and allowed one to follow a comic style progression of events. I believe the graphics were a rather unorthodox method of presenting history but at the same time I found the change from a typical article somewhat refreshing. Overall I liked the story that this book told, and I think it does a fantastic job of bringing attention to the struggles associated with the May Day protests.

    • tyler5 6:23 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In 1919, and before, Canada was divided across lines of class struggle. The struggle was that of a social class of workers against industrial capitalist elites. May Day was an effective method in which workers could voice their displeasure regarding their lack of rights as employees. May Day protests worldwide were important for the advancement of worker rights, but at the same time defined strict social class lines. These class lines created a feeling of solidarity amongst the population of workers, and subsequently pitted them against the elites in society. It was a way in which people from all over Canada could unite through the identification of a common struggle as workers searching for rights. The year, 1919 was a time in which General Strikes were arising throughout Canada, making it the record year for number of days lost to strike activity in Canada. The strikes and class lines united those oppressed as workers during the World Wars, the Great Depression, and even into the post-boom era of the late twentieth-century. However, these class lines that have united the population for over a century have had limitations. Those identifying themselves as a working class, especially those who participated in protests, were subject to fierce opposition: sometimes violent. The Haymarket protests were an early example of violent resistance towards a growing class of unsatisfied workers. The protests symbolized the spirit that identifying as an oppressed class could create, but at the same time showed the limitations of workers attempting to obtain rights. This trend continued with the quelling of the On-to-Ottawa-Trek and the accusations of Communist activity during the Cold War. The working class has united across Canada with a strong voice for fair treatment, but they have also distinguished themselves from the elite society and made enemies out of them.

      The May Day protests have long been a symbol of resistance against poor working conditions and oppression of the working class. The movement has continued into the twenty-first century as a method to unite those in the population who identify as workers and who seek fundamental workers’ rights, better conditions, and justice.

      My personal feelings towards the book are positive. I believe that the information I have talked about above was well conveyed in the graphic style novel, and I also found it quite compelling. The pictures brought a bit of excitement to the history of May Day protests and allowed one to follow a comic style progression of events. I believe the graphics were a rather unorthodox method of presenting history but at the same time I found the change from a typical article somewhat refreshing. Overall I liked the story that this book told, and I think it does a fantastic job of bringing attention to the struggles associated with the May Day protests.

    • tazizi 9:00 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Through telling the story of the evolution of May Day, May Day: A Graphic History of Protest argues that the struggles historically faced by workers are ongoing. The writers call these struggles both “our history and our future” (28). They go on to say the “history of May Day is, and will continue to be, the story of celebration, struggle, and protest by and for workers in Canada and around the world” (27). Themes of change are present throughout the comic book. With the growth of May Day, workers across different sectors joined together in support of better working conditions. They wanted to change anything from the hours in a work day, to wages, to the amount of jobs available for citizens. May Day has become a symbol used to unite those who are part of the working class, not just in history, but in present day as well.

      The graphic format isn’t really my cup of tea, but I found it to be very effective and interesting in this comic book. It allows the reader not only to read about underlying themes, but lets them visualize them. It also includes the reader as part of the history and as a character of the story being told. In addition, it was neat to see the symbolism used, and allowed me, as the reader, to glue more pieces of information together; I could think about why the artists chose to draw certain images and then reflect on the meanings behind them. The graphics were definitely a nice change from the all-text articles we have been reading, and allowed this week’s work to be told as more of a story than the rest; however, sometimes I did find it hard to read because I didn’t know which part of the text to read next.

    • lindswong 9:59 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      blog about your response to the novel – what is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      Throughout the 20th century, social reform took the world by storm. Starting in the late 1800s, with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, came the rise of the working class. Poor working class conditions caused the beginning of the rights movement which was spurred on by the workers who were fighting for change. May 1st or May Day marks the anniversary of when the workers began their fight. In Canadian history one of the most well known May Day workers movement was the Winnipeg General Strike. However, the graphic novel depicts how reform movements come in waves and therefore were not consistent generation to generation. As the children of the generation, who began the reform movement, grew up and replaced their parent’s generation, the reform movement began to die, therefore action had to be taken to make the new generation continue the fight. In my opinion, the argument made by the novel is one of remembrance: to continue the fight for workers rights and be involved in the surrounding politics in order to create a better future.

      When reading graphic novels, such as Persepolis, what usually is a big influencing factor for me are the graphics and the way in which the words are drawn or written (big bold letters or small letters, etc.). Graphics compliment what is being told by the words, by putting an image in the readers head in order to better convey the message. The depiction of the workers in the novel gives off a sense of determination and will, whereas often those in high positions, the elite, political figures, etc., tend to give off an aura of corruption. For example on page 19, the government figures are shown in a negative light as seen by the facial expressions, the skull and dollar sign. Bolded lettering also captures the attention of the reader more than the finer printing, thus putting more emphasis on certain aspects over others.

      Broken up into its bits a parts, the graphic novel is giving the readers an overview of the history of protest, such as the title says. However, put all the pieces together, with the combination of words and graphics, and a clear message is made. Together the knowledge of historical events helps one learn and build a better future. This is the purpose of the graphic novel with a particular attention on the workers. Overall, I find the graphic novel very effective in portraying messages because one can combine imagery with words in order to come to a better and fuller understanding of a particular issue.

    • aviaah 2:03 am on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “Please blog about your response to the novel — what is the argument? How effective is the graphic format and why?”

      The argument that is put forth in “Mayday: A Graphic History of Protest” is that Mayday—a day that is historically marked by a workers’ protest and their struggle for independent worker power—should be celebrated and remembered as a day when workers joined in solidarity to collectively protest for better working conditions and justice through “well-directed political action” (28). The argument speaks directly to the reader in that it emphasizes the history of workers’ protest—nationally and globally—and further maintains that we must exercise our political rights as Canadian citizenry and be politically active “in the streets and at the ballot” as we are “all apart of [this] historical struggle.” Essentially, we must never forget our social roots, and must continue to uphold the legacy of worker power and independence that was established time and time again on May 1st, Mayday.

      As far as the effectiveness of the graphic format, I must say that I thought it was rather refreshing in comparison to the lengthy essays that we’re used to reading as students. The cheeky images and dynamic composition of each page makes for a rather exciting read, and really helps translate the novel’s messages into a visual display. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the read, and though that the graphic format itself was brilliant and a provided a great reading experience.

    • chliane 1:39 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The graphic novel argued that the May Day revolutions were constantly changing, and evolved over the years to mean different things for the workers, but most importantly that all the revolutions were fighting for something worthwhile, and should be commemorated. The workers united in demonstrations that fought for better working conditions, since the ones they had at the time were abysmal. Throughout the years, the first of May saw a lot of protests, which were different every time, from strikes to marches to public demonstrations. Some years were better than others, and there was no need to protest. Other years, especially leading up to the Great Depression saw wage cuts and widespread unemployment, and the people had lots to protest over. The novel talks about the changes and the different revolts, and how all of them were a significant part of history, and that their efforts need to be recognized.

      Society was deeply divided along class lines in 1919, but this division also served to unite them within their classes. The working classmen were united in demanding shorter workdays and higher wages. Upper and middle classes were united in denying the working class what they wanted. The limitations to uniting around class lines were that they were still very different within the classes. The middle class, most noticeably consisted of a wide variety of professions, with very little in common.

      The graphic format is a very refreshing change of pace from a traditional article, and is easy to read with images that help me, as a very distractible person, stay focus and interested. I personally find that having pictures to follow along with the text makes the reading go much faster, as it draws attention to the most important points in the article, and I do not have to re-read large portions of the text to understand the text in depth.

    • amrita 5:34 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Had I been able to obtain the graphic novel May Day, I’m sure that I might have been interested in the different form the information of workers’ history has been presented. I understand that the argument in the novel was based on workers who protested their working conditions, including the hours and wages. The protests occurred during the Great Depression and every May there were strikes, demonstrations and protests to create changes in the system. Thus, May Day refers to the day workers come together to let their voices be heard so that they could have shorter work days and higher wages. Generally, I dislike graphic novels because of the imagery; I prefer to imagine situations from the written word and having images in novels crowds my mind.

    • Marissa Waldron 6:28 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Q: What is the argument? How effective is the graphic format and why?

      The graphic novel, May Day: A Graphic History of Protest, sets forth to bring May Day to the attention of many of us who do not even know it exists, and even if we do, do not know the historical basis behind it. The novel depicts the change of the worker’s revolutions over time, and that these worker-lead protests for change occurred, are currently occurring, and will occur again. The novel argues that the celebration of May Day – in essence, celebrating the independence of workers and collaboration to fight for better working conditions – is something that all should remember and be proud of! The novel also goes on to explain how current political climates, such as the Cold War threats of communism and economic factors, such as the depression, fueled workers towards fighting for their rights, banding unions together and supporting each other towards a common cause. The issue of social status – working class versus elite – is also highlighted in the text, and the overall poor conditions was a push factor for the workers to band together against the elitist upper class – yet another example of widespread collaboration. For me, the idea of striking and layoffs on the job hits close to home. My Dad is pulp and paper worker and my Mum a school district secretary (part of CUPE), and I can distinctly remember times in my childhood and adolescence when they both were on strike. My mum was lucky – her contract was renegotiated and the workers were given a very fair compromise. My Dad on the other hand, was laid off and in order to return to work, had to sign a contract (along with the rest of the workers) to take a large pay cut and vacation time cut in order to get their jobs back. He still attends his local Union meetings, and so the reality of my Dad going back on strike is always a possibility, and I’ve grown up supported by union work.

      The use of the graphic novel was very interesting. I found myself very drawn into the material, with the different texts, pictures, and quotes throughout the novel. I’m one who usually has a tough time sitting through articles, but I found quite the opposite true with the graphic novel. I think that this format is very effective as it draws in the reader, and you have options of what to read in a semi-constructed order (versus a paper or article). Overall, it was an excellent read!

    • jenniferbishop 6:44 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In Mayday: A Graphic History of Protest by Robin Folvik, Sean Carleton, Mark Leier, they argue that most people see Mayday as the first day of spring instead of seeing it as a day to protest working continues. They state that May first is suppose to be the day to celebrate and protest working conditions such as working wages, and hours. The graphic novel continues on to give examples from all the important Mayday protests and strikes throughout history. By choosing to present this information in the form of a graphic novel, the authors are capable to show the readers the situation these people are in. Folvik, Carleton, Leier are able to illustrate the exactly what it was like for people working at this time, and what their protests would look like. By using images it allows the audience to easier see what the authors is trying to portray instead of the audience creating their own mental image based on the authors description. A graphic novel is very effective in presenting this information because seeing images of the workers gives the reader a more complete sense of the situation than just reading about it.

    • oftheawkwards 1:30 pm on February 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In recent years, May Day is more of a childrens festival to celebrate the arrival of spring. As an immigrant to this country, I have only recently learned of the origins of this holiday. A day to remember the sacrifice and work done for the rights of the working class. In the graphical novel May Day, the origins of this international holiday is explained. As for its effectiveness, I is more to the point and ensure that the information portrait does not deviate from the author’s intentions. The Artist’s artwork can help emphasize certain points that the overall argument is presenting. With limited words and description maining saturated within the artwork, there is little room for personal interpretation and distributed weight of the situation.

      The Argument of the graphic novel is that the celebration of May Day is in actuality about worker protest and not of the arrival of spring. It is a celebration of the martyrs and the violence that occurred in the protests. it is a celebration of the struggles the working class. it is also a reminder of the hardships the working class had to endure, and the resistance to change the government held.

      For Expository Pieces about this topic, it is more effective if only information and history is presented. if this was written as a book, it leaves room for interpretation, also leaves room for sceptics to place certain less weight on certain facts.

    • liorbarel 11:10 pm on February 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The main argument that the graphic novel is portraying is that the spirit of May Day, in terms of the celebration of labor and workers, must be kept alive. A graphic novel is definitely a good way to attack this goal, as its pictures help the reader to get more involved emotionally, not just rationally, in the topic.

      I think, though, that in a lot of ways the graphic novel uses too much data, i.e. too many facts, and not enough emotion to connect with its readers. Also, its simplification of the emotion behind May Day makes the history of killing and imprisonment and state violence against its workers fighting for their rights seem childlike, and makes out as if the reason we should keep the spirit of May Day alive is so that we remember how, in the past, our ancestors fought for workers rights. Of course he says we have to continue to fight, but he doesn’t focus on it and he doesn’t make a good case for it.

      I don’t think the author believes that. I think the author knew too much about the factual history, and didn’t know what to take out and what to leave in. I also think he probably wants to continue to see workers struggle for their rights and unionize – otherwise he wouldn’t have written a book about May Day and its history. Summarily, I think that a graphic novel that told more of a story, and matched its pictures with its emotions, would have been a great way to represent May Day – I don’t think the medium is inherently childish (Maus, for example, does a good job at this) – but I don’t think it was done correctly in terms of what the author was trying to convey and what he actually conveyed.

      • Kaitlin 3:31 pm on February 13, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Thank-you all for your passionate & thoughtful responses to the “May Day” graphic novel we read for tutorial this week.

        It sounds like there’s a decent division between those who enjoyed and appreciated the visual elements of the book (as a “break” from reading long, purely textual articles…!) and those who felt distracted by the lettering or disappointed in the way the graphic medium was used (less of a distinct narrative). At least two of you mentioned reading other graphic novels (Sartrapi’s “Persepolis” triology & Spielgelman’s “Maus” trilogy), and I’m curious if others have read these books–or other novels–with distinct politics behind them? If yes, have your experiences with those other novels affected your opinion and expectations for this one? What are the differences between the goals of memoirs (as “Persepolis” and “Maus” are) and social histories like “May Day”?

        Rather, do you think you would have liked “May Day” more if it were LESS overtly political?

        What does the rest of L1A think? We’re still waiting to hear from 7 of you!

    • amandawoodland 1:46 pm on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “Please blog about your response to the novel – what is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?”

      The main argument of this graphic novel is that “we” ought to “reclaim May Day … and keep its fighting tradition alive” (4). The direction of the argument towards “us” (as opposed to simply presenting the information generally), May Day intends to build a connection between its readers and the subjects of the story – namely, the workers who have struggled over the years. Suggesting that it is “our” responsibility to keep the struggle and spirit of May Day alive is supposed is an effective way to gain support for the argument, because most people (by nature) are more interested and invested in issues that pertain to them (somewhat) directly. Making a connection achieves this.

      The graphic format of the text is also effective, as it communicates the “essence” of the argument. Bolded and/or creatively-drawn words draw attention to the most important terms and phrases; an example of this occurs on page 9 in the words “trade union.” Achievements and causes for celebration in the story are also greatly emphasized, as on page 25 with the words “100 years of resistance” placed inside a decorative banner. Techniques such as these cause the support for and good aspects of the argument to stand out most in the reader’s mind.

      In terms of the illustrations, there are both positives and negatives to be argued. One positive is that incorporating drawings in with the text allows the author to clarify or represent concepts in abstract ways, which can actually be more effective than directly stating these concepts with words. It is encouraging for the reader to make their own connections based on interpretations of the drawings. For example, on page 13 a man is depicted with metal arms; when I saw this I immediately made the connection that workers were not treated like human beings so much as machines with a sole purpose of producing. The choice to use black and white paired with the sketch-style images (leading to non-identifying features in the characters and settings) makes the story easily relatable – it could be “us” shown here.

      One negative is that some of the representations are not fully clear. For example, on page 19 a man is depicted as a skeleton, but based on the content of the story in this particular panel, I am unable to interpret why this was done.

      Overall I considered May Day to be an efficient and creative way to relay this information and I enjoyed reading it.

    • FribaRezayee235 5:19 pm on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      First of all this book tells us that (May Day) the development of International Workers’ Day, May 1st, against the ever-changing economic and political backdrop in Canada’s history in 1880s. It is recognizing the importance of work and the historical struggles of workers to improve their lives, with a particular focus on the struggles of May 1st, the comic includes the reader as part of this history, and the story concludes that “We are all part of this historical struggle; it’s our history and our future.” His argument suggests that in the graphic novel is that many of the things now considered commonplace in the workplace are in fact things that were hard won by workers of the past through things like strikes, protests, and other direct actions. Things like the eight-hour workday and the five-day work week were won at the cost of lives. It suggests us to not forget those who fought and died for workplace rights that all of us expect to have today. The graphic novel illustrates the significant event which took place in Montreal in 1907. Students and socialists who were prevented the right to protest in the streets, decided to stop all means of transportation from proceeding. The authors also mention that this event was known as the “Monster Demonstration.” Further, the next image presents that a number of people who are holding signs while trying to tie a cobblestone street in half with a large rope. I felt that it was a positive impression while reading. The images have strong illustration of the event. Images tell more than it could be expressed in words. I am glad I read it, and educated myself regarding May Day protest. In fact the holidays that we have now it is all because of those brave women, and men. They paved the way for us.

    • lsmack 5:47 pm on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “May Day” is made so that the true spirit of Labour Day is not forgotten. It does not help that Labour Day is in September rather than May. May Day brings to focus its main and integral information in its history. This goes back farther then what it would suggest, that it does travel back to the Industrial era in Europe. Also, its message would be that the people are the ones who chose their leaders, with that, they should be out their voting as well as fighting for our rights.

      The saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words”(something like that), perfectly describes a handful illustrations in this graphic novel. For example, page 8 – top half, shows people constantly working throughout the year, throughout the seasons, in all industries. It shows people’s body language – heads held low, body slouching forward – which reflects their working conditions and how much time they had to put in for work. Another example, page 17 – top half, shows a three panel illustration of what happened overall. Panel one shows the laborers needing food for survival, panel two shows them going to work for the giant guy whose purpose is to make money, and panel three shows the workers leaving work, disgruntled and not happy with their working conditions.

      As for the lettering, it looks to be hand written and drawn, which shows me that it would be the laborers who created this booklet as they used what they would’ve had – paper and pen. Also, the reading was simple and straight forward, which means it would be made for the grade 10 level student, or the level of the average laborer.

    • ecopeland 6:44 pm on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The focus of “May Day” is to reemphasise Labor Day’s importance in Canada’s history. The graphic novel works to reignite the spirit of those striking workers in the readers, so that the memory of what they fought for, benefits largely unvalued in todays work force, are not forgotten. I also believe that “May Day” encourages the reader to be inspired by the strikers and rise to fight injustices still ongoing. Young readers of today should look at these past events and see that change can be made by those not just in positions of influence or power, but also by those determined enough to fight for it.
      The artistic expression of the historical information was effective in engaging the modern day reader, especially those of younger age, familiar and drawn to this type of medium. It works well to not only to provide a concrete sense of the lives and feelings of the workers in the 1880’s but challenges the reader to do more than just absorb the information but to draw from the images their own interpretation. Whilst the drawings and form can at times result in the simplification of the important events, it still allows a balance of creative and intellectual stimulation, little found in educational books these days. This said I feel that the form would put off more mature readers that are looking in this area, not because the perspective or content is poor but because the label ‘graphic novel’ comes with certain connotations and attachments, e.g. fiction writing.

    • Vinciane Boisson 6:45 pm on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The book depicts a strong unity between labourers of very different sectors, who allowed us to enjoy the legislation we have today in Canada, which protects us.

      The book is quite effective in my opinion; it allows an overview of how the legislation surrounding labour came to be what it is today in Canada, and most importantly, that unity is necessarity. However, the short format of the book might have to do with the fact that it considers many events without ever going much into it. Unfortunately, this dulls the emotional potential of the book,which in turn dulls the impact it has on the readers.

      I think the point of this book is to make us aware that we (in Canada, but in may other countries as well) lost this unity between citizens/labourers. It also highlights that progress is not a goal we achieve, but one we work towards, because there is no reaching an ideal. This mean that it should be constant, as it had been in the past. It also suggests that regression can and will happen if this “battle” is not constant.

    • richardj 6:57 pm on February 15, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The Mayday text retells the true story of the working underclass verses their corporate bosses; and yes it paints a disturbing view. They marched for recognition and fair bargaining rights that would eventually end in the death of two innocent marchers at the hands of the Police. The divide between the ruling upper class elite (factory owners) and the immigrant (working class) was further thrown into a frenzy when thousands of WW1 solders returned to Winnipeg hoping for jobs only to find nothing waiting for them. Some 12 thousand unionized workers walked off their job on May 15th, not surprisingly they were joined by 20 thousand others who wanted their voices heard; the great majority were WW1 veterans. The story in pictures become clouded at this point, who do you believe? the silent masses or the group of 1000(rumored to be the corporate elite). Many in the group of 1000 harkened to the past uprising (Riel) and viewed the protest as the beginnings of revolution. The power welded by the Union leaders over was thought to be the start a new provisional government process that had to be stopped at all cost. When the Winnipeg Police were fired by Mayor, the Civic/Provincial leadership called upon the Dominion Police(RNWMP) too intervene.

  • tamyers 5:36 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 4 T2 Wall 

    Contemporary Canada has been deeply affected by the War on Drugs. Yet drugs and drug law enforcement are not new. How do nation and identity factor into early 20th century Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement?

     

    • tyler5 5:57 pm on January 26, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Drug laws vary quite significantly from country to country. Nation and identity play a massive role in shaping society’s views of certain drugs and their usage. One only needs to compare certain countries with opposing drug laws. Countries like UAE for example, hand out lengthy jail terms for small possession of harmless drugs such as marijuana. This is because of the fact that UAE has a Islamic identity that greatly frowns upon drug use of any kind.

      If one is to observe Canadian drug policy, especially in regards to marijuana, there is a very different situation. I feel that Canadian identity is embodied in liberal progression and Canadians do not necessarily feel pride in holding true to age old conservative practices. Vancouver is a perfect example of the leniency that has developed around marijuana. In Vancouver’s downtown core, there are two establishments, The Amsterdam Cafe, and Cannabis Culture, that allow customers to openly smoke marijuana inside. The police are very aware that these stores operate in this capacity, but when it comes to enforcing the federal criminal law that states marijuana is illegal, the police turn a blind eye. Marijuana is openly smoked in the streets of BC, and on special occasions, such as April 20th (420, national pot day), free marijuana is handed out on the lawn of the art gallery. Marijuana is sold there on that date, (another illegal practice) in mass quantities, all under the watch of the police.

      I think, in terms of policies towards drug use and enforcement, the rules are very fluid despite the fact that the criminal code is legally binding. Canada is a country based very heavily on conventions and precedent, and I feel that this is a defining aspect of our national identity. This in mind, I am not surprised that marijuana has slowly been accepted as a kind of “pseudo-legal” drug in Canada. We as a nation have moved towards a more liberal progressive stance regarding this drug due to its very minimal health risks. The majority of federal political parties have even endorsed in their platforms that the full legalization and regulation of the drug will be a fantastic boost for the Canadian economy. This progression is a part of Canadian identity. It is in our nature as a nation to move in a liberal direction.

      As far as more dangerous drugs go, citizens and law enforcement understand the risks involved. Naturally, tougher sentences and jail time are given to those who disobey these laws. But even in regards to these drugs, Canadians react with a more liberal stance towards things like a “War on Drugs”, and mandatory minimums proposed by Harper’s Conservatives. The reason mandatory minimums proposed by Harper were never adopted is because he knew there was very little public support. The Canadian Department of Justice says that “in reality, the public supports mandatory sentencing only when asked to consider the most serious crimes of violence”, and that there is a “growing public disenchantment with the ‘War on Drugs'”.

      It is hard to imagine Canada as a country that would be as strict on drug use as nations such as the USA, UAE, Qatar, etc., I believe this is strictly due to the fact that contemporary Canadian perspectives on drug use are much more liberal. Moreover, I believe that these perspectives stem from a broader national Canadian identity that naturally moves in a liberal progressive fashion.

      Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr05_10/rr05_10.pdf

    • tazizi 2:13 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      After reading this week’s two articles, I feel pretty confident in saying that the drug law enforcement in the early 20th century wasn’t necessarily all about the use of opium. In fact, the new law seemed more about protecting Canada as a nation and the identity they had built for themselves. I see the drug law enforcement in the early 1900s more as a way to keep certain groups, specifically the Chinese, as aliens in Canada, and even removing them from the nation through deportation. The white, middle-class and elite who ran the country, were afraid of a large group of newcomers or immigrants who they thought to believe would undermine social stability (yellow peril). As the Hewitt article says, Chinese were thought as unable to be “Canadianized,” and fear was beneath the visible racial hatred.
      The situation reminded me of the act initiating compulsory education; similar to that law, the drug enforcement really only targeted one group of people. In addition, the law was used to either ensure assimilation into the “Canadian” way, or use as a reason to punish those who could not integrate.
      Of course, another big part of both articles was the use of the drug enforcement as a way to convince Canadians of the importance of the RCMP and ensure their survival as a group; if they were able to beat the drug problem, they would be seen as necessary. Again, this plays into the nation of Canada keeping their superior ways, especially because the people who were being convicted were largely Asian. In addition, the typical image of the RCMP would be a white man, one who is masculine, kind and just. This image would become the ideal and play into the national Canadian identity. Lastly, having a national police force also seems quiet European compared to Indigenous, which is another way to enforce assimilation of all non-European groups.

    • ecopeland 7:31 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the early 20th century Canada faced a situation of social unrest caused by the growing antagonism between Euro-Canadians and Asiatic labourers. The wide availability of narcotics, largely imported from Asia became the face of the socio-political battle ground. Following the anti-Asiatic riot, the government took a more focused look at the popularity of narcotics in its country. They used the ‘war on drugs’ in a way that undeniably had racist connotations, particularly when looking at the Opium Act, considered a drug predominately used by those in the Chinese-Canadian community. The fight against the Opium market, widely propagandised, became a symbol of the Canadian struggle against the Chinese. The introduction of the RCMP into the law enforcement agenda made it harder for the responsibility for the ongoing drug trade to be placed solely on the Chinese community, as the activities of white buyers and sellers were uncovered during the investigations. Not only lower class whites that the government could simply label the worst of their race, but also middle-class and professionals too. However the understaffed and underfunded department allocated to investigating the drug trade also can be seen to be providing the government and newspapers with the exact kind of fodder necessary to ensure that the racial antagonism prevailed.

    • jpellegrino 8:10 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Nation and identity definitely influenced and shaped early 20th century Canadian attitudes with reference to drug and law enforcement. To begin, when referring to the articles for this week’s reading, we can see how the nation felt in regards to immigration and the affects it may or may not have had on Canada’s identity as a whole. While the nation was concerned with drug usage and the negative affects that come with drugs, Canada was more concerned with the desire of preventative measures for immigration. Yvan touches on this when he explains that whites were in fear that Chinese opium users would soon take an affect on white Canadians. I believe that whites used the excuse of drugs as a scapegoat to alienate Chinese immigrants. Had the nation been honestly concerned with the use of drugs, the whites involved in Ban Kwong Lee’s case of Yvan’s article would have been charged as well. Another example demonstrating Canada’s lack of concern toward drugs is described in the latter article as well. Yvan explains that in August of 1923, officers residing in BC were said to have trafficked in drugs and could have possibly accepted bribes. Finally, due to the fact that some officers felt it be appropriate to drop charges against those immigrants whom they knew personally, displays the epitome of what kind of nation Canada was at the time. In attempting to prevent the nation from being looked upon as inferior, the Canadians decided to isolate the immigrants. Despite their efforts to look a certain way, the nation ceased to look “great.”

    • liorbarel 12:13 am on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Essentially, what these articles say is that the 1920s war on drugs is historically contingent. That is, it is rooted in its historical context of industrialization, urbanization, immigration, nationalism, and racism.

      In all history, there are instances of idealizing the past. With intense industrialization and urbanization, this idealization came in a pastoral form, in the idea that rural Canada was the most pure, untouched, and ideologically representative of everything that was good about Canada. Therefore there was an effort to violently subdue anything that could be considered immoral – for Canada in the 1920s, this came in the form of policing opium, which was an easy target as it was mostly used by immigrants (i.e. not rural white people).

      The RCMP at this time was experiencing what Prkachin calls a “crisis of legitimacy” (80). This crisis was due to a quickly changing environment (in the form of industrialization and urbanization) and a stagnant police force. It followed that in order to keep up with changing ideologies and institutions, the RCMP had to reinvent itself in the minds of Canadians, to stay relevant. And the things that were highly relevant were nationalism and racism by Anglo-Canadians – engendered by the aforementioned industrialization and urbanization – against new immigrants (or old ones), specifically Chinese-Canadians. They were an easy and relevant target, and the RCMP took the opportunity to police drugs to the fullest extent, fining, incarceration, and even deporting people for opium possession. A fact that I think proves the level of ideological policing (versus criminal policing) is that both articles cite the Great Depression as a turning point in RCMP activity, in which they move away from policing drugs and turn to the new internal conflict – the rise of radical ideologies and labor movements during the Great Depression. In other words, the war on drugs was completely historically contingent, based on an unfounded fear and hatred of a racial group – not a legitimate societal problem.

    • amandawoodland 1:44 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      During the early 20th century, nation and identity factored heavily into Canadian attitudes towards drug usage as well as law enforcement directed at putting a stop to such drug usage. As made evident by Steve Hewitt’s article, an idea of who and what made – or did not make – an ideal Canadian impacted the “War on Drugs” to a high degree; furthermore, one of the most prominent symbols which is considered to represent Canadian identity played a significant role in this war: the RCMP.

      During this time period, Canadian attitudes generally included fear and even hatred against those who didn’t belong; namely, Asian immigrants. It was thought that certain kinds of immigrants could be successfully assimilated into Canadian culture and molded to become ideal Canadian citizens, but that Asian immigrants could not. The fact that many Asian immigrants participated in the use of opium provided strong justification for action against them. As Hewitt states, the RCMP were a representative symbol of middle-class Anglo-Celtic masculinity as they sought to put a stop to the evil behaviours of those who are evil. People saw them as patriarchal protectors of Canadian security and white purity.

      It seems that nation and identity propelled the war on drugs by focussing heavily on a common enemy. The fact that drug usage among other ethnic group – even whites! – was not a focus; rather the “War on Drugs” was largely interconnected with the war against those who didn’t belong.

    • Vinciane Boisson 2:22 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      We have seen that the post-Confederation era was marked by a desire to define what being Canadian meant and what was distinctively Canadian, and that most of it revolved around the idea of North. Part of it was the theory according to which immigrants to Canada were people of the North, with Norse descent and consequent “superior” features and characteristics. This might have contributed to the suspicion and distrust in Asian immigrants, which was the context of the War on Drugs.

      Associated with it was the fact that drugs, and specifically opium, was said to come from Asia, and used predominantly by Chinese-Canadians. From there, drug served as both a catalyst and a pretext for racism towards the population of Asiatic origins. As a matter of fact, the first law on drug in Canada was passed after the Vancouver riots that consisted in racist slogans and the vandalizing of Chinatown.

      This period is also marked by the decline of the RCMP which was less and less useful. As a result, it is not far-fetched to imagine that, in an effort to recreate a need for them, the fears of the white Canadian population were artificially exacerbated by creating a sort of hysteria surrounding drugs.

    • tyler5 5:10 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I hope everyone enjoyed my contemporary view on drugs in Canada and the world posted above ^. Here is my actual response to the articles.:

      These articles shed enormous light on the racial discrimination and national identity that existed in Canada during the early twentieth-century. The primary theme behind these articles addresses both racial and national aspects, especially in regards to the perpetuation and reinforcement of a waning Canadian nationalist sentiment. The drug laws introduced in this area were in fact a way to create propaganda in favour of anglo-Canadian interests, and ensure security of Canadian identity. The war on drugs was defined by the Opium Act, and the racist connotations that it entailed. It was a political tool used to create a pseudo-war against Chinese immigrants who did not reflect a Canadian nationalist point of view. The Chinese, with whom were the major players involved in the opium trade, did not reflect the stereotypical master race settler that we read about in Carl Berger’s article. In fact, many, including the Asiatic Exclusion league, aimed at preventing Chinese immigrants from entering Canada altogether. This only reinforces the point that the drug laws were aimed at distinguishing certain groups as distinct minorities. The laws also were important in the sense that they pushed immigrants to conform to a Canadian way of life, and in essence acted as an important method of promoting assimilation.

      Another important aspect of these articles, and building on the idea of national identity, is the role played by the RCMP. As we talked about in class, the RCMP embodied a symbol of Canadian nationalism. The readings make it clear that the RCMP had had difficulty remaining a legitimate force in the eyes of the public. However, with the implementation of the drug laws, there needed to be an authority to enforce these laws. This brought legitimacy back to the RCMP, and again, the white northern stereotypical RCMP member could pit Canadians against foreign insurgence of immigrants. The RCMP used this authority to their advantage, and were not hesitant to strictly enforce the opium laws.

      I think these articles speak heavily to the fact that what we have been taught to learn about Canadian multicultural acceptance, especially in terms of those trying to make a life in our country, is skewed. What we have learned in this course so far is only reinforced by these articles. These articles make it clear that anglo-Canadian interests often lead to racial tension between minorities. During the pre-confederation years, it was the indigenous Canadians who were discriminated against. While one cannot overlook the racism targeted at first nations during the twentieth-century, it is also important to look at the growth of racism, and how Canadian nationalist sentiment carried racist undertones.

    • amrita 5:30 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the early 20th century , opinions of a few major groups in the nation of Canada and the belief that a certain moralistic image of Canadian identity must be upheld resulted in increasingly hostile and aggressive attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement before those attitudes finally mellowed out in the later part of the century. Before the first world war, most Canadians had little to no concern for the issue of drug usage. They saw it as a “dirty and deplorable” practice, of course, but one that was confined to the Chinese population. They tolerated their use of opium as an acceptance of just how the Chinese were — a racial stereotype that appeared to have no harm at first. There was very light law enforcement by the mounted police; they mainly worked on intelligence reports and investigative work. However, in 1907 a riot against asiatics occurred in Vancouver and William Lyon Mackenzie King, the deputy minister of labour, was sent to investigate the cause. He performed an amateur investigation and deemed that opium was a grave cause for concern, subsequently he created and helped pass the Opium and Narcotics Drugs Act a few weeks later. Despite that, for a dozen years after the creation of the act, law enforcement on drug crimes did not increase. In the early 1920’s, however, after the first world war, Canadian attitudes regarding the enforcement of the law on drug usage began to shift. People did not want the Great War to have been in vain and wanted greater social reform. Groups such as the RCMP and middle-class reformers such as Emily Murphy began to espouse the horrors of the drug opium, particularly as it pertained to the much-hated Chinese people. Views such as the one Mackenzie King announced began to take root; he bluntly expressed how the manhood of the nation would be destroyed and how if more stronger policing did not occur, we could expect Canadians’ morals to be corrupted and the feminization of the nation. As many Canadians strongly believed in and desired to uphold the image of Anglo-Canadian dominance, they welcomed the aggressive behavior with which the RCMP persecuted, at first, distributors of drugs and later, the victims or users of drugs. Though the RCMP did want to persecute those in violation of the law, they were a symbol of nationalism, of something good and right fighting against what is evil and disliked which would be both the Chinese and drugs, and this is why stricter policing was allowed by the Canadian public. As the RCMP took on puritanical airs and the media and judicial system became increasingly intolerant and hostile towards drug usage, the moral pressure from the urban areas began to filter into rural developments and resulted in a higher number of convictions and stimulated fear that otherwise would not have existed. In the end, the prevailing attitudes that resulted in the strong level of enforcement of drug usage by the RCMP was not simply done “for humanity”, but it was a greater symbol of how racism had evolved from targeting indigenous groups, defenseless people trying to survive in an anglicized nation, to another: the Asiatic population.

    • Marissa Waldron 5:35 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Like we discussed last week, identity and nationalism played huge roles in forming a truly “the Great White North.” Playing on this notion, the War on Drugs was perhaps not only to control a spreading epidemic, but also to protect the identity of “true Canadians” that had been built. Often times, drug users are branded as lazy, which is in direct opposition to the hard working, Northern immigrants that Canada sought to draw in during the push to settle the West. This more “southern” way of living could have been perceived as a threat to the new Canada. Here, Chinese-Canadians provided an easy opportunity for oppression and targeting, which eventually led to intense racism (like my above classmate eluded to about the riots due to Chinatown vandalism). The RCMP also played a huge role in this aspect of Canadian history – with decreasing numbers, they had to show their strength, with the white men in uniform cracking down on drug use and possession of Chinese-Canadians, sometimes deporting individuals, and also (to their surprise) find first and second generation Canadians also engaging in drug use. There was also an ideology that some immigrants could be shaped or molded into “real” Canadians, and some (aka drug users) could not.
      However, in modern day, we are seeing more and more liberal use of drugs, specifically marijuana, in places like here in Vancouver. A noticeable percentage of community members are users, and there are even establishments where the drug can be used, as well as its use outside on April 20th (4/20). With the current push to legalize marijuana, it will be interesting to map the possible changes in marijuana and other harder drug enforcement, and to see if history repeats itself (which we all know, it usually does!)

    • chliane 5:39 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement was highly influenced by nation and identity in the early 20th century. The way drug law enforcement was approached during this period shows us a lot about how Canadians identified themselves, and who was not included in this identity. Hewitt discusses how the Asian Canadians faced a lot of discrimination at this time, as shown by the anti-asian riots. They were seen as ‘unassimilable,’ mainly due to their appearance that could never fit the current Canadian ideal of strong, white and masculine males. Hewitt notes that the Chinese opium smokers were mostly old men who were ‘peaceful and docile,’ and would have given the police little trouble, but for the fact that they were Chinese. This strong dislike of Asians would explain the many Opium Acts, since the drug was seen as predominately Chinese in nature. Canadian attitudes towards drug law enforcement was no doubt very racist during the early 20th century.

      I agree with Vinciane’s argument that this period was characterized by attempts to create a Canadian culture that could be distinct from the Americans and the British, which would serve the purpose of uniting the country. However, they had not yet come to the conclusion that multiculturalism could be Canada’s trademark, and so Canada’s identity still included the exclusion of other cultures, which was exhibited in their use of drug law enforcement.

      This behavior of targeting the Asians, most of whom worked menial jobs is not unlike the targeting of African-Americans in by policemen in America today. Throughout history we have seen that the lower classes or minority races were often oppressed and singled out by authority to pay as scapegoats or discriminated against. I do not think that the discrimination of Asian Canadians in this way was exceptional, but it is still disappointing.

    • madden34 5:44 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Nation and identity play a massive role in shaping society’s views of certain drugs and their usage. The drug law enforcement in the early 1900s kept certain groups, specifically the Chinese, as aliens in Canada, and even removing them from the nation through deportation. Drugs are frowned upon, it doesn’t matter what the nation is or its identity. Opium was the major drug used in the 19th century The RCMP played a major role here as well as they targeted many Chinese seeking “revenge” and was associated with Asia, therefore the aliens (chinese) were categorized with this drug and racial tensions occurred. At this time Canada did not know it would be later known by multiculturalism , so at this time, Canada still excluded cultures at this time as stated by Chilaine.

    • lindswong 6:56 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As seen from early on, the war on drugs has proved to be problematic and issue that Canada has had to deal with. However how we look at drugs now and now deal with issue is much different the way it was seen and “controlled” in the past, particularly during the interwar wars. Today we mainly worry of the harm it does to our youth and therefore we focus much attention on educating the youth of the harmful effects of drugs and the reason why they should say “no” to them. In the early 20th century, the use of drugs was detrimental not only in a physical sense, but symbolically also.
      Drugs in the early 1900s were seen to degrade the system and tarnish the “Great Canadian Image.” Therefore, nation and identity played a major role in this issue. Before the Great War the drug issue in Canada had minimally been focused on but following the war there was “an increase in popular concern for preserving human life an moral character; as result attitudes towards drug users in Canada began to harden.” The target were immigrants. Particularly, the Chinese were targeted in the new strict drug laws as they were the one seen as having introduced opium to Canada. Often they would be the people searched and deported for usage of use of narcotics, and white men caught doing the same were given more leniency. Canadian police were able to play up their actions by convincing the people that drugs was no longer exclusive to foreigners, but was also becoming rampant among the white community, including women and the youth.
      Foreigners, particularly the Chinese, became the targets, whether in search warrants given to look for drugs, in newspaper headlines, etc., in order to bring forth this idea that this degradation by drugs was a foreign intervention and not a disposition of the Canadian nature. Therefore, despite the involvement of many white people in the use of drugs, the immigrants were still blamed for being the bad influence in Canada, thus destroying our “Great Canadian Image.” Canada at this time saw themselves as a superior country to others, a country with a superior race and a pure image. Thus, it was vital that it was that the immigrants would be portrayed as the source of the drug problem for the preservation of the canadian image and the nation.

    • aviaah 7:04 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From the two articles provided, it’s clear that Canadian attitude towards drug usage and law enforcement in Canada during the 20th century was based in nationalism and national identity. The “Myth of the Yellow Peril” was a racially prejudice driving force that was constructed by the Western world in response to what they considered a threat: the growing presence of Asiatic peoples in Canada. In terms of nationalism and identity, it can be gathered that this myth spawned from the innate Western desire to preserve Western culture and identity amidst the arrival and presence of immigrants from variant ethnically, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Westerners felt that the Chinese, in particular, lacked the ability to assimilate into Canadian culture, and thus they were widely disliked. This dislike correlates with the drug usage and law enforcement issue at the time, and although the issue was not entirely that prominent to begin with, the fixation on eliminating drug usage and those who used and sold it became a top priority of the state, and of Canadian law enforcement in particular. The RCMP saw a decline in their presence and relevance during the interwar period, and thus to focus their efforts on narcotic elimination, specifically on opium, an Asiatic drug that was ultimately linked to the Chinese. This intense fixation played off of the racial currents that were circulating during the 20th century. By specifically focusing on decimating opium from Canadian territory, the Chinese were targeted by the RCMP as perpetrators of opium sales and usage. Furthermore, they were labeled as threats to the stability of Canadian culture and the population, expressly being labeled as negative influences on women and children. Thus, due to the nationalistic value of the time, which was preserving the Canadian culture and identity and having it progress, there was a push to stereotype the Chinese as perpetrators of drug trafficking, and therefore they were prosecuted heavily, and ultimately deported as a result of racial bias and accusation.

    • richardj 10:53 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada’s moral compass and Nationalist identity were driven by early 20th century politicians with agenda’s based on racial indifference and intolerant attitudes. With great influx of Chinese immigrant labour force, the likelihood of a clash of cultures and social behaviors was going to happen. Unfortunately, the politicians took aim at the largest single group that had arrived on Canadian soil; the Chinese brought with them strong backs and recreational drug use. Where there is a large work force in a urban centres, there will be a demand for drug(s) or alcohol (which is a drug) and other recreational entertainment. Canada’s moral compass was thrown off center when opium and cocaine became the drugs of choice; the largest user group, the Chinese workers were targeted by the Federal authorities. The RNWMP/RCMP weren’t given a choice, they were following orders handed down from the Minister of Justice to the RCMP Commissioner and finally the front line Officers. One must not lose sight that the RCMP’s role prior to the 1920’s was reactionary, there dealt with issues as they were reported. The proactive drug enforcement approach initiated by the Federal Government under McKenzie KING was driven by intolerance and media mayhem as a means to an end. Most drug prosecutions today are measured whether it’s in the public interest or not to proceed and whether there likelihood of a successful conviction. In KING’s day, racial drug prosecutions were driven by their Political masters, there was no fairness at trial for the less fortunate Chinese labourer.

    • FribaRezayee235 3:57 pm on January 31, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Drug law enforcement

      By the late nineteenth century, a profitable opium importation business had developed in Vancouver Island, where numerous opium refineries operated openly. Nine drugs were used by many members of Canadians society, from the wealthy and educated to immigrant laborers such as the numerous Chinese sojourners in BC’s urban and rural communities (who smoked opium). The drug panices of the 1920s certainly had a strong impact on the lives of Chinese individuals living in Canada by 1932, 4,900 had been convicted under the onda. 103 however, some studies suggest that these moral panics were more prevalent and longer lasting in urban BC than the were in rural BC, where key features of ethnic and social organization had previously prevented widespread concern. Furthermore, opium smoking was certainly practiced by the large number of sojourning Chinese labourers in BC’s rural areas. Mostly male immigrants from China’s Pearl River Delta region brought the habit with them during the gold rushes of the midnineteenth century. Opium use in rural BC is recorded indirectly in local newspapers as early as the 1860s. As Lily Chow suggests, the nature of Chinese life in the interior likely contributed to the desire to use drugs. Working menial jobs as labourers, cooks, domestic servants, laundry operators, and occasionally small-business owners, the Chinese in rural BC were often isolated from forms of amusement and escapism popular with whites. Recalling life in the interior. Drug use was criminalized in Canada in 1908 following the passage of the Opium Act, which was indirectly the result of the 1907 Vancouver anti-Asiatic riot. In response to the riot, then deputy minister of labour William Lyon Mackenzie King was sent to investigate, claims made for compensation and was surprised to receive two claims from opium manufacturerers who had been operating legally in Vancouver for many years. Concerned with the possibility that the Chinese practice was spreading to whites, Mackenzie King began an amateurish investigation into the opium trade in Vancouver and began corresponding with members of the Chinese Anti-Opium league. Two weeks later King submitted his Report on the Need for the Suppression of the Opium Traffic in Canada, and in the following weeks the Opium Act passed without debate. This act initially prohibited “the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes.” In 1911, the charge of smoking opium was added to the revised Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act (onda). The new law made smoking opium an offence that carried a maximum penalty of a fifty-dollar fine and one month in prison. It is worth mentioning that drug laws vary quite significantly from country to country. Nation and identity lay an important role in shaping society’s prospective of certain drugs, and their usage. One only needs to compare certain countries with opposing drug laws. For instance, a country like Afghanistan sentence to jail whoever is caught with drug even in terms for small possession of harmless drugs as such as marijuana. In Canada today RCMP has the Enforcement Action Plan and it has increased law enforcement’s capacity to proactively target organized crime involvement in illicit drug production and distribution operations, with a focus on marihuana grow operations and clandestine laboratories. Funding has also enhanced the capacity of the criminal justice system to investigate, interdict and prosecute offenders. Two main articles from National Anit-Drug Strategy are: • Ensures that serious penalties are in place for serious drug crimes;
      • Increases the capacity of Canada Border Service Agency to inhibit the cross-border movement of precursor chemicals and illicit drugs. Eric Slinn, director of the Drug Branch at the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa, is responsible is responsible for branch activities including those related to the Drugs & Organized Crime Awareness Service (DOCAS). Supt Slinn provided a brief overview of the present situation of Canadian drug products, the drug landscape and related drug problems in our country. He stated that The Canadian drug situation typically consists of cannabis, cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy), other hallucinogens, PCP, Meth (Methamphetamine) but in the past 5 to 10 years, many things have changed in drug enforcement with the emergence of MDMA and Meth and the re-emergence of PCP on a lesser scale. Due to this emergence and new drug availability, in the past 5 years some drug products have remained relatively stable in terms of amounts seized in Canada. Unfortunately, the drug data is not as current as we would like to see it and is approximately one year behind. I suggest it should be kept illegal because its dangerous affects on human health.

  • tamyers 4:58 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 1 T2 Wall 

    I am Canadian

    Watch “Canadian, Please.” And “I am Canadian,” (Molson Beer Ad).

    What do these shorts (collectively watched by 6 million) say about Canadian identity in the 21st century? What’s being sold and who’s buying?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWQf13B8epw

     

    • liorbarel 12:17 am on January 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the 21st century, Canadian identity is made up of various historical symbols that have been removed from their historical contingencies and placed in the center of Canadian identity. In other words, I don’t think it matters much what the symbols symbolize, per se, except for the fact that they symbolize something intrinsically Canadian. This identity is being sold in the “I Am Canadian” Molson Beer Ad and the Canadian, Please” video through a combination of nationalism and the rejecting of other nations, especially the US. I think that by juxtaposing the US and Canada, especially in the ideological fight over North America (in which Mexico never takes a part), the videos seek to say that Canadian identity is unique from, and moreover superior to, the identity of any other nation. What’s being sold is a vapid Canadian identity, based on empty reinvention of historical symbols (save for the idea of pro-being a Canadian, whatever that means, which exists in all the symbols), and who’s buying is every Canadian who does not take a critical eye to their own history (so, the vast majority of people). But maybe that isn’t so negative as I said it, maybe forgetting parts of history for the sake of community and nationalism is a good thing. I don’t think so, but it was a thought I had and I’m not sure why I disagree with it.

      • Kaitlin 5:38 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        There are several interesting things in your response to the videos here. First, I’m intrigued about the ideological fight over North America (and the fact that Mexico doesn’t seem to take part in it)–what do you see the US & Canada fighting ABOUT in North America? Do you see Canadian identity propaganda as an attempt to prove superiority over ALL other nations–or just our neighbour to the south? As well, your comment about forgetting parts of history to foster community/nationalism not necessarily being a healthy activity to engage in as a country is insightful, and we’ll explore some of the versions of the stories we tell to each other and ourselves as “Canadians” this term. To help you begin thinking about why you disagree with acts of forgetting, what is it that feels wrong about it? What are some examples of these “forgettings”, and why do you think they are important to Canadian history?

        Don’t worry about answering all of those questions on here–they’re just some things to keep in mind! Good work!

    • tazizi 2:50 pm on January 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      My initial reaction after watching the two shorts was to say the Canadian identity is something that is usually being made fun of. It seems that no one has been able to really define what it means to be Canadian. Universally, we appear to have gotten a reputation for being associated with being lumberjacks, living in igloos, playing hockey, beavers and moose, and constantly saying “eh” and “sorry,” which all contribute to this Canadian identity. Some of these symbols, such as beavers, have been taken out of their historical contingencies and are now used to represent us as a country. Although, like these clips, the Olympic ceremony that featured big, blow up flying beavers and lumberjacks show that while we may not have something big, like the fiscal power of the USA, or the monarchy of Britain, that clearly defines the Canadian identity, it is something that many people want. We pride ourselves for having medical coverage, being polite, living in a beautiful and vast country, and accepting diversity; perhaps the most pushed selling point of the Canadian identity, is that we are our own entity, and definitely not American. Whatever the Canadian identity is, all we really know is that it’s not anything like the American identity. In addition, not only are we unique from other countries, but we like to make it sound superior, showing our nationalism. It seems that even though we try to sell this idea to the world, and some people do buy into it, I feel it is largely Canadians that buy this image. We rally around the idea that we are not Americans, even if we don’t know how to really define our own identity.

      • Kaitlin 5:43 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        You’ve touched on something really important, albeit slippery, about popular perceptions of 21st century Canadian identity here: the fact that we are not American. Do you think that Canada & Canadians NEED to be defined as/by something we’re NOT–or do you think we could stand alone? In other words, what/who do you think Canada/Canadians would be if we didn’t have the USA to compare and contrast ourselves with?!

        (For the record, I also thought those blow-up, flying beavers were kind of ridiculous!)

    • tyler5 3:07 pm on January 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe that what is being sold here is the creation of some sort of Canadian identity and sense of patriotism that most Canadians generally do not feel. There are many reasons as to why most Canadian’s are seen as lacking a patriotic spirit, but our vast geographical spread harbouring numerous cultural identities provides the best explanation. Since it is tremendously difficult for someone in British Columbia to feel a patriotic connection to someone living in Newfoundland I think these two videos grasp the few shared aspects of culture that Canadians from all regions hold in regard. There is an attempt to overlook the differences that make Canada unique as a nation made up of many nations, and instead, create a sense of patriotism and identity through shared Canadian icons like health care, beavers, peacekeeping, and of course, hockey. These aspects of Canadian life seem to do a fantastic job of drawing Canadians together; one only needs remember the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, and the sense of patriotic national pride felt by many Canadians, especially after winning gold in men’s and women’s hockey.

      Both videos obviously pit Canada against other nations, most importantly the USA, in attempts to create an identity strictly by not being someone else. This, along with the few cultural aspects that Canadian’s share, seems to be the defining criteria of 21st century Canadian identity. The purpose of these videos differs for each. The song “Canadian, Please”, was probably in response to the Olympics that occurred the same year in which the song was released. Although using the same tactics in the Molson Ad, Joe the Canadian had a much different objective. With competition against massive American beer corporations like Budweiser, Coors, etc, Molson used this ad to create a Canadian identity and hopefully make Canadians want to buy Canadian beer.

      In reality, it is difficult to feel the same sense of patriotism as someone who lives 7000km away, but these videos attempt to create a sense of Canadian identity, and ultimately help define 21st century Canadian identity, by highlighting a few common aspects of life that all Canadians share; whether it be hockey, beavers, healthcare, or just the fact that we are not American.

      • Kaitlin 5:56 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Tyler, you did a great job of pointing to the potential motivations behind the creation of these two videos–especially the profit agenda lurking in the background of the Molson (” Buy Canadian”) ad. It’s also interesting how you referred to the American beer companies as “massive”, as if Molson was a small-town brewing company dwarfed by comparison to its US competitors!
        Your mention of the difficulty of a British Columbian & Newfoundlander feeling connected to each other as Canadians also raises the great questions about geographical and cultural nuances affecting Canadian identity across the provinces and territories: do you think that responses to hockey, beavers, healthcare, non-American status are, in fact, common across the country? I wonder how a citizen in the NWT or Francophone in Quebec might respond to these videos, to take two examples…

    • madden34 5:44 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      After watching the 2 short youtube films, “I am Canadian” and “Canadian Please” it is obvious that the majority of Canadian population understands and represents truly what a Canadian stands for in his or her lifetime. For example, Canada’s identity has always been being the peacekeepers around the world and not wanting to get involved in wars. They love to play hockey and say “eh”. I believe the “I am Canadian” ad is very correct by Molson, and that is how many people see Canadians outside of Canada. Canada may not know it, but it is in fact being sold TO them. In order to build nationalism for the country we use these tactics of always being “polite” and images of beavers and lumberjacks to stay molded together. Canada is a great country to live in with health benefits and a great landscape. These films outlined how proud we should be to be Canadian and to live in such a wonderful country. The Canadians are buying this information as it is always revolving around us. For example, when Canadians travel ( or even Americans) they will put the Canadian Flag ( with a maple leaf; another symbol) on their backpacks in order to display their “background” creating a good image for them. 21st century identity is outlined by the videos representing what Canadians are and what we stand for.

      • Kaitlin 6:07 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Kyle, thank you for your response highlighting some of the more “lovable” aspects of Canadian identity, as well as for suggesting that such pleasant images are also being “sold” to Canadian citizens who may not be too concerned with what it means to live in Canada. To continue thinking critically about Canadian identity, try to think of some examples that might undermine sweeping statements about who Canadians are. For example, do ALL communities across Canada enjoy playing (or even watching!) hockey? What about our reputation as peacekeepers–what kinds of roles did Canada play in WWII? Korea? Afghanistan?

    • jpellegrino 6:11 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These videos tell us a lot about our Canadian identity. More importantly, each video relies heavily on stereotypical ideas to describe our country as a whole. Each of the videos uses these stereotypes in a different way. For example, the beer ad “I Am Canadian,” uses a satirical approach. In doing so, the ad points fun at the fact that people outside of Canada stereotype us Canadians, as lumberjacks and fur traders who live in igloos. The advertisement then labels Canadians with more stereotypes, while bringing in patriotic music. Because of the way in which this advertisement goes about selling their product, I believe that the beer is being sold to young, Canadian men. On the other hand, the next video uses a song as a way to shine light on Canadianism. Also pointing out stereotypes, this song is directed to both children and adults. Using the song and costume helps to engage those of younger ages; meanwhile, the lyrics have more meaning to older groups. After watching both of these videos, I think that each is tells us that Canadian identity of the twenty-first century is highly labeled and that our history has more to it than just beavers, RCMP’s and Hockey. While the video is able to attract those whom they intend to, using these Canadian, satirical stereotypes, they do not tell us any more than what most of us already know. In hindsight, the videos tell us that Canadian identity of this day and age needs to be further distinguished apart from universal stereotypes.

      • Kaitlin 6:35 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Nice work shedding light on the irony of the Molson ad replacing stereotypes of Canadians with… more stereotypes! I’m curious what exactly it is about the video that prompts you to speculate that the beer is being sold to young men, though. Do you think the things that Joe Canadian is referring to are somehow more “masculine” than “feminine”? By extension, is the Canadian identity that Joe/Molson promote embodied only by guys who look like Joe?!

    • lindswong 7:59 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These shorts portray a view of Canada that is stereotypical and defensive. Particularly in “Canadian Please,” the chorus defends Canadian icons in reference to other countries’ icons in order to protect our image as a country that is proud of our accomplishments. It enforces Canadian stereotypes in order to give us a distinct identity that has been carried and developed throughout the centuries. In the Molson Canadian commercial there is more a portrayal of what modern Canadians truly are, and particularly why we should be seen at least as important as our southerly neighbour. These shorts try to prove that Canada is more than just that “push-over” country living in the shadow and fear of the U.S. Canada in the 21st century has moved on from the past, such the fear of manifest destiny that was a driving factor in confederation. Instead it focuses on our achievements and accomplishments and our overall development into a united and strong country. Together these shorts are selling an image of being Canadian, not as that country who has icons like any other country, but as a country filled with people who embrace and are even proud of these stereotypes no matter how ridiculous they may seem sometimes. Whose buying this image? The world. These shorts are aimed at all those who aren’t Canadian and have yet to know why our stereotypes are different than everyone else’s stereotypes. We want the world to buy the belief that we stand together in unity as a country that is distinct as well as diverse and proud to be Canadian!

      • Kaitlin 6:50 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Hi there! You’re heading toward an interesting analysis of these shorts when you suggest that they are aimed at “all those who aren’t Canadian and have yet to know why our stereotypes are different” from others’. Can you speak a little bit about HOW and WHY you think that Canadian stereotypes are different? Or why you think it’s important that “the world” “buy” the idea that Canadians stand together in unity? Your language there ( about “buying” who Canadians are) is fascinating, as it sounds like national identity is something to be consumed–like a nice, cold beer for example!

    • Vinciane Boisson 1:45 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These two videos repeat the same stereotypes that have been and are broadcast about Canadians and Canada. Like stereotypes about every countries, although they are partly based on truth, they are now outdated or largely exaggerated. However, it is the case for most (every?) nations, and I would argue that it helps defining a nation’s culture.

      The two videos appear similar but the process with which they assert Canadian identity is different. In “I am Canadian,” the process is fairly common, as it consists in a list of usual Canadian stereotypes and a strong insistence on Canada being different from the United States.
      I feel that “Canadian, Please” tries to assert Canadian identity in a more unusual way and without using common stereotypes. Instead, they appeal to facts that truly defines Canada, and make comparisons to other cultures to assert that Canada is just as much a country with its own culture as any other.

      I have read on this forum that Canadians did not feel patriotic in general. My experience here as an exchange student proved me the exact contrary. From what I have heard so far, Canadians generally see their country in a very good light, are very proud of it and regularly re-assert some features of their being Canadian through stereotypes.

      I think those videos are meant both to Canadians to feel a certain feeling of unity and, most of all, pride, as well as for the rest of the world, to recognize Canada as having its very own culture, if not a superior one.

      • Kaitlin 7:04 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Vinciane, thank you for drawing our attention to the fact that most, if not all, countries have similar “lists” of stereotypes about their citizenry, and that they CAN be useful in thinking about a nation–even if the stereotypes aren’t “true”! Thank you also for sharing your view on Canadian patriotism as an exchange student. Perhaps you are more attuned to it as a visitor to Canada? The Canadians you meet might want to help give you a great impression of their country and themselves; whereas when Canadians interact with other Canadians (who might just accept that Canada is great, etc.) they don’t feel the need to openly state how proud they are of Canada?

        Have you had similar experiences travelling to other countries? Has anyone else on this forum found that they become increasingly patriotic of their own country when travelling to other ones or interacting with visitors?

    • chliane 2:30 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Stereotypes about the Canadian identity are presented in the videos, but stereotypes are present and common for any country. In the “Canadian, Please” video they mention some of those stereotypes from other countries, for instance ‘lose the gun,’ which is obviously referring to the gun happy Americans. But these stereotypes do not accurately reflect the identity of a citizen living in any country. My argument is that these videos have very little, if anything to do with a real Canadian’s identity. Instead of relating to the actual icon itself, we relate to the stereotype. Stereotypes such as Canadians exist in a perpetual winter and drink maple syrup, when in reality few of us have had these experiences, or the experiences may be highly localized in one region of Canada. These stereotypes are repeated and circulated to a point where they become a truth.

      These ‘truths’ are further confirmed by the media. They sell us the Canadian experience with their Canadian products, and we buy both the product and the idea of Canadian identity. The advertisement where the beaver jumps on the obnoxious American makes us feel united against the others, who are mean and not as smart. What these videos tell us about the Canadian identity in the 21st century is that we are united and are proud of our country, and we identify each other though our own distinct icons. But those icons we recognize as part of our identity are sold to us through the media, and probably based on jokes that were made by Russell Peters.

      • Kaitlin 9:38 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Great response to the videos! I like how you worked to break down national stereotypes (i.e. living in perpetual winter) into more localized/regional experiences, referred to the powers of repetition and dissemination in creating “truths”, paid homage to the media’s work in selling iconography, AND worked in Russell Peters.

    • jenniferbishop 11:49 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The “Canadian, Please” and “I am Canadian” videos both address the Canadian identity through using stereotypes that people outside of Canada have. In the “I am Canadian” video, Jo says, “he is not a lumberjack, does live in a igloo, has a prime minister not a president, that a tunic is a hat, and that it is pronounced zed not zee”. This video continues on to mention how Canada is the best part of North America. As a whole the video gives its audience the sense that even though all of these stereotypes do exist, these are the things that make Canada, Canada and that we should be proud of these things that make us different. In the “Canadian, Please” is presenting the same Canadian identity has the “I am Canadian” video. It points the stereotypes of the RCMP, we are all polite, that no one owns guns, and multiculturalism. That is being sold in these videos is the idea of Canadian nationalism and all of the things bringing Canada together as a nation.

      • Kaitlin 9:47 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Jennifer, good work summarizing aspects of each video here. I’m wondering if you agree with one or both of them, and the pictures they paint about what Canada is and who Canadians are… Do you “buy” the idea that ALL Canadians are polite? Don’t own guns? Uphold multiculturalism? Love playing/watching hockey? If you had to imagine what a “typical” Canadian looked like, would it be “Joe Canadian” from the Molson ad? Who is being left out if so?

    • mwaldron 11:54 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The two videos, “Canadian, Please” and “I am Canadian” play on the well known stereotypes of the Canadian culture to bring about a sense of patriotism, and to separate Canada as it’s own entity in North America, especially from the United States of America. However, I’m not sure I agree on the way the producers of both videos went about in comparing Canada to other countries (although I am fully aware that satire is 100% involved). Not only do we automatically assume everyone wants to be a Canadian, we also reinforce the exact stereotypes that drive most Canadian nuts (e.g. living in igloos, we all own canoes, etc). As mentioned by chilane above, we are all fully aware that as Canadians, most of these things do not occur on the regular, and are reinforced by the media time and time again to the point of “truth.”
      As for our Canadian identity in the 21st century, it seems as if in these two videos, we are presenting ourselves as a united front, with our own symbols, stereotypes and features unique to Canada. A feat which is sometimes forgotten about in Canadian culture; although we are all proud to be Canadians, we don’t always display our patriotism outwardly. However, it is interesting that many of these symbols that we claim to be “Canadian,” we don’t articulate HOW they really are national symbols. For example, maple syrup; A lot of people (even Canadians) believe it is a symbol because we put it on everything, and don’t make a connection between the symbol and events within our own country, such as the fact that Canadians were the first to tap the syrup. The same can be said for the beaver – it isn’t just on the nickel, it is a symbol of the past fur trade that our country was built on. It seems as if we may be losing touch with the real reasons behind our national symbols, even though we use them in national and international ad campaigns. We are selling our sense of nationalism and togetherness to our own Canadian audience, and to the larger international audience as well, and it seems we are all buying into it.

      • Kaitlin 9:53 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Marissa, you’ve done a great job building on chilane’s (I’m not sure if this is their real name and not just a username–apologies if it isn’t!) post about the sweeping assumptions that go into creating and upholding national stereotypes. Your comments about HOW symbols become “national” are especially intriguing, and suggest a deeper role for Canadian history in contemporary culture. Good work!

    • amandawoodland 11:55 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The two shorts “Canadian, Please” and “I am Canadian” are emphasizing a definition of what it means to be Canadian based on somewhat superficial ideas; however, I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. Although a nation’s history should be respected and valued as what has shaped that nation into what it is today, what truly defines a country lies in the here-and-now. For example, a common stereotype about Canadians is that we own pet beavers. This has little (or nothing) to do with the history of Canada. Rather, it is more of a modern-day joke that has caught on and become funny. Similar examples are the ideas that Canadians live in igloos, work as lumberjacks, and eat maple syrup on everything. These stereotypes, while silly and largely untrue, can actually be taken to suggest that Canadians take extreme pride in the characteristics of our country – the native animals, the weather, and the resources, etc. “I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” both play on these kinds of ideas in a lighthearted way, which also suggests that Canadians are proud to be who we are no matter what anyone thinks of us. Furthermore, the direct comparisons to other countries shows that we consider ourselves to be the best! Both shorts sell a strong sense of national pride that any Canadian can fit into, regardless of how much they know about Canadian history. By focussing on modern ideas, the shorts are easily accessible to young people.

      • Kaitlin 10:03 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Amanda, this is a nice lighthearted defense of the surface symbols presented in these videos! I’m intrigued by your claim that “what truly defines a country lies in the here-and-now”. All of the examples you give–pet beavers, igloos, lumberjacks, maple syrup–have very real historical roots SOMEWHERE, even though they’ve been significantly distorted and satirized over time! I also want to gently push you to think about one of your final statements: CAN “any Canadian fit into” these stereotypes? Or do the videos assume a particular audience…?

    • aviaah 1:08 pm on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From watching both videos, it is obvious that Canadians pride themselves on being just that: Canadian. The level of patriotism and esteem oozing from both videos is sky-high, but it must be taken into consideration that much of this self-worth is drawn from stereotypical Canadian symbols that are widely recognized and identified by Canadians and the world alike in the 21st century. Tokens that pay homage to this “Canadian Identity” include many clichéd images, such as the beaver, mounties, hockey, and the renowned maple leaf. What’s being sold here is not merely just beer, nor is it simply a boastful display, but rather an insipid Canadian identity that rests upon broad stereotypes and an innate desire to be seen as a separate superior entity to that of the Americans. Being a Canadian, I understand that creating a separate and unique identity for Canada is key, as we are consistently looped in with the United States and considered to be a carbon-copy of American culture. In saying this though, I must contend that building an identity upon modern clichéd images and symbols that inspire nothing more than a short burst of Canadian pride impedes upon any chance we have to establish a true and distinctive Canadian identity, which should rightfully be build upon historical and cultural foundations. Rather than being known as über polite, maple syrup loving, moose riding hockey fanatics, we should establish ourselves as a vast coherent nation of cultural, historical, and environmental wealth. If we look to our North American counterparts to the South, we often associate them with “manifest destiny” and being a “military giant”. When the spotlight is on Canada, we are often associated with trivial symbols, which barely encompass a fraction of what Canada is all about. All in all, although both videos are amusing and somewhat uplifting, they lack, for me, the ongoing spirit and lustre that should accompany a tribute to Canada and Canadian identity as a whole.

      • Kaitlin 10:26 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Aviaah, this is an interesting take on the two videos–your response is clearly very passionate! While this post contains many examples of what you see as superficial images/symbols/stereotypes of Canadians, I’m wondering what icons or symbols you might choose to better represent Canada as a ” vast coherent nation of cultural, historical, and environmental wealth”? What do those words mean to you? What do you think Canada is “all about”?

    • amrita 1:43 pm on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The two videos speak highly of the pride of being a Canadian. In the twenty first century, these videos collectively demonstrate the different aspects of being Canadian. In the video done by two students dressed as RCMP officers we see the symbolism of justice and integrity present in the uniform. In other video of the Molson commercial, we see that the Canadian is polite enough to endure the mocking stereotypical insults from his fellow coworker, but when it becomes too much, he resorts to aggressive behaviour. I would actually say that this scene, though amusing, does not collectively represent the identity of Canadians. We Canadians are known to be polite and perhaps even to take a stand on issues that matter to us, but it does not mean we are violent in any way when provoked — though that’s what the commercial seems to imply. These two videos demonstrate that we have a rich history and have quite a bit of attributes associated with being Canadian, and collectively, they both depict the Canadian identity as that of one being filled with pride and happiness.
      In terms of who these videos are targeted at and who is buying or selling the message or product in them, there is a very large difference. In the “Canadian, Please” video, it is targeted to non-citizens of Canada and telling them that we know they want to be Canadian because we and Canada itself is so amazing. The Molson commercial seems to be targeted at Canadians. I attest to this because at the very end of the commercial the announcer boldy claims he is Canadian, once again demonstrating our pride in Canada and in ourselves having the identity of being Canadian.

      • Kaitlin 10:40 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Amrita, you make some good points about the possible readings of these videos in your post. I’m really interested in your interpretation of Joe’s speech in the Molson ad–how he is polite until he is pushed to his edge (and gives his “aggressive” talk)–but that you don’t see his outburst and potential violence as representative of Canadians. To play Devil’s Advocate here, “mild-mannered” Canadians are also known to riot over hockey scores, take part in demonstrations/protests that can become violent, and historically played offensive roles in two world wars–not to mention other military conflicts!

    • oftheawkwards 3:39 pm on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Being an immigrant to canada, I still have not fully figure out canadian identity. Despite the Advertisements and Patriotic Videos i have seen over 12 years in canada, all I really figured out is that, we are stereotypical and culturally “neutral”. Our Multiculturalism aspect of society breaks down any collective Identity as a nation. I would say, despite everything mentioned in the first video, is that, we as canadians, are a group that can live with each other. World views gave us “what is means to be canadian” such as Hockey, Maple Syrup, Beaver, Saying “Sorry”, but they are not what really define canada. The first Video is more to give canadians pride through what is “awesome” about being canadian while the second video is to show people whom are not from canada what it is to be like.

      canadian pride is not like what is seen in other countries, we do not hold any social or political beliefs as a collective nation, but our understanding of each other can be used to describe canadian identity

      • Kaitlin 10:48 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Harry: I was born and raised in Canada–and I still haven’t fully figured out Canadian identity either! Your idea of Canada being culturally “neutral” is very interesting; that multiculturalism “breaks down any collective identity as a nation” is also intriguing. I think you could find a number of examples of groups within Canada who would fit your model: Franco-Canadiens, Indigenous groups, etc. Do you think it’s possible that this multiplicity of identities comes together to make up an overarching Canadian identity?

    • ecopeland 5:44 pm on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The two videos utilise comedy to connect with the Canadian viewer and play on the stereotypes and the reality of what a Canadian really is. The “I am Canadian” advertisement links the good things about being a Canadian specifically with the Molson brand of beer, as if suggesting to the audience that you could not be one without the other. I get the feeling that this advert is directed at an older demographic than the “Canadian, Please” video. It’s use of largely more mature life events that makes one a Canadian would stir familiarity in an slightly older demographic. The “I am Canadian” campaign bases each archetypal action or event on what the company believes is important to the 21st Century Canadian viewer; family, friends, hockey and morals. Whilst the “Canadian, Please” advert relies on a literal song and dance being popular and catchy rather than connecting with the viewer or even providing any information about the beer itself. The campaign aims to make an attachment to the beer through the videos popularity and therefore similarly aims to inform their decision when next buying beer. The “Canadian, Please” advert is aimed at people who are already Canadians so it is clear that the advert is trying to say that everyone else wants to be Canadian, trying to bolster national pride the company seeks to tie Canadianism with its brand of beer, affirming just like the “I am Canadian” advertisement that to be Canadian you have to drink Canadian beer.

      • Kaitlin 11:03 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Hi there! Nice attention to the demographics of each videos’ intended audience. Your breakdown of the Molson ad into four 21st century “Canadian” values is insightful, as is your connection of “true” Canadian identity with the purchase and consumption of Canadian beer. Also: the short music video isn’t trying to sell us any brand of beer–just an identity!

    • Kaitlin 11:10 pm on January 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Hi there L1A!
      Thanks to all those of you who have already responded to the videos–you’ve made some wonderful insights. We’re still waiting to hear from a few more of you & will still accept submissions for this assignment due to the potential mix-up of switching tutorials and blog walls for some of you. Looking forward to meeting you all in person this week!
      -Kaitlin

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel

Spam prevention powered by Akismet