Updates from March, 2014 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

  • admin 6:20 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 1 Wall 

    Vancouver 2010 Olympic Street Party

    What is Canada?

    To give us all an idea of our preconceptions coming into the course, write your blog entry on what you think Canada is and what the storyline(s) of Canadian history are; i.e. “Canada is ….” And “Canadian history is about ….” – you fill in the blanks!

     

    • hartcamp 8:17 pm on September 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is one of three countries in North America, and borders the United States. Some of the bigger cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are very diverse, whereas the smaller communities spread among the nation may not be as such. Canada is a peaceful country but is well aware of international affairs. Canadian history is something that I know very little about. I am a Canadian citizen, however I was born in the US and lived there my entire life. As history is one of my favorite subjects however, it bothers me that I know very little about it’s history (I practically know nothing other than a bit about the French and Indian War) and I am taking this course to get to know some of the countries essential history and have a better understanding of the nation that I study in, and may potentially live in for the rest of my life.

      • Tina Loo 6:52 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So Canada is diverse, peaceful, and aware of its position in the world. What about the second question? And for the record, so I can record your blog, what is your full name?

    • jbachynski 12:29 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I was born in Canada and have lived here my whole life. During my travels throughout the country, I have learned that it is not only vast in open space and size, but in cultures as well. Being a country that developed through the immigration of many different nationalities, our identity as a nation is harder to pin point. There is not necessarily a “Canadian way” of doing certain things, and I feel that customs and traditions are constantly evolving. It seems very common as a Canadian to have grandparents or parents that have come from somewhere else, for example, my grandparents are from Poland. When traveling to other older countries, it becomes very clear how young and adaptable Canada truly is. I feel that Canadian history is not something that is as widely talked about. Perhaps it is because we are a younger country, or maybe it is because of our peaceful reputation and lack of dominance in world history. Besides having some basic knowledge of famous Canadians like Louis Riel, Laura Secord and Terry Fox, I know less than I feel I should about my country. I love how Canadians have preserved so many amazing lakes and national parks, and really seem to appreciate the nature that surrounds us. I am interested to learn more about how Canada came into existence and developed into one of the most beautiful countries there is.

      • Tina Loo 6:53 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So, Canada is a nation of immigrants and lots of different cultures, and it’s a place that is always changing. It’s also a place of natural beauty.

    • madden34 12:30 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country located in North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Geographically, Canada is the second largest country by total area and is stereotyped as hockey intensive and a very cold region. Filled with many cultures and races there is a high level of multi-culturalism throughout the nation creating many diverse households. The country is officially bilingual and has a population of approximately 35 million. Canadian history is very interesting , such as the European colonization impacting the country and Aboriginal peoples lives and how assimilation occurred. Canadians in general are analyzed into being good people, with good intentions. Many Canadians travelling put the national flag on their backpack as a symbol of peace. As a Canadian, I feel this class is essential in understanding my country and will provide helpful knowledge in my life to come.

      • Tina Loo 6:55 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Canada is big, multicultural, and while it has a good reputation abroad, its relations with aboriginal people have been characterized by attempts to assimilate aboriginal peoples…. Can you go back and edit your entry to give me your full name so I can record you’ve completed the blog?

    • amrita 2:59 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the second largest country in the world, but considering the extreme cold weather that occurs in some parts, it may be unsurprising to note that Canada is one of the least densely populated countries in the world. Believe it or not, Canada sits at place 228 out of 243 in the list of most densely populated countries. That’s one little piece of trivia I was amazed to know when I learned about Canada in elementary school as part of my social studies class.

      From what I learned about Canada in school, I believe that what Canadian history is about can be summed up in one word: emigration. Settlers from all over the world from many different time periods in history have come to explore this vast and beautiful country, whether that be the indigenous peoples that travelled all the way from Africa, the Europeans from the 1500’s, or the more recent immigrants that come from all over the world for a better life.

      I was born and raised in this country, and with a little hint of pride, I believe this to be the most multicultural country in the world. In main part, I think that Canada’s identity stems from its role in peace-keeping missions and from being under the thumb of the English monarchy. I don’t know if this is definitively true or not, but I hope to find out in this course.

      • Tina Loo 6:57 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So Canada is a country of immigrants and very multicultural; its identity comes also from its English inheritance and its role in peace keeping.. Can you go back and edit your entry and include your full name so I can give you credit for completing it?

        • amrita 10:12 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Hi Tina, I’m not sure how to edit my entry, but my full name is Amrita Parmar. Thank you for commenting on/summarizing my post! 🙂

    • Pierre-Marie B. 5:00 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Located in North America, Canada is widely known for being one the largest countries in the world, it is ranked in the second place after Russia, it spreads between the Pacific Ocean to the West and the Atlantic Ocean to the East. The country shares borders with the United States of America in the South and in the northwestern part with Alaska. Canada is divided in three territories and ten provinces, they are all mostly bilingual but English prevails over French except in the province of Québec which is mainly and officially French speaking. The capital is Ottawa in Ontario.

      I come from France and unfortunately I don’t know much about the history of Canada although there are special links between these two countries. Of course some of the basics, for instance that it was discovered by a French explorer called Jacques Cartier and that the city of Quebec was founded by another famous Frenchman, Samuel Champlain. When the first settlers arrived the country was inhabited by native tribes. Then there were times of war between the multiple colonies, the French and Indian Wars.

      As far as I am concerned, many popular beliefs about Canada and Canadians have turned out to be true since I arrived : people are friendly, very polite and willing to help whether or not they know you. They are also really concerned about environment and health, consequently it is shown through the landscape and in the nature. I have the feeling that the sense of belonging is very important here in Canada, almost every person I have talked with seemed so proud of their hometown. Now I’m discovering what a real campus is and the way of life which goes with it.

      • Tina Loo 6:59 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Canada is big! It also shares a dual inheritance from France and England, each of which colonized the country. Canadians are polite and concerned with the environment. We’ll see if your views change by the end of the course!

    • jpellegrino 5:16 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a diverse country, not only in land but also in environment and culture. When I think of the word Canada, I think of lush greenery and mountainous views. While this is not the case in every area of Canada, British Columbia is especially blessed with its beautiful nature. Unfortunately, a cold climate is the price we Canadians must pay for. After all, people from all different areas of the world believe we live in igloos! I have lived in Canada my whole life and have never actually seen an igloo. (When I visited Mexico, some locals were floored when I explained to them we live in heated homes!) When I think of Canadian history, I think of peace and loyalty (for the most part). I tend to (stereotypically) believe that Canada simply follows everything that the USA does, and that is where the loyalty comes in. We as a country have always been supportive of their decisions and agreed to stay dependable to them in times of crisis. Some of the most interesting, (but saddest) parts of Canadian history to me are the Residential Schools. I took a Women’s Studies class at Langara and was shocked to hear about this horrifying event that took place in my home country for a number of years. I was surprised to see that Canada was not always as welcoming a place as it is now. Canada’s multiculturalism is fascinating because some cities, like Vancouver, have a diverse number of cultures living in one area meanwhile other areas do not. My grandparents and their several Italian family members immigrated to Vancouver via boat in 1957. Their first stop was Halifax where they were all force to make the choice to move to Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto or New York. I’m glad they wound up here in Vancouver because I love this beautiful city. Who wouldn’t eh?

      • Tina Loo 7:01 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So Canada is a place people think is cold! 🙂 It has a reputation for being peaceable, except perhaps when it came to First Nations. It’s also a very multicultural place, a country of immigrants. We’ll see if your views change over the course of the class.

    • liorbarel 7:26 pm on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a sparsely populated and generally peaceful country in North America (with the exception of Canada’s participation in World War 2 on D-Day, which I’ve heard they’re pretty proud of). Canada’s government is based on the parliamentary system, which they kept after becoming independent of Great Britain. Currently, the head of government is prime minister Stephen Harper, who is spending his time in government extremely productively; he’s coming out with a book on the history of Canadian hockey soon.

      I also recently learned that the history of Canada is one of emigration, and someone (though I can’t remember who) claimed that Canada can in some ways be seen as the point at which the beginning of globalization occurred. But in less of a USA melting pot form, and in more of a nicely tossed salad form.

      Canada is also vying with the US to be my home, as it will be for at least the next four years. And if any of you have ever flown to the US (as I’m doing right now – by the way I won’t be in class on Friday), the US Department of Homeland Security is doing a pretty good job of turning me off by being more invasive than any other country.

      Since I have more words left, and I don’t know much about the history of Canada, Canada is also home to Camp Miriam, a Socialist Zionist Jewish camp that is part of a global youth movement called Habonim Dror, of which I am a part. Oh, and I also know that you say thank you when you get off of a bus.

      • Tina Loo 7:03 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        LOL. Can you go back and edit your entry and include your full name so I can give you credit?

    • oftheawkwards 7:04 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the home of many. Ever since the first explorers entered Canada some 12,000-100,000 years ago to the ever emergent immigrants that seek a new home and opportunity. The Diversity of this nation and the hospitality of this place give it a reputation that lures in the world. The Progression of Canada from a wilderness first founded by the people-who-turned-right up until the emergent world power in the 21st century. Its people proves time and time again that we are a part of the global community and we will do our part to make it better

      The history of Canada is about a great stretch of land that invited the first inhabitants to live in it’s domain. How it tried to protect it’s natives from the outside influences but ultimately gave way due to the determination and ambition of foreigners. With the arrival of new ideals and technology, Canada emerged as a colony that soon gained their own independence. The acceptance of immigrants paced ways to a culturally diverse nation and a neutral world leader striving for harmony.

      -Harry He

    • karinbjorkdahl 7:14 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Since I arrived to Canada no more than two weeks ago and doesn’t really know so much about the country I will present the image I have of Canada.

      Sweden is my home country and on somewhat the same latitude as Canada so I think that the countries are a bit similiar in many ways; the climate, the animals, the environment and so on. For example we also have bears and mooses in Sweden, but compared to the canadian version of these animals they are a lot smaller. Here they are huge! And after China, it’s the biggest country in the world. So, my general opinion is that Canada is big in every aspect. Apart from being a big country I think it’s a friendly country. We studied WWII in shool alot when I grew up and I remember that Canada also was participating on D-day and was almost the only country that hadn’t been attacked in some way but still decided to fight the Nazis. Beside from that I can say that every Canadian I have met has been friendly, and everybody I talk to has the impression that Canadians are very friendly.

      This is actually the main reason why I wan’t to study it’s history, since the history has formed the country in a way that has led up to being a big and friendly country!

    • shogo2230 10:28 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Because I am an exchange student, I haven’t grown up in Canada. That’s why following statement is just my impression.
      Canada is an eco-friendly country. You can see so many recycle boxes on the road and you have to sort out your trash. Not only there is a recycle box but most people actually seem to be careful and responsible for saving the nature. Because of the high level of eco-friendly consciousness, Canada can prevent the great nature from being destroyed. Therefore, you can enjoy breathtaking scenery. For example, in Vancouver, you can go to Capilano Suspension Bridge, Stanley Park, Queen Elizabeth Park, Grouse Mountain and so on.
      And Canadian history is about development of co-existence society of different ethnicity and culture. Canada is one of the most famous multinational and multicultural countries in the world. Though I have just arrived here about two weeks ago, I already saw and interacted with many people who have various cultural backgrounds. That tells us Canada is a really generous nation to foreigners or immigrants. Canada was once colonized by French and the UK as well as the U.S. However, Canada experiences distinct history from one of the U.S and as time goes on Canada gradually constructs a multicultural and unique society.

      • Tina Loo 7:05 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Good answer! You’re one of the few who have answered my question about what you think the storyline of Canadian history is. We’ll see if your views change over the course of the term. Can you go back and edit your entry to include your full name so I can give you credit?

    • tazizi 9:12 am on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is one of the largest countries located in North America, based on both population and land mass; its immediate boarders are connected with the United States. Stereotypically, Canada is known for being a multicultural country whose population, as they age, learn to love hockey and maple syrup, are always polite and love to say “eh.” Universally, we like to think Canada is known for its universal health care, equality, peace-keeping efforts, and for being friendly people. As a first generation Canadian, I grew up being taught to see Canadian history through a lens of patriotism, just like people in most other countries. However, as I have advanced higher in my education, I learned Canada’s history is not necessarily better than any others; it is dynamic, having both dark and light-filled moments. As a country founded fully on emigration, Canada does not have the cleanest track record of prejudice and fair treatment. Like most countries, we have a long history of sexism, as well as our efforts to try and assimilate the First Nations through the use of residential schools. Furthermore, at one point in our history, Canada adopted a closed-door policy to try to keep out those of Asian descent, and the incident of the Komagata Maru and the Japanese work camps are examples of this hate.

      • Tina Loo 7:06 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        This is a good and full answer; it will be interesting to see if you think there’s more to the country’s history than dark and light. Would you go back and edit your entry to include your full name so I can give you credit?

    • jamesrm 4:25 pm on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is my home. I have lived in Canada my whole life, spending brief amounts of time living abroad in England, the United States and France and whenever I return home, I am flooded with patriotism and pride, stemming from the pleasant demeanour of the Canadian population and by Canada’s own natural beauty. Having lived in the Lower Mainland my whole life and having connections in Ontario, my current dream is to take a month to drive across Canada and experience everything this vast country has to offer.

      Unfortunately, like everything in this world, Canada is not without its controversies. Whether it’s Residential Schools scarring our nation’s history or the refusal of the Komagata Maru boat into Vancouver’s port, Canadian history is tattered with racism, sexism and bigotry. Despite Canada’s historical controversies, Canada has set many international benchmarks that make me extremely proud to call myself Canadian. Being the first non-European country and the fourth country overall to legalize gay marriage, having a huge part in both World Wars, as well as contributing Penicillin, Standard Time and the Canadarm to the modern world are all prime examples of International Canadian contribution. And hey, being the best in the world at hockey doesn’t hurt either.

      To me, Canada represents my home, my identity and my favourite place on the planet.

      • Tina Loo 8:38 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        James, this is an interesting answer – we’ll see if there are more ways to see Canadian history than to understand it in good/bad terms. Could you edit your post to include your full name so I could give you credit?

    • amandawoodland 6:44 pm on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      When many people think of Canada, they think of it as a “mosaic” – a metaphor for a diverse and multicultural country in which the differences of each individual are accepted and respected, and thought to make the whole more beautiful. Although this is a lovely idea for how a country could (and perhaps should) be, I do not believe that Canada is a “mosaic;” rather, I think of Canada as more of a “melting-pot,” like its downstairs neighbour, the United States of America. “Melting-pot” is a metaphor for a country in which the many different values, religions, and so forth have largely become assimilated into one or few general culture(s). Whether or not this is a good thing is difficult to say without inviting intense debate. Based on my limited knowledge of Canadian History (mainly centred around Aboriginal and women’s history), I have decided that Canada could and should strive to become even more of a “mosaic” and less of a “melting-pot.” How will this happen? I don’t know. I am eager to learn more about this country’s interesting and complicated history, because we learn from the past and can hopefully use it to create a brighter future.

      • Tina Loo 8:41 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Interesting response Amanda. Would you say that the story line of Canadian history is how and why Canada became a melting pot instead of a mosaic?

        • amandawoodland 9:27 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Professor Loo,

          Thank you for your comment. I think it makes sense to say that. I am interesting in learning more about Canadian history with other points of view in mind, but will probably keep this specific notion in the back of my mind throughout the course so that I can answer your question at the end of the term!

    • tyler5 12:17 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a vast and unique country. Perhaps some of the most defining characteristics of this land include the acceptance of a multicultural society, high living standards, an environment unparalleled by countries worldwide, and a liberal, progressive state, focused on providing the best care for citizens. It is an impossible task to pinpoint “Canadian” culture. Since this land consists of so many different nations within its borders, Canadian culture can best be defined as the acceptance of multiculturalism. Canadian living standards are some of the highest in the world. Cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal are consistently rated in the top five livable cities in the world; by magazines such as the Economist. Not only are Canadian living standards high, but Canadian government and lifestyle is one of progression and liberalism. Canadians have led in areas of peacekeeping, health care and education, and humanitarian rights. Canadians also find a way to unite as one behind a sports team. Hockey and other winter sports are defining characteristics of Canadian lifestyle, and have historically created friendly rivalries with other countries. Finally, the Canadian landscape is the most unique and beautiful in the world. The West Coast is full of mystically rain forest islands like the Haida Gwaii and the Gulf Islands. Moving eastwards, the Rocky Mountains attract a great number of tourists. There are vast, awe inspiring prairies, the Great Lakes, Niagra Falls, Cape Breton Island, and Hudson Bay; just to name a few.
      To define Canadian history in general, one must take into account Canada’s key characteristics. In a brief look at the history of this country, the overpowering conflict has been between cultures, and how they have progressed and learned to peacefully coexist. The French, English, and First Nations struggled to live side by side in early pre-confederation and post confederation.
      Hopefully, in this class I will gain a better understanding of the country that I live in. The knowledge will give me a broader perspective on the struggles we have overcome, and the struggles we now face.

      • Tina Loo 8:42 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So the story of Canada is the story of cultural conflict. How does that fit in with your earlier observation about Canada being multicultural and a place with a high standard of living? I guess we’ll see! 🙂 Would you edit your post to include your full name so I can give you credit?

      • tyler5 5:25 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        My full name is Tyler Norman!

    • aviaah 2:30 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is respected. Our nation has a reputation that precedes us, as Canada is known to produce the most amiable of people. Canadians are recognized as peacemakers, not peace-disrupters. We extend our open arms to those in need, providing a haven to those who seek refuge, and a home to all, no matter their religion, ethnicity, age, or sex.
      Born and raised a proud Canadian, I have come to learn that Canadian history is about fighting for what is right. Now, it may seem inconsistent for me to say that Canadians are peacemakers, and then contradict such as statement by following it with a word that brings to mind violence and aggression, but hear me out. There’s a reason why Canada is respected in the international arena, and we did not earn this esteem through brutality and force. Our nation earned its gleaming reputation from its actors.
      Sifting through hundreds of years of raw history, we find that there are always names that tend to stick out to us. One is none other than Louis Riel, who fought long and hard against all odds to preserve the Metis culture and their rights. There’s Lester B. Pearson, a Nobel Prize winning diplomat and politician whose notable contributions included helping to resolve the Suez Crisis and abolishing the Death Penalty in Canada. A group of women known as the Famous Five, one of which was Nellie McClung, took it upon themselves to have women recognized as persons under Canadian law so that women could be appointed to the Canadian Senate. Pierre Trudeau, a former Canadian Prime Minister, is another historical vigilante who defended the decriminalization of homosexuality, paving a way for gay rights in a time where radical change was otherwise frowned upon. And lets not forget Terry Fox, the widely celebrated humanitarian who trekked across Canada to raise awareness for cancer research all the while battling cancer himself.
      Our nation’s history is imprinted upon our present lives, as one does not have to look far in Canada to understand that we are a nation of acceptance and congruent strength. We are as diverse as we are one. Comprised of people from a plethora of different backgrounds, Canada is truly a unique country, and this distinctness is build upon foundations that have been laid by Canadians who never feared to take a stand against what they felt was unjust.

      • Tina Loo 8:43 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Interesting view. Do you think everyone in Canada would share it? Is the story of Canada the story of how and why it became the place you describe? Would you edit your post so that it contains your full name – that way I can give you credit.

        • aviaahrandhawa 7:57 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          There are many who would disagree with my viewpoint, and that’s understandable considering I’ve only incorporated the better aspects of Canadian history! I’m definitely aware that there are less than favourable aspects of Canadian history that have left many people in rightful resentment, though much of my knowledge on Canada before the 20th century is quite limited. I hope to learn more throughout this course about Canada’s establishments and historical ties before the 20th century, and build upon my current knowledge and perception of Canada! As well, my full name is Aviaah Randhawa!

    • lindswong 3:52 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The word that comes to mind when I hear Canada is home. Not home for those who were born and raised here but home for anyone who comes to start a new life here. My parents both had come from completely different ethnic and cultural roots. My mom, a born and raised Austrian, decided at the age of twenty to start a new chapter of her life by moving to Canada where she then found acceptance and easily slipped into the new the culture of a new country. My father came to Canada under very different circumstances. Unlike my mother who came alone, he came with his family who, at the time, were fleeing the communist oppression in Nicaragua. Canada accepted them as refugees, which gave them the opportunity to start a new life in a free country. Thus, Canada means to me a place of refuge, security and acceptance. It is a place that embraces multiculturalism and allows for people from all over the world to call Canada home.
      Often people regard Canada as an insignificant country, constantly overshadowed by the U.S. This view could not be farther form the truth. Canada is known to be a country that always takes a backseat role in global events. However, nonetheless, Canada has always been a strong country holding up its allies and making decisions with the best interests of it citizens and the world in view. Canada takes a different approach to global events, an approach that may keep us more in the background, but it is in this way that Canada has gained respect, trust and loyalty from not only its citizens but also many other countries. For this reason Canada holds more power than it is given credit for having.
      Over the years Canada has evolved from a country once under strong influence from the British Empire to one that can stand alone in face of adversity and succeed. We may be that “mosaic” country that stands more in the background, but that does not mean we are not strong. This country may be filled with people of many different ethnic backgrounds but we all hold our loyalties to Canada and not to the past, for this reason we are strong and we are respected and thus, we can call Canada home.

      • Tina Loo 8:45 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Would you say the story of Canada is how and why it came to be a country of immigrants with the respect of other countries in the world? Would you edit your post so that it includes your full name so I can give you credit?

      • lindswong 7:28 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Lindsay (Ruth) Wong

    • cammejil 5:15 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I was born in Canada but was raised in America. What little I remember of Canadian history is the shared history with America – I remember a french explorer discovering Canada and many British “loyalists” fleeing to Canada during the American Revolution. My class spent a day talking about the war of 1812 – America lost apparently. From my various relatives i recall there being some sort of rift between French Canada and the rest of Canada and a previous threat of succession and my family threw a big party every July 1st with a bunch of fireworks for Canada day, although I don’t know what Canada day is for – though my thought is the day Canada became its own country. That’s what little I know of Canadian History, but what Canada means to me is uniqueness. It became a symbol for me when I got teased all the time about Canada, “America’s hat” and I loved that it made me stand out. Canada is generally known for being very nice and few of my classmates realized they were in WW2 even. And more, Canada is known for it’s universal healthcare, liberal and extra-liberal views and equality in gay marriage. I am proud to be Canadian – to be known as Canada is – involved in global politics, known as generally nice and most importantly, a country that cares about its people – who wouldn’t proud of that?

      • Tina Loo 8:47 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So the story of Canada is how and why it came to be different from its more powerful neighbour? We’ll see if that’s the case! Would you edit your post to include your full name so I can give you credit?

    • friba235 10:08 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I am pleased to write about this extraordinary country. Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Situated in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Canada is the world’s second-largest country by total area, and its common border with the United States is the world’s longest land border shared by the same two countries. One of its famous, and busiest border is in White Rock, where it shares with Washington State.

      Its most immerse beauty is; first, its natural beauty such as, ocean, mountain, wildlife, and secondly its multiculturalism community. People around the world such as, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UEA and so on come to seek a life here, and contribute back to Canadian society by their talents, ambition, hard work, and nevertheless an authentic food, and brings its unique cultural knowledge. Along its attraction to immigrants, its beauty attracts thousands of tourists from around the globe to spend time, and explore its sights every year from early Spring to late Fall. Canadians are friendly with tourist, and happy to see them and meet them in person if the tourists need help for directions around the city.

      The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonial expeditions explored, and settled here. As its politics, Canada is a federal state governed as a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.

      Its hospitality will continue open to the world, and is welcoming new ideas, and cultures, and will remain the best country in the world.

      All the best

      • Tina Loo 8:48 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So…Canada is multicultural. Is the story of Canada about how it came to be that way? We’ll see…. Would you edit your post so it includes your full name – I need to know to give you credit for the blog.

    • brendanjf 11:34 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada has been many things to different people and at different times. Canada is one of the largest nations on Earth, and yet it is also one of the least densely populated, with vast swathes of pristine natural beauty. It’s a country whose history involves interactions, disagreements, treaties and wars between multiple groups all with strong cultural identities. It has been host to an enormous multitude of distinct independent aboriginal tribes. It was the location of the first European settlements in North America when the Vikings landed in Newfoundland. It saw the establishment of the French colony of Canada, the subsequent wars between the French and the British, and the handover of French territories to the British at the end of these wars. The Hudson’s Bay company laid claim to and administered vast swathes of territory. It saw conflicts between some of the indigenous tribes and the European colonists, cooperation and trade with other tribes, and even the creation of entirely new cultural groups like the Metis from the mixing of European and indigenous peoples. Though its much of its history as the nation we know today stems from European colonization, unlike many other American nations, whose identity was forged in fire and revolution, Canada attained its independence through peaceful negotiation and diplomacy, and maintained good relationships with their former British owners. As a nation, Canada fought in several wars, experienced rapid territorial expansion, and saw the growth of large migrant populations. The predominant theme of Canadian history, at least in my perspective, has been a search for identity. The history of Canada has been dominated by the interactions and disputes between a number of cultural groups with strong senses of self-identity, and it has struggled to define itself outside of its relationship to its boisterous neighbour to the south. It has attempted to construct a unique cultural identity through all of this, while still maintaining, all of the separate cultures of its citizens, resulting in the multicultural approach we see today. It has attempted to make a place which all may call home, regardless of background, welcoming variety and celebrating diversity.

      • Tina Loo 8:55 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So… Canada’s history is the result of its relationships with other countries and empires, and its search to make an identity out of the many peoples the place was home to. We’ll see how much of this is reflected in the version of Canadian history I give you! Would you edit your post so that it includes your full name please?

    • jenniferbishop 10:51 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories. It is a large country, which is unevenly populated; most people live in the southern parts of Canada where is it warmer. Honestly, these are the only few facts I know about Canada. I was born and raised in the States and although I have dual citizenship, I was never taught anything about Canada. Now that I am entering my second year at UBC, I want to learn more about the history of the country I am currently living in. One of the main preconceptions I had before moving to Canada was that everyone loves maple syrup, which I have found to be quite true! I also believed that most Canadians love hockey, and living in Vancouver during the NHL lockout showed me how passionate Canadians are about this sport. Lastly, I always thought Canadians were peaceful people who get along with everyone. However after living here for a year, I realized that there are some obvious tensions between different parts of the country, such as in Quebec. It would be interesting to learn and understand the background of these conflicts and how they are rooted in history.

      • Tina Loo 8:53 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So…the history of Canada is the history of its regions and how they relate to each other. This is an interesting answer – different from the others here. We’ll see how this is borne out through the course!

    • mwaldron 1:49 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the second largest country in the world, and one of three countries in North America. Although large, Canada’s population is anything but dense in comparison to other countries; Northern Canada is far less populated due to the colder climate. I am lucky to call Canada my home, and it has been all my life. Our country is one of great beauty, especially here on the West Coast (although, I may be a bit biased). From mountains to oceans, to prairies and the Great Lakes, its vast beauty is truly remarkable. Canada is also bilingual, having both French and English as it’s official languages. We are also known as having a “cultural mosaic,” giving Canada a diverse body of cultures, religions and values across the country.
      Canadian history is something that I only remember vaguely from grade school years (and I’m sure many other non-History majors can agree), which I believe is a shame. From early settlers and the First Nations people, to the Hudson’s Bay Company and our country’s link to the British before and after Confederation, the history is rich and interesting. I am very much looking forward to this course to re-learn the history that made this wonderful country we call home.

      • Tina Loo 8:52 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Canada is big, beautiful, home to indigenous peoples and many other cultures. Its history has to do with the fur trade and the British link…. We’ll see how much of this will be reflected in the version of Canadian history I give you! Would you edit your post to include your full name please? I need to record it in my gradebook.

    • doraleung 3:49 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is my motherland. I was born and raised here my entire life. I may come from a Chinese background with parents who are Chinese through and through, I feel as if I embody what Canada is all about; a country where different cultures from all across the globe, from England to Japan, Mexico to Russia, come together and become one gigantic harmonious mosaic. Some may say Canada does not have a culture, but that statement is completely false. Canada is not simply just a culture made up of maple syrup, igloos, hockey and lacrosse, but in fact a country with so much culture made up of bits and pieces of various other cultures. Canadians have a strong sense of respect and pride for the diversity in our country; different religions, values and cultures.
      Historically, Canada is the place where “the people who turned left” and “the people who turned right” met. Since the beginning of time, human evolution began in Africa and spread from there west, east, or north-ward. Those people who traveled out in opposite directions finally reunited in L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, many thousands of years later after crossing the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. This reconnection of humans is a significant indication of Canada being the birth place of globalization. It is no surprise that the birth place of globalization would be so open-armed to and welcoming of the different cultures that the rest of the world brings with them.

      • Tina Loo 8:50 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So Canada is the sum of its diversity. Is the story of Canada about how it came to be peaceful and diverse? We will see!

    • vinciane 4:37 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As an exchange student, I didn’t know much about Canada prior to my arrival, and I actually still don’t – if I did, why would I have chosen this course? – but some of the views I had of this country may have changed or evolved.

      I would see Canada as that big, vast country situated just next to the United States. What is interesting in this phrasing is that most foreigners tend to situate Canada by comparing it with the United States. That fact is part of why I chose Canada for my year in exchange; because we don’t learn much about Canada (not nearly as much as we should), but we do learn quite a lot about the United States. The maple syrup may have been a bonus.
      I was aware of all the stereotypes that we as foreigners know: the said maple syrup, the bears, the cold, the quebequois and their Poutine fries, the red leaf flag, the nice people, the weird accent and the ‘eh’s. It is rather interesting to note that there are just as much jokes about the French-speaking Canadians’ accent as there are about the English-speaking Canadians’ one.

      Upon my arrival, I was surprised to discover just how much diversified Vancouver. In a first place, this can be seen in terms of ethnicity, by surveying the people and the stores there. More surprising for me, it can be seen at the University, with events organized for all kind of communities of different faiths or origins. All in all, it seems to me that in Canada, peace and respect between people of different origin, faith, gender, and upbringing has been achieved, and this should probably serves as an example in a lot of countries.

      As a foreigner, thus being used to another culture, I can certify that the belief that Canadian people are very nice is quite true – at least when I make the comparison with my home country, – though every country has its load of rude people. The difference isn’t so much visible in terms of casual encounter. However, what I found to be very unsettling is the kindness, apparent proximity and laid-back attitude of people in a professional setting. This might actually be part of the explanation of why people are able to respect one another in Canada.

      As sappy as this blog entry may sound, I see Canada as a peaceful place.

      • Tina Loo 8:50 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        So Canada is multicultural and peaceful – and the story of Canada is how it came to be this way? We will see! Please edit your post so it includes your full name so I can give you credit.

    • daverob1 12:04 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      My name is Dave Robinson I am an Algonquin of the Timiskaming First Nation in North Western Quebec. I was born in Windsor Ontario and have lived in BC as many years as Ontario. Canada to me is a great Nation that is home to many Nations within it’s borders. Canada is the true land of opportunity, creativity and innovation are promoted. The multicultural communities that exist in Canada create a different way of seeing and understanding the cultural heritage persons are born into. Youth of tomorrow will be exposed to a culturally diverse community and will be much more globally connected than previous generations.

    • kenthen 1:43 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Weytkp, (hello in the shuswap language); my name is Kenthen Thomas I am a Secwepemc Abriginal from the Salmon Arm area where most of my family has resided for years. Looking at the question, “what is Canada, what are my preconceptions, what is Canada, Canada is…. and Canadian history is about? I have to say that to me Canada is my home, its the home of my family and it will be the home for our younger generations. My family and ancestors endured quiet a bit of harm from the people and leaders of Canada, ie residential school, displacement etc. But I truly believe that this is still one of the greatest nations one could ever call home. From the harm caused at the hands of others we can learn how not repeat the past and learn from each other and move forth finding ways to enhance this country and all that comes with it. Canada to myself is the greatest place on earth

    • FribaRezayee235 5:36 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Week 8 blog

      The origins of slavery can be traced back much further than the 18th and 19th century plantations in the southern United States. By the time the English had begun to settle permanent colonies in North America, the Spanish and Portuguese had developed a model of slavery to provide labor for commercial agriculture. This model was critical for the development of slavery in Anglo-America.

      While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions regarding land. In order to begin, in UC, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.

      The rebellions of 1837 were two armed uprisings that took place in Lower and Upper Canada in 1837-37. Both rebellions were motivated by frustration with political reform. A key began goal was responsible government, which was eventually achieved in the incident’s aftermath. The rebellions led directly to Lord Durham’s report on the affairs of BNA and to the BNA Act, 1840 which partially reformed the British into a unitary.

  • admin 6:10 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 2 Wall 

    Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006

    The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?

     

    • tyler5 5:55 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      To say that Canada is a multicultural nation is completely correct. In present day, it is seen as a melting pot, representing cultures that stretch worldwide. Multiculturalism is present at a grassroots level, including multicultural neighborhoods in cities across the country; It can even be seen within the multicultural Federal Cabinet, as well as the Supreme Court. However, it is wrong for one to be under the impression that multiculturalism is relatively new in the grand scheme of Canadian history. Even before European contact, First Nations tribes of different cultures interacted in aspects of politics, trade, agriculture, etc.. Upon arrival of European ships, there was a massive clash of cultures. Nomadic First Nations weaponry, farming techniques, and in the case of the Iroquois, matriarchal societies, would have differed from the fairly advanced culture that the Europeans would have been accustomed to. However, since these groups of people coexisted in a relatively confined area (St. Lawrence Lowlands), it can only be described as multicultural interaction.

      Canada’s abundance of resources, including fish and fur, drew European attention. They began settling the area in hopes of maximizing profits. To gain capital, it was necessary to interact with the indigenous people whose culture was so fundamentally different from their own. Therefore, early signs of multicultural relations allow one to understand that within the confines of recorded Canadian history, multiculturalism has always been prevalent.

      • karinbjorkdahl 3:03 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        The answer to that question depends on how you define the word multicultural. If you would say that the mere existence of different cultures within a countries borders I believe that Canada is, and after today’s lecture, have been a multicultural country for a long time. However, another definition could be that there have to be a functional and friendly co-existing between different cultures to be able to call it multicultural. According to me, the latter definition is more accurate. The lecture ended with the destructions of the Huroians – a war. To call that multicultural would be the same thing to call Iraq multicultural because of the presence of the Americans (I don’t exclude that it couldn’t be a multicultural country in other aspects though).

        A multicultural country is a positive thing for me because it means that different cultures could live in harmony, and as I have understood it, Canada has become a multicultural country today. But it would be incorrect use of the word to call this place multicultural during that time.

        By the way, was the country even known as “Canada” during that time?

      • Tina Loo 3:47 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Terrific answer Karin!

      • FribaRezayee235 6:52 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        It is a pressure to write about a great nation, and multicultural country. Multiculturalism in Canada is the sense of an equal celebration of racial, religious and cultural backgrounds. The government of Canada officially adopted the history of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and 1980s. Based on the lectures and readings this week, it illustrates that Canada has never been occupied by just one culture since the initial occupation of North America. The multiple nations of indigenous were in itself an example of multi-culture in Canada.

        An example from history of First Nation suggests that over the past five hundred years of history, and in more modern history colonization has impacted Indigenous people in British Columbia, Canada. The Musqueam, for instance, Indian Band argues, that they declare and affirm that they hold aboriginal title to their land, and aboriginal rights to practice use of their land, sea, fresh water and all their natural resources within those territories where aboriginal ancestors used them since before written history or contact with Europeans. In addition to that an important part of history of Canada is the fur trade. The fur trade is a worldwide industry dealing in the acquisition and sale of animal fur. Since the establishment of a world fur market in the early modern period, furs of boreal polar and cold temperate mammalian animals have been the most valued. Historically the trade had a large impact on the exploration and colonization of First Nation. Canada’s Aboriginal peoples exchanged furs for guns, gunpowder, liquor, tobacco, pots and pans, wool blankets and tools. They were also keen consumers of various European products such as clothes, and sewing needles. The most highly prized fur was that of the beaver, used to make felt for hats, but the range of animal skins traded was wide. Each skin had a clearly established value measured in plues or made beaver. They almost got the beaver species into instinct.

        Furthermore what we have learned from our latest lecture are; New France, politics, law, and judiciary system in 1600s. The territory of New France changed over time, but the colony was initially established in the St. Lawrence River valley. New France was at its largest in the early eighteenth century when it also included Hudson Bay, Labrador, Newfoundland, Acadia, the Great Lakes region and Louisiana. A case of an African maid (in that period) shows the judiciary system in the Estates of the Realm. For instance, when there was a fire in the city of Montreal. The fire destroyed about forty houses/buildings. The rulers thought that African maid/slave sat the fire to create chaotic event in order to escape with the man whom she loved. But there was no evidence against her, still she was charged and later, was executed publicly. There was no police, no detective. The best way to prove was by confession. She later confessed after being tortured. Her confession represented the king’s power on individuals. This brutal law was practices because Louis the XIV (1638-1715) had the divine right. The idea was that the king derived his rules direct from God. Thus, the New France’s political power increased. Not only in New France but also in other provinces including over sea colonies. The king appointed the governor general in St. Lawrence in order to set a law. There was no democracy. People were not considered to govern. Only the higher state ruled, and had the power meaning: hierarchies had the responsibly to rule only.

    • jpellegrino 11:56 pm on September 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada can be considered a multicultural nation depending on what the definition of the word is to each individual. To me, multicultural can mean one of two definitions: 1) it can be a city or place mixed with a diverse group of people from different parts of the world, possessing different cultural characteristics or 2) it can be a city or place occupied by those other than those native to that city or place. If were speaking about multiculturalism in terms of the second definition, no, I do not believe Canada is a relatively new in multiculturalism given that the French and Dutch began occupancy in Canada dating back to 1541. However, I do believe that the word multiculturalism has evolved much from what it meant then. In my eyes, the word has changed from having a negative connotation (back then) to a positive connotation (modern day). What I mean by this is that multiculturalism had a stigma attached to it, in that with multiculturalism came war (ie. Huron and France at war). Meanwhile, in today’s day and age, multiculturalism is embraced and supported throughout our nation (for the most part). When I think of the word metropolis, I think of multiculturalism because I have known of no other way. I have grown up encouraged to try new foods, attend different religious ceremonies and to befriend anyone regardless of their race. History however, tells us that a lot of the time, different races and cultures were frowned upon. In my grandmother’s eyes, I should marry an Italian and only an Italian. In my parents’ eyes, I should marry anyone I want! This is an example of how the word has evolved over time.

    • karinbjorkdahl 3:20 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The answer to that question depends on how you define the word multicultural. If you would say that the mere existence of different cultures within a countries borders I believe that Canada is, and after today’s lecture, have been a multicultural country for a long time. However, another definition could be that there have to be a functional and friendly co-existing between different cultures to be able to call it multicultural. According to me, the latter definition is more accurate. The lecture ended with the destructions of the Huroians – a war. To call that multicultural would be the same thing to call Iraq multicultural because of the presence of the Americans (I don’t exclude that it couldn’t be a multicultural country in other aspects though).

      A multicultural country is a positive thing for me because it means that different cultures could live in harmony, and as I have understood it, Canada has become a multicultural country today. But it would be incorrect use of the word to call this place multicultural during that time.

      By the way, was the country even known as “Canada” during that time?

    • jbachynski 9:31 pm on September 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Multiculturalism is one of the first things that comes up when describing Canada, and it is very clear by last week’s blog posts that it is something that a lot of people appreciate. I feel that multiculturalism is the acceptance of mixing cultures in a way that allows for people to become Canadian, while still being able to hold on to their heritage. This idea was shown in this week’s lecture with the Aboriginal tribes before colonization. The different cultures were able to co-exist successfully before the Europeans arrived and this seems to be the first example of multiculturalism in Canada. Once the French arrived and started colonization, then multiculturalism was not being practised, or at least not in the way that I have defined it. There were multiple cultures in the same place, but the French were attempting assimilation, not acceptance. Now in modern times, when traveling to other countries, you do get a sense of multiculturalism, but not with as much diversity as in Canada. Most of the diversity is seen in bigger cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc. The smaller centres of Canada may not have as many cultures, but they do have tight knit groups that originally migrated from other places. For example, there is a large Ukrainian culture throughout the prairie provinces and a prominent French culture as you move east. As we learned this week, multiculturalism did start out very early in Canadian history, but it has continually grown in diversity and appears that it will continue to do so.

    • tazizi 2:44 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think there are two parts to a nation truly being multicultural; not only do several different culture groups have to reside in the same area, but there must also be an acceptance, understanding and practice of these cultures. For example, just because the French and the Indigenous people were occupying the same area at the start of Canadian history, does not make Canada a multicultural nation. The French quickly started to try to assimilate Natives by converting them to Christianity, and later in Canadian history, tried to implement European culture by using residential schools. Furthermore, the French were really just using their Indigenous allies to supply their home country with furs. When the French broke their promise to their Indigenous allies, giving the Huron hunting rights in certain areas, it makes one wonder if the French really cared about their allies. Perhaps the French were actually concerned about lives of their Native allies, but they did not take into consideration what would happen with the complex ties between the other Indigenous groups.
      Today, we like to think that Canada is a multicultural nation. Compared to some other countries, I would definitely say that Canada is in fact, multicultural. Several laws, as well as the 1988 Multiculturalism Act, try to ensure to recognize all Canadians are full and equal partners in our society. However, something that I found interesting in my sociology class last year is that 85% of Canadians believe immigrants have an obligation to learn Canadian ways and the language. I understand that having a common language makes things easier for everyone living here, but at the same time, as a country priding ourselves on being multicultural, we are not acting very understanding towards other cultures. There is also the fact that Canada still has people practicing racism.

    • lindswong 10:39 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe the idea of Canada as a multicultural nation runs back to time of the settling of New France. As was covered in lecture, when the French arrived in North America they came in contact with many different native groups. These natives were familiar with the land that would become Canada. They knew how and where to get the best furs plus they understood how to best to travel the land, thus it was in the best interest of the French to make alliances with the indigenous people of the areas they lodged in. In terms of trade the French set up strong relationships with certain native groups, in particular the Huronia. These relationships were the beginnings of what we now call multiculturalism. This mingling between French and native people resulted in the trading of cultures in some ways. For example, the “coureur de bois adopted the native style of clothing as well as began to eat the same foods as the native people. The natives had lived in North America much longer than the French thus it was important for the French to learn the way natives survived in this new land.
      However, the sense of multiculturalism seen in these early days of French exploration is different than what we today call multiculturalism. During the period of New France it was essential for the French to adopt some of the ways of the natives in order to survive. Furthermore to build good relationships with the indigenous peoples was important for trade, in particular the fur trade. Therefore, multiculturalism was more or less forced upon the French newcomers. It is clear, especially seen in the conflicts that were to come between the English and French, that the French were not particularly keen to share this newfound land with anyone but their own people. I would not doubt, therefore, that if there was the possibility for the French to put the natives under their control, they would have.
      Multiculturalism today is defined in terms of acceptance and openness. Allowing different people to come make home in Canada without the pressure of having to give up their culture is not something forced upon us. Thus multiculturalism from the time of New France has much evolved to become the multiculturalism that thrives in Canada today.

      Lindsay (Ruth) Wong

    • aviaah 10:53 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The simple definition of multiculturalism refers to a region or community containing multiple cultures. To say that Canada is a multicultural nation rings true, and taking into account the basic definition above, it can be established that the idea of multiculturalism in Canada is not a new concept, but one that has been engrained within Canadian history from the very beginning.

      Connections between the First Nations tribes and the Scandinavian Vikings on the Canadian East Coast symbolize the early beginnings of the multicultural concept on Canadian soil, as both groups occupied the same area for a relative period of time. The same can be said when looking forward to the European explorers who came in contact with the First Nations peoples during their exploration of what would become Canada. These explorers, followed by the fur traders and colonizers after them, lived off of the territorial regions of the First Nations, thus creating a multicultural community during the time of European settlement. As well, the late 18th century saw the arrival of the first Chinese immigrants in Canada and, later in the 19th century, an even larger population of immigrants from China entered Canadian borders under a contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. This made Canada an even more culturally diverse region than before.

      As per my initial definition of multiculturalism, Canada has always been and is to this day a multicultural nation. What can be debated is the degree to which multiculturalism was accepted among differing ethnic groups in Canada in the past, and compare that to Canada’s embracing of cultural diversity today. Throughout Canadian history, as much as there has been peaceful coexistence among multiple cultures in Canada, there has also been a fair share of cultural clashes between opposing ethnical groups that have resulted in racism, segregation, assimilation, and variations of ethnic cleansing. This is where the definition of multiculturalism is called into question. Does multiculturalism refer explicitly to the area of which many cultures form a community, or does the definition account for the types of relationships and interactions the cultural groups have with each other, whether good or bad? With a specific definition, we can truly establish whether Canada has always been a multicultural nation, or if the harmony of today’s multicultural Canada is something new, thus disproving that multiculturalism has always been present in Canada.

      Aviaah Randhawa

    • kenthen 12:45 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada as a multicultural nation is completely true. I wander down the streets of any town in Canada and you can see the vast majority of people from all differing walks of life. More than that as an aboriginal person I have come across people that desire to learn as much as they can about their own culture and then learn of others cultures and try to relate it back to their own knowledge and what they have learned about themselves .

      There is also the vast demand that we put on ourselves as a society to put forth our distinct cultures and to showcase them whether its a pow wow or a religious celebration that is put forefront for everyone to witness and to share in. I have been to many aboriginal celebrations where everyone in attendance has participated in some form or other right from sitting and smiling to outright dancing and laughing with other irregardless of background. So our desire to share our very own distinct cultures makes us not only tolerant, curious but also a understanding nation.

      So to look at the question is multiculturalism a relatively new idea? I would say no, i would say that its always been here but what is new is our hopes of understanding, our dreams of being a complete nation while protecting and celebrating the rich and vast cultures of others. This hasn’t always been the case with “cultural genocide” committed at the hands of those in power but in full turn those now in power are seeking ways to make some amends and that is a far cry from the atrocities we committed against each other in the past.

      • Tina Loo 3:52 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Kenthen, In the future, please draw more directly on the material you learn in the lectures to write your posts. The blog is meant to get you to reflect on what you learn in class.

    • madden34 3:16 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the most multicultural nation in the world. For how long? Well it dates back to what we covered in lecture within New France. As of now, people in the world see Canada as the most multicultural place to live in on the earth. Take a walk around UBC campus, you will see individuals of all ethnic backgrounds creating a very diverse lifestyle. These individuals spread multiculturalism throughout one another creating a country filled of different cultures.

      The Empires of the St. Lawrence consisted of the Indigenous and European people mixing. There was an intertwining of history between the French and Aboriginals ( sparking multiculturalism here through languages and cultures). Jaques Cartier essentially was the catalyst in starting multiculturalism by attempting his voyages to establish North America. The Fur Trade began consisted of the Aboriginal peoples doing business with the French. The French had to learn the way the Aboriginals lived in order to barter with them. The French solidified fur trade by claiming territory and colonizing it.

      Samuel D’Champlaine knew he needed alliances, so he made relationships with the Huron, Innu, and Annoshanabe. All which proved multiculturalism in Canada.

      Multiculturalism isn’t necessarily a new idea as it has been around since the fur trade began. There has been situations of assimilation, racism and segregation however that has not depleted the multiculturalism idea in Canada.

    • oftheawkwards 8:42 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The Native North American Tribes had not formal land borders and walls that defines nations in Europe in the 17th century, however, they were still a diverse population of people that had varying cultures and languages. As the Europeans came to North America, they saw a land that was not claimed despite the fact that there were already inhabitants. What we call Canada today is simply an imposed border established by conflicts between the British and french empires. If the First Nations population were not oppressed by the invading foreigners, North American would have been considered as many nations and countries. Within the modern borders of Canada, yes it can be said that Canada is a multicultural place even before the colonization of North America. However, to the indigenous people, we simply forcefully united an area of land that they were perfectly happy in as separate entities and nations.

      -Harry Ze Zhong He

    • dallasyassinsky 9:00 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is seen as the most multicultural nation in the world. It has been diverse since the origins dating back to when it was called New France. Now, Canada is still culturally diverse with many different people with many different backgrounds immigrating here. Canada’s multicultural history dates back to when Jaques Cartier arrived here on his voyages and established the fur trade and established contact with the indigenous people. With this contact began the making of more diverse people, these being the french and aboriginal people which are wildly known as Metis. This people were evidence of Canada becoming a multicultural nation with the collection of the two cultures and languages. The mating of the two cultures provides evidence of the type of multiculturalism in Canada and is proof that it has been like this for a long time despite multiple acts of assimilation.

    • amandawoodland 10:10 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The first question that comes to my mind in response is this: how do we decide what counts as being multicultural and what does not? Multiculturalism – a diverse collection of cultures within a certain area or place – itself is a fairly simple idea to understand, but the specifics of all of this are not actually very clear. How many “different cultures” must be evident within a given place? How big or small must this place be? And so forth.

      Today, if I were to travel across the country, I can safely guess that just about everyone I meet would differ in some cultural aspect (such as religion, choice of dress, ethnicity, country of origin, political values, etc.) Thinking about it this way, I would certainly say that Canada is a multicultural nation. After all, there are so many people here and they are all so diverse! Thinking about it this way, I would look back on earlier times at the few groups of Native Canadians who inhabited this vast land in secluded (by today’s standards) groups and think that Canada was not very multicultural at all at that point. However, when I put myself in the shoes of one person in one of those groups and think about how culturally different any other Natives that I stumbled upon might have seemed, and how VERY culturally different the Norse and/or the French must have seemed when they first landed on my shores, it makes sense to say that Canada actually was a multicultural nation during that time period.

      It seems that the idea of multiculturalism is all highly relative to what we are used to. While historians have the important job of providing us with information upon which to base new ideas, they cannot answer tough questions – such as whether or not Canada has only recently become multicultural – for us, because ideas like this require much more detailed and personal thought.

    • ecopeland 11:06 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada’s existence is founded on the immigration of multiple cultures. French, British and Dutch in immediacy, then further exploration and immigration from other European countries and their enslaved populations. Taking into account the already present population of Indigenous peoples of separate beliefs and languages and those stated above it could be argued that Canada was a place of many cultures from its inception.

      However most likely those colonial settlers did not think of their identity as multicultural. Therefore the idea itself is new, in the respect that it post-dates the colonial settlements of Canada. At this point Canada was not the nation we see day, rather no nation at all. Further it can be argued that to be ‘multicultural’ necessitates those mixed cultures must recognise, or be recognised by the state, as having an equal right to the place they live. Although the European colonial populations may have lived in close proximity to one another, e.g Tadousac, traded and allied with them and the indigenous peoples, e.g French alliance with the Huronian confederacy, that relationship did not resemble a multicultural nation as we think of it today.

    • amrita 7:51 am on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      To be sure, Canadians pride themselves on being a multicultural nation and it has seemed that the concept of this extends to only recent decades, but as history appears to show us, we have always been a country of multiple cultures — if we are to to take the term multiculturalism literally. Given what we have learned in lecture, it seems true that multiculturalism has existed for hundreds of years. With the co-existence of Aboriginal peoples, the French, the English, as well those from the US, we can almost tell ourselves that yes, Canada has always been a multicultural nation.
      But that’s not really true, is it? The term multiculturalism would imply that these cultures lived in peaceful co-existence, and not in violence and bloodshed in order to ruthlessly conquer as much land as they could to prove their superiority. In reality, while it may be technically true to say that Canada has always been a nation of multiple cultures, I would very much hesitate to say it was always a multicultural nation.
      Nevertheless, I always enjoy knowing that so many people from many different countries and parts of the world can come to Canada for a new life and still be able to retain their own culture and traditions today. Many people claim that Canada is a melting pot and I vehemently disagree with that. I believe that, for sure, the US is a melting pot, but never Canada. This is because, as I mentioned, people from different cultures are still able to continue celebrating their own holidays and traditions without fear of reprisal. Sometimes I think it is almost at the cost of being Canadian. For instance, there are so many people I know that do not celebrate being Canadian on Canada Day, but then there are many that do. I think it may in fact because we are a modest bunch of Canadians who quietly wear the pride of being a Canadian, though we definitely may not have been previously in history.

    • rysaz11 9:34 am on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The idea of Canada being multicultural is not a novel concept however, it might seem that way since as a nation we have embraced that quality as part of our identity only recently. We have learned so far that in large settlements for trading, people from diverse areas of the world ranging from Africa and Portugal, arrived to what we predominantly see as a homogenous French settlement united by a desire for new opportunities and a better life (The idea of an American dream is far from unique). It has to be pointed out that while many different cultures were living together, tolerance and acceptance were not ideas that developed with the situation. Slavery was common, and society functioned in the same heirarchal fashion Europe did. Therefore even though Canada was technically multicultural, the romanticized harmony we associate with the concept was absent until relatively recently.

      The idea we pride ourselves for personifying is still slightly misleading nonetheless as Canada has one of the worst records in theworldfor treatment of the aboriginal peoples, and countless Canadians are still suffering the ramifications of that. Furthermore, Quebec recently has been challenging one of the tenets of Canada by cutting down rights to religious self expression to “preserve their identity”–whatever that means.

      Most importantly, I want to address that even though multiculturalism can exist in a place of immigrants like it has in the past and now, the “culture” every individual brings with them from their respective background will slowly evolve to suit the surroundings and assimilate until they cannot fully identify with their roots anymore. This is what happened to the French settlers and African slaves over generation so in a way it’s safe to say we kind of…lose our identity in a multicultural community that is a homogenous mixture of all cultures

    • mwaldron 1:53 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The view that Canada’s multiculturalism is new to our society that can be argued either yes or no, based on many different factors. Already in this course, we have discussed or touched on Dutch, French, English and First Nations cultures being present in Canada in early times. These cultures mixed together, either by choice or force (i.e. marriages vs conversions) and those mixed cultures can still be seen today.
      However… “Multicultural” is defined as being made up of many cultures, so in that case, Canada always has been and will be multicultural. Even within the First Nations communities before European contact, there were different views, values and cultures. But the term “society,” although it has many definitions, can be seen as a group of people who come together, a community, coming together for religious, cultural, & political reasons. It is clear that with the French settlers and colonies in New France there was no sense of this “society” although the two groups lived in the same regions. In this line, it can be argued that Canada is still not a completely “multicultural” society, as in present day we still see prejudice both socially and politically between cultural groups.
      That said, I enjoy how we as Canadians do not take this term so literally, but rather as a representation of our “cultural mosaic,” implying that we are a country in which we are accepting and integrating of many different cultures.

    • doraleung 2:24 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada has one of the largest varieties of different cultures living within its country. We open our arms to diversity and multiculturalism. Today, we see many people of different races and ethnicities working together, going to school together and attending various events together. However, though we may be a harmonious multicultural nation now, does not mean that we were always this way. In a sense, Canada was multicultural since the beginning because we had the First Nations, the British, the French and the Americans living in one country. However, they were most definitely not living harmoniously. For example, during the 16th century, France voyaged over the Atlantic to Canada seeing a profitable business opportunity in fur trades. By the 1590s, the fur trade was booming and the French felt the need to claim the fur trade for their own and monopolize the business. In order to do so they needed to establish connections with the First Nations around the area of their settlement, Port Royal, otherwise known as Acadia or Annapolis Royal. Samuel de Champlain alliance with the Innu, the Huron and the Algonkin. Alliances with these aboriginals groups helped the French in raiding “The Five Nations”. While the Huron and the French were gaining strength the French felt that they did not have enough settlers, therefore the company of a hundred associates was called for by the French government. However, with the introduction of this company to the British North Americas, also came the introduction of disease which killed nearly half of the entire Huron nation and it also increased warfare due to the politics involving Dutch muskets and the Mohawk raids. Tension and disagreement was stirring between the French and Huron. Eventually due to the raids, the Huron spread out in all directions for Huronia causing the colony itself to disappear.

    • chliane 4:08 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada’s multiculturalism does not seem like a new idea to me, as I have been taught this in schools since I can remember. From what we have learned in lectures, I would say that this is quite true. Canada was found by European travelers, who brought their people and their cultures across the Atlantic.

      We would have met the requirements of multiculturalism in the simplest definition, that is to say having many cultures in one state, right from the beginning. The French were the first Europeans to create a permanent settlement on what would be Canada. Before them, the land was already filled with the aboriginals, and they had many different cultures of their own. These different groups would already meet the requirements for being multicultural, as we cannot just lump all natives together. Before the Europeans came over, there were just the natives, who interacted with each other, while still occupying their own territories and had their own traditions.

      But from what we’ve learned in lectures, it seems that being accepting of the different cultures was not always the norm. The most important aspect of being a multicultural society is accepting people who are different from your own. This may be the aspect of multiculturalism that is relatively new. Before the Europeans arrived, the different groups of natives did not consider themselves part of one ‘country,’ and therefore not a multicultural nation. The Europeans brought the notion of a bordered territory, and created their colony. The respect for different cultures was not necessarily found with the French for the natives either, who only saw the natives as necessary for trade, and simply tolerated them. Today the idea of multicultural acceptance is much more widespread.

    • lsmack 4:28 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada’s been multicultural since before it was discovered by the Europeans. Each landscape of Canada had first nations people adapted to that specific area. The west coast itself had 17 or so different languages. There was no one language or group that controlled all of west coast. It was divided between all the groups living in BC. Each group had their own land to work off of and they also worked with their neighbors in barter and trade.

      What made it more multicultural was the Europeans when they wanted to expand their empires after accidentally discovering Canada. Once they seen all the resources at their disposal, they dug in their feet and set up camp permanently making Canada their new home. They worked hard to set up farms, trading posts, ports, and a reputation with the First Nations to keep their trade routes. Then there was the integration of the french with the natives to create their own people. They were outcast ed by both the french and the natives so they became their own nation.

      Canada as a Multicultural Nation is not new. Canada’s been always multicultural. The idea is something that was coined to describe the demographics of Canada as it couldn’t designate one nation as it’s symbol. There are way too many people that helped create Canada that we cannot just point out to one type of people to take the credit.

      • Tina Loo 3:56 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Luke, In the future, please draw more directly on the information you learn in lectures to write your posts. The blog is meant to get you to reflect on the lectures on a regular basis.

    • vinciane 4:51 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From what we have so far, Canada has a long history of being a multicultural nation. Even if we only consider the first peoples there, the aboriginal people, as the “people who turned right”, they went all the way from Africa, though Asia, Siberia, to North Canada. Once there, we know they separated into deferent tribes and communities, each having its own culture and language. It was, in a sense, already a multicultural country (though not yet a country…). But then again, this could be said about a lot of places in the world, and different communities almost never mixing together hardly makes for a multicultural country.
      What is different, however, is the meeting of two entities as early as the tenth century. It is probable that the first encounter between indigeneous peoples in Canada and other peoples dates back from before Columbus ever set foot there, with the Norse people coming from Greenland, and it is suspected that many travels and some permanent settlements were made. Later came Columbus, the English people, the French, the Portuguese and so on.
      On one hand, the large variety of cultures and peoples who met early on the now Canadian territories makes up for a long history of a multicultural nation, but on the other hand, much of that history is marked by wars and blood.

    • jenniferbishop 4:57 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Today Canada is very multicultural nation. This is evident in our everyday lives for example just walking down the street you can see the diversity of Canadians. Also this may seem like a recent shift as a more globalized world, our country has always been a multicultural nation. It began with the different Indigenous groups who lived in Canada, such as the Huron, Innu, and Iroquois. While there were occasion conflicts between the Aboriginal groups, for the most part they were able to live beside one another cooperatively. This idea of multicultural became to change when the French created permanent settlements along Saint Lawrence River. Now a days idea of multiculturalism is more in tune with that the Aboriginal thought, with different culture living in harmony. Perhaps this transition from hostilely between different cultural groups to a more accepted view today because although there has always been multiculturalism in Canada it seems more accepted today because of globalization and how we are more aware of different cultures.

    • Tina Loo 4:00 pm on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Comments on your posts for Week 2:
      Just so you know, I will offer general comments on the blog entries most weeks. Some weeks I will comment on each student’s blog (I can’t do that every week so I am rotating among the 5 tutorial sections).

      In general, you all did quite well. I would remind you that the blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lectures, so I expect you to draw on them directly in writing your entry.

      Most of you appreciated that the place that became Canada was multicultural from the start in that it was home to many different nations and cultures; in other words, as many of you noted last week, what distinguished the place that became Canada was its diversity, which was there even before Canada existed!

      However, some of you went on to make some important observations which I think all of us need to keep in mind: (1) that the place that would become Canada is more accurately described as multi-national; i.e. home to many different nations (Indigenous and European); in other words (2) the place that became Canada was diverse, but it wasn’t a single nation. In addition, and (3) there wasn’t the acceptance or even the tolerance of differences and the idea of equality that lies behind the modern notion of multiculturalism.

      So…where does that leave us? In the 17th and 18th centuries, the place that would become Canada was a diverse, multi-national place. It was home to many cultures, but it wasn’t a single nation. Perhaps the story of Canada is how this multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state….

  • admin 5:55 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 4 Wall 

    Communication across cultures is tricky. Do you have an experience of how you successfully or unsuccessfully negotiated a cultural boundary? Did you work out a “middle ground”? How?

    Lost in translation.
    Photo credit: John M. Unsworth, 2009

     

    • tyler5 10:05 pm on September 22, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Cultural boundaries can cause issues in terms of settlement, trading, and cohabitation. As we have learned in lecture, early European settlers, be it the Norse, or the later French settlers, communicated in some respect across the cultural boundary that existed between them and the indigenous people of Canada. However, in an age like today of globalization and massive cultural integration, clearly I have much different experiences crossing cultural borders than the people of early Canada. The most common experience I have crossing cultural borders is international travel. Any travel to foreign countries often requires communication between people speaking two different languages. I have stayed in other family’s homes while traveling in Europe. I find that it is not a difficult task to make small adaptations to respect other’s culture. If you are accepting of them, they will do the same to you; especially when it comes to language. If one is to make an effort to speak the language of the nation in which he is traveling, the people will, from my experience, rather than ridicule him for lack of fluency, actually commend him for trying. Furthermore, food is another example of a cultural barrier. While I was in Europe, I tried many foods that I would have never thought to have eaten in Canada. Again, a middle ground can easily be created between you and the people you are staying with, as long as you make an effort to accommodate their cultural habits.

      My roommates are all from the Middle East. This being so, they have a vastly different cultural background than myself. We often find aspects of our cultures that differ. The most striking example is religion. Some of the housemates are Muslim, some atheist, some Christian. Also, none of them eat pork. I eat pork on a fairly regular basis. It doesn’t bother my roommates, and if, for example, we make a meal for all four of us, we just refrain from adding pork. It does not cause tension in the house, because finding a middle ground for cultural interaction really just comes down to tolerance and understanding.

    • jpellegrino 5:00 pm on September 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      When one of my Catholic, Italian cousins was marrying a Muslim woman, tensions between both our families arose. While our side of the family hoped for my cousin to marry in the Catholic Church where we’ve all grown up, her side of the family wanted to celebrate with traditional, Muslim ceremonies. Neither side was willing to attend the opposition’s celebratory tradition. Both families were so angry; they did not speak for quite some time. In fact, they almost called off the wedding until the bride and groom decided to bring their parents together and find a “Middle Ground” to work with. Finally, together they all decided to celebrate both ceremonies. In Italian tradition, we attend the wedding ceremony in the morning around eleven o’clock and then there is a five-hour gap until the reception. This allowed both ceremonies to be held in one day, which is exactly what the bride and groom wanted. During the five-hour gap, the Muslim ceremony was to be held. Both sides of the family were welcomed to attend each other’s celebrations. Some attended, some did not. In the end, the bride and groom were extremely happy with the compromise made. What I find interesting between both my experience of “Middle grounds” and that made by the people of New France is the differences in the way the Middle Ground was established. While my family and the bride’s family met half way and did not need to sacrifice their own cultural traditions, the French completely adopted the ways of the Indigenous peoples by presenting their proposals in the form of wampum belts. I think that the Middle Ground can be looked upon in different lights. Middle Grounds can be found by having one group of people WILLING to sacrifice entirely, or in meeting half way by BOTH parties adopting each other’s cultural traditions.

    • amrita 7:34 pm on September 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’ve been born and brought up in Canada, but despite that I was raised in a South Asian culture in my household. My parents are both from India and were married at a relatively young age, in their early twenties. I’m not currently informed of the present practices that occur in India before a girl marries, but it was the practice that females were not permitted to speak to or associate with men until it was ‘time’ to marry. This is because India is a patriarchal society, as are many other cultures around the world. As such, my parents strongly dislike the thought of me associating with or talking to boys, yet currently want me to get married soon because I am in my early twenties. They fail to understand that, as harsh as this sounds, we are in Canada and these kinds of practices are practically unheard of here. They believe that what matters most in life is being secure and settled down with a husband and a few kids. This is something that I do not desire as of yet and would not be amenable to the future life plans I have for myself. For this reason, I used their own beliefs to help negotiate a middle ground between myself and my parents. I told them that I have a career plan and will become secure in my own right and therefore do not plan to get married anytime soon, but that perhaps in 7-8 years when I have hopefully settled into my career path, I will give marriage a thought. For the other aspect of the boundary present in Indian culture I have let my parents know that what they want is completely unreasonable as it would be impossibly to live life without interacting with only females. But I have also made a sacrifice, and although it has been left unsaid, both my parents understand and know that I refrain from dating because of them. To you, this may sound utterly bizarre, but I do it because I highly respect my parents and if there’s something small I can do for them in return for all they do for me, I will do it. Not dating is my version of a sacrifice for talking and associating with guys as this something parents feel crosses a cultural boundary. In conclusion, I would say that the middle ground I have established with these cultural norms and practices required respect and sacrifices on both sides and that is exactly what the Iroquois and the French did. In order to develop peace between the two cultures, they had to have at the very least a small measure of respect. Barring that, they had to sacrifice a small measure of dignity as shown in the anecdote of an Iroquois attempting to look and behave like a European.

      • Tina Loo 6:22 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I don’t think it’s bizarre at all: and that you’re absolutely right that a middle ground can sometimes involve significant sacrifices on one side or another or both sides.

    • aviaah 11:06 pm on September 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Finding a “middle ground” between different cultural groups in Canada began in New France with the French colonists and First Nations. Both groups adopted the customs and diplomatic procedures of the other in order to successfully negotiate and cement peace treaties with one another. Just as the French and First Nations had, I can personally relate to the process of finding a middle ground. Being a summer camp leader, I meet many children who are from different cultural backgrounds. Since they are typically 5 years in age, summer camp is really an eye-opener for many of them, as they are exposed to others from different cultures and backgrounds for the first time in their lives. There was one particular instance where a Canadian-born child, who was very outgoing and boisterous, met a quiet and reserved Japanese child who had recently moved to Vancouver from Tokyo. Having both laid eyes on the one-person trampoline, a quarrel broke out between the two of them over who would go on first. Not only was there a considerable language barrier, but the Japanese child was rather frighted by the overt expression of anger the Canadian child was displaying at not being able to use the trampoline first. To help find a common ground, I had to step in and mediate between the two of them by calmly talking about the situation. I explained, slowly and easily for both to understand, that they must take turns, and that their fight broke out because it was hard for the two of them to understand each other. Since they were children, I figured the best way to settle the disagreement would be “rock-paper-scissors”, and to my surprise, the Japanese child knew of the game, and was just as willing to play it as the Canadian child was. In the end, the Japanese child won, and the the Canadian was more than content to wait his turn, and by the end of it, they were quite friendly with one another despite their cultural and lingual differences. Their “middle ground’ was their shared love for play, as they both bonded over their appreciation for the trampoline, and the “rock-paper-scissors” game that was simple and known by the both of them. Therefore, because of this middle ground between the children was discovered, their dispute dissolved into a friendship, similar to French and First Nation’s peace treaties after finding a middle ground themselves.

    • liorbarel 8:26 pm on September 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I spent most of last year, on a gap year program in Israel, dealing with cultural boundaries. Twice a week, I worked in two different schools and then a connected after school program, where I – an American who spoke only very basic Hebrew – had to teach and talk to 4th through 6th grade Jewish Israelis – who spoke even less English. Actually, I would argue that in this situation, there happened to be a triple culture barrier: Israeli vs. American culture, lower vs. middle economic class culture, and child vs. youth culture. Both of these played into the way they acted and reacted to me, and the way I acted and reacted to them. These clashing cultures were especially apparently whenever it came to talking about my views with them, specifically about Israel and about gender identity.
      As privileged American (and Canadian) youth, we are at least made aware of the idea of defining our gender identity. In many countries (especially countries with languages like Hebrew that have specific words for males and specific words for females), many things about gender identity are assumed that are not assumed (in some circles) in Canada. Male and female stereotypes about ability (and disability) are common everywhere, but even more so in Israel (and of course even more so with young children who have never thought of things any other way).
      Also, as an American Jew, my views about Israel were pretty different from my childrens’ views.
      Which brings me to the actual story: one time, when I was playing basketball (with a boy, because he didn’t want any girls to play), he told me that Arabs were bad people. In my excellent Hebrew, I asked him why, and he told me “I don’t know, they just are.” So asked him “but, do you really think they are?” and he said yes, and I said “really?” and he said “sort of”, and I said “really?” and he said “a little…” and that was as far as I could take him before he stuck with that answer. So I explained to him how Arabs were people, were individuals, just like he and I, and that it doesn’t make sense to hate a whole group of people that you don’t even know. And, you know, because I’m old and wise, he said “oh, yeah. I guess you’re right.” It didn’t even cross his mind, this idea that other groups of people were made up of individuals with identities and thoughts and feelings, just like him. But we were able to overcome the lingual and cultural barrier, as well as the age and economic barrier, to create at least a basic understanding of the concept of the value of a person.

    • karinbjorkdahl 1:44 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      During class we have discussed some inds of way of comunicating between cultures. But as I have interpreted the question, I should write about a personal experience relating to communications between cultures.

      I have lived in Kenya for a couple of years. And the way we were taught to “access” this culture was mostly to embrace and respect their ways. I was a visitor in their country. And there were a lot of significant differencies in couminication. From the fact that you bargained when you were shopping to not dress in a certain way in certain places. All of this includes some way of communicating. However, communication between cultures isn’t much different from communicating in general. To reach a good coummunication both parts have to respect the other part as well as have an understaning for differencies. For example if I, as a stranger to a culture would do something that in an other culture would be a really bad thing, I would be forgiven.

      But in a way you have to regard the consequenses of globalization as well as multiculturalism. Cultury is costantly changing and the borders between cultures are slowly erased. Therefore english has become an international language and an International Law is beginning to establish throughout the world.

      • Tina Loo 6:26 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Hmm…good point about globalization. Do you think if you went to Kenya now there would be less of a cultural gap because of increased globalization? In other words, does the process of globalization mean we might not have to negotiate middle grounds in the future because we will all be one big culture?

        • karinbjorkdahl 11:24 am on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          I do believe that the gap would have decreased, mostly due to globalization. The western culture, from manners to different kind of products, has become something that a lot of people seems to strive for. A long with the globalization, the availibility of these thing increases. In the same sence, the espression “exotic” will soon be out of meaning. And
          around the world today we see people who really have to fight in order to preserve their culture. Personally, I don’t believe this to be a good thing. But yes, due to globalization a universal new culture will form. In time.

    • tazizi 3:32 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In 2011 I traveled to Nicaragua for volunteer work. When I first read the topic of this week’s blog, I didn’t automatically know if this experience would work. However, after reading another classmate’s response about how they believe middle ground can be achieved by a group willingly adopting the practices of another, I think it ca. While traveling, it was much easier my my group to adapt to ways of the locals simply because of the economic barrier. Also, we were totally immersed in their culture, so it was a lot easier for us to learn about and adopt their culture. For example, we change the way we dressed, made a sincere effort to learn Spanish, and participated in local events such as festivals. I do believe we achieved middle ground, even though we were taking on more of their practices, as it allowed us to build relationships with the people of Nicaragua. Our middle ground consisted of us making an effort to fit in and the locals accepting us and our efforts.

    • lindswong 9:57 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      All my life I have been come into contact with many different cultures. I have grown up in a household where my father is a born and raised Nicaraguan and my mother is a born and raised Austrian. The fact that my two very culturally different parents fell in love and married each other proves, to me, that a middle ground can be reached. However, where I faced the struggles of attempting to create a middle ground came from the many travels we did.

      Every few years my family and I go to visit my mom’s family in Austria. My mom did not grow up in the city but in a small town farther away from the cities. The towns are generally very traditional and hold onto old customs, traditions, etc. much more strongly than those people who live in Vienna for example.

      Since I was visiting their place, it was expected that I would attempt to find a middle ground by adopting a lot of the German customs. In a sense Austrian people are very much like Canadians in terms of culture, but when factors such the language barrier and religion come into play it makes adapting to their lifestyle much more difficult. My oma (grandmother) is very tied up in the past and in particular she is a very strong catholic. My family and I are christians but of a different kind. Furthermore, I can only understand German, but my speaking abilities are poor. Thus in order to please my mom’s relatives I would do my best to speak what German I could and acknowledge their prayers, despite differences in religion, as opposed to have them accustom to my own lifestyle. In the end I would say that yes I have successfully negotiated a cultural boundary and created a middle ground between my relatives and I.

    • madden34 11:14 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Communication is defined as the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. It is not the easiest thing to do in general every day when even talking to your best friend. Imagine how hard it is across culture to be able to carry through ideas and exchange such information. Unsuccessfully I have experienced a cultural boundary in my life time. In grade 12 a foreign exchange from student from Asia visited my school for a semester. He played on the basketball team with me, and struggled immensely in speaking the English Language. Of course, myself and the other English speaking kids on the team and even Coach were not sure what to exactly do. We finally came up with an idea to overcome this problem, on how to communicate to him by getting a Cantonese speaking student who could translate to English for us. The idea worked and he was now able to understand the plays being called from the bench and understood how to maneuver around drills etc. Using our friend (the translator) to communicate to the non-speaking kid (that will remain unnamed) is how we established a middle ground. I believe we accomplished something remarkable here as obviously we wanted the student to play with us and enjoy basketball with us, but also we knew this language barrier would be a huge speed bump in the process. It was a success and I’m glad we carried through with this middle ground.

    • ecopeland 12:27 am on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      During a six-month stay in the Czech Republic where I lived and worked I found that I did reach a ‘middle ground’ between my home country’s culture and the local culture. Whilst the difference was not too great to begin with, the longer I spent in the country the more I came to realise that small behaviours clearly set me apart from the locals.

      The way one behaves, speaks to and treats strangers was very different, as was the way one behaves in public and treats a client or customer. A more formal approach is the best way to explain those differences. This is not to suggest that the culture did not encourage warmth because respectfulness to both stranger and customer was strikingly a stronger practice there. How one treats friends and family in the C.R. was in my opinion better than in my home country, with greater expectations for loyalty and thoughtfulness.

      Through learning their language and following their behaviours, and being open to learn about the country’s history, traditions and citizens I feel that I reached a ‘middle ground’. As well as through the proud representation of my country and helping people learn more about my home and traditions.

    • amandawoodland 12:11 pm on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Cultural boundaries can be thought of as differences in language, religion, and/or values between two or more cultures that may create tension or some kind of obstacle to be overcome. Examples of cultural boundaries and how such boundaries have been addressed and (possibly) resolved by both/all parties throughout history is an interesting and important area of study. It is worthwhile to recognize that not all examples of cultural boundaries have large-scale implications; smaller, less significant examples occur all the time, likely all over the world – or at least wherever there is the possibility of people from different cultures interacting with one another.

      I personally have experienced what it is like to deal with cultural boundaries. Unfortunately my experience was not a positive one. Last year, during my second year at UBC, I lived in residence housing with roommates that I had never met before; our rooming assignment had been randomized. Two of these roommates came from Japan. A great number of issues arose during the year, many of which can be attributed to our cultural differences. Following are some examples of cultural boundaries that caused tension and conflict between the three of us.

      The first cultural boundary that we attempted to overcome related to time zones. Japan is approximately fifteen hours ahead of Canada. Because of this, neither of my roommates were adjusted to my version of a typical day (waking up in the morning and going to sleep before midnight). Instead, they would emerge from their bedrooms as I was preparing dinner, and would begin their day by attending night classes. They did their cooking in the latest hours of the night and into the earliest hours of the next morning, sometimes keeping me awake by cooking together or even inviting company over to join them for dinner. Unfortunately, instead of gradually adjusting to Canadian time, my roommates continued to operate on their own schedules for the entire year.

      The second example relates to our different attitudes towards cleanliness. After confronting them several times about the state in which they would leave the kitchen, bathroom, and living area, the Residence Advisor had to be called in for a meeting to diffuse the situation. We came to find out that both of my roommates’ families had employed maids to clean up after them for their entire lives previous to moving to Canada for school. In the area that they were from, this was a common practice, and so these girls had never had the experience of cleaning their own homes, let alone cleaning a common space shared by others.

      The reason that these cultural boundaries caused conflict was likely due to the third example: the language barrier. Being exchange students, these roommates of mine had had very limited exposure to English-speaking people. It seems that they did not retain a high level of whatever English they were taught in school, either. Whenever we tried to address an issue arising from one of our other cultural differences, it was very difficult to communicate our feelings. For this reason, we all ended up “giving up” in a way. Instead of working harder to find compromises and a middle ground, we eventually began to spend more time in our own bedrooms and considerably less time in the common areas of the residence apartment we shared. The closest that we came to a middle around was to avoid each other and ignore the issues as best we could.

      • Tina Loo 6:30 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        These are all great examples Amanda, and they make an important point: sometimes efforts to make a middle ground fail! You need people to WANT to accommodate…. The French and British and First Nations all wanted peace and trade and were open to compromise.

    • chliane 12:52 am on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Cultural boundaries spring up in all kinds of places, often in unexpected places. My personal experience comes from the cultural divide between China and Taiwan. Many people who consider themselves native to Taiwan actually come from immigrants that arrived from China several centuries ago, but do not identify with many things in Chinese culture anymore. They have built their own identity and culture and do not consider Taiwan a part of China, though in official Chinese records Taiwan is only a province. I was never much affected by this major political issue growing up in Canada. I also come from the second wave of immigrants to Taiwan, as my grandparents had escaped during the Cultural Revolution, which meant they still considered China to be their homeland. This meant that although my parents lived their whole lives in Taiwan, they were never strongly part of the separatist movement. To me Taiwan was my native home country; a country that was sort of part of another country.
      People often ask me “Where are you from?” and “What are you, exactly?” to which I say, “I’m Chinese, and I’m from Taiwan.” Not Taiwanese, that is a language which I do not speak. But I would soon find out that other people had different, and very strong opinions.
      In the eighth grade I was introducing myself to a new classmate, and went through the customary background questions, and I gave my usual answer. The boy across from me suddenly piped up “No, you’re Taiwanese!” and gave a whole speech about why that was. Which attracted the attention of another classmate, this time from China, with the complete opposite point of view.
      That argument was never completely resolved, and it most likely never will be. The classroom squabble ended after the room full of freshmen found something else to yell about. But the Taiwan-is-a-Country versus Taiwan-is-a-Province was never resolved, and came up time and time again. I learned something very important after going home that day: that people are very touchy about where they’re from, and how they identify themselves. I realized not everyone was like us, neutral and indifferent. To those living in their native land, it mattered very much what country they belonged to. Now I understand how to better phrase my words, which makes history so fascinating when studying the path others took to bridge the divide between cultures.

    • dallasyassinsky 11:27 am on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Living in Canada we see Cultural boundaries very often since Canada is a very diverse place. I grew up here and where i grew up in Abbotsford I was always around different cultures in school, either East Indian or often Korean. Personally in the area I grew up there was a lot of East Indian people and often was faced with cultural boundaries along with communication issues. Middle ground was established in Abbotsford in the last few years in a substantial way. There are often signs with both languages in important places like banks and in most of the public places there are both english speaking Candians and punjabi speaking people that can provide translation for both cultures. Growing up in school often my East indian friends parents could not speak english well so another way that we established common ground was having the kids translate for us. Besides establishing middle ground in the communication there was also cultural events that helped us understand the east indian cultural, this event is called diwali. Growing up with that different type of culture allowed me to see how different it is in other parts of the world and establishing that middle ground between the two cultures was an essential part of growing up. Establishing middle ground between two cultures should always be a successful experience that allows you to learn about another culture and grow as a community.

    • ronendlin 12:15 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Honestly I have spent most of my life trying to bridge a major cultural divide between myself and the peoples of my surroundings. My brothers and I are all Israeli born citizens who spent most of our lives in conservative Texas. The measure of how different these two cultures could be is no were near surprising, given the geographical, political, and major religious differences between the two nations. Growing up in Texas is a very interesting experience for a Jewish Israeli born American. I have plenty of examples of my search for equilibrium and a middle ground going poorly and well. For instance I was able to bond with many of my friends over our shared passion for hockey (surprising for both groups, I know). A successful middle ground there is the primal urge to compete and interact with peers. Very unsuccessful cultural bridge examples would be the common experiences of “boys being boys” in a grading school system that focus more on illegal substance control than deterring violence among its students. When all negotiations go badly, violence is the unifying force in understanding the motives of another person or peoples. I found that finding a common bonding force is much easier in peoples who wish to assimilate with others of heritages foreign to them, although many people wish to remain isolated and autonomous.

    • mwaldron 4:12 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I grew up in the Cowichan Valley (funnily enough, very close to Salt Spring Island & Chemainus, both mentioned in our William Robinson Research), and as the court document and newspaper articles sort of alluded to, there is a very high First Nations population in the Valley. My elementary and middle school (Queen of Angels) found a middle ground between the Cowichan First Nations people & the school system we happened to be a part of. As a private school, we learned languages from kindergarten- mostly French, but we also studied Hul’qumi’num (hall-ka-mee-num), the language of the First Nations people who lived in the area. Queen of Angels was also a Catholic school, no naturally we had masses and celebrations according to the Catholic church. We also, however, celebrated First Nations holidays and once a year had a Cultural Day where we learned about traditional stories, food, games & ceremonies in the First Nations culture. No other schools in the area had such a day, and the Native Band in the area was 100% on board with the programs and very excited that the school was able to present them to us.
      This middle ground reached by the practicing of both traditional Catholicism and facets of traditional Cowichan First Nations practices was not only very important to my community but taught all of us as students a lot about the culture and gave us a great amount of respect for it. Without those lessons, I’d probably still be ignorant of a major culture that I grew up in. I mean, the word Cowichan itself is a Hu’qumi’num word meaning “the warm land.”

    • Vinciane Boisson 4:31 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Although Canada and its culture are new to me, I do not have much examples of negociated cultural boundary in that regard. The only one I would have is when I find myself not understanding what someone tells me. When that happens, either the person is nice, polite, and somehow tries to rephrase and slows their utterance, or I get the feeling the person is getting annoyed or is downright rude about it. In the second case, I usually end up answering yes, even if I did not understand one word of what has been said – this can probably be labelled as an unsuccessfully negociated cultural boundary.

      The second example of negociated cultural boundary concerns religion. I grew up in with a (very) atheistic mother. My understanding until fairly recently was that religion brought the worse into people, instead of the contrary. And that only intellectually dim people could possibly believes such things. While I was first influenced by my mother, this stance was reinforced by what I would see at school.
      During my first year in University, I met a girl who is now a close friend. She was and still is very much dedicated to religion. At first, I was very rude to her and would not hide my opinions regarding religion. However, with time, as I would see that religion helped her be a good person (though, it could be argued that without religion, her personality would stay the same and she is just a good person at heart), I began being more respectful of her beliefs and listenning to her talk about it when she needed to. I also learnt from it not to flaunt my political and religious stances to people who might not think the same, as we sometimes both knew we would disagree on certain topics.
      I think a middle ground was reached by both of us accepting we had different opinions and beliefs, accepting and respecting them, and not trying to impose or convince at all costs the other of them.

    • jenniferbishop 4:46 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In lecture this week we have been learning about how the French colonists and Indigenous people found a middle ground in order to end the fighting. They found the middle ground through understanding and adopting each other’s customs. An example of this from my own life is a few years an ago my sister went on a two-week exchange to Japan. Then the following month a Japanese exchange student around our age came and stayed with our family for two weeks. Although I did not have the full culture experience that my sister had by going to Japan, I definitely still think I saw a successful middle ground between our two cultures. Aki learned more about the American culture because she was an exchange student she but also shared hers with my family and me. A key element to finding a middle ground is sharing cultural customs with each other. I know things we shared typical American customs with her, like her first cheeseburger, went tubing down the lake, built a bear at Build-A-Bear, Pike Place. In return Aki shared a bit of her favorite activities, and Japanese food. Aki brought over lots of Japanese candy and even prepackaged food, which she was able to add the necessary ingredients to, to made dinner one night. Overall, my family and Aki were able to find a great middle ground and to share our different customs. However, one key element to a successful middle ground is communication and that is something, which was sometimes a problem. This is because Aki spoke Japanese and a little English while my whole family only English which caused a language barrier. Luckily, Aki had a portable translator, which allowed her to type a sentence, and it would translate into English and visa versa so we were still able to communicate.

    • lsmack 4:48 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      One year, I participated in a Canoe Journey that paddled from Port Hardy down to Lummi, Washington. All through out the trip, we would stop at host communities for songs, dances and a meal. Each time we landed on a beach, we would follow protocol by stating where we are from then ask for permission to spend the night on their land. After each meal, the skippers (captains) of the canoes would hold skippers meetings to discuss the next day while we’re on the water and what to expect.

      In my family’s canoe, we had a paddle with a white feather tied on by a string of leather. We took it as a momento for our fallen family members and friends that had passed on. We wanted to have a symbol to show that we were paddling and participating in honour of our friends and family and not only for ourselves. So, one day, when we landed on a beach, we had the paddle sitting at the bow of the canoe with the feather hanging over board. As per custom, we did our protocol and were granted permission to spend the night.

      After the meal, we went to the ‘skippers meeting’ and there, the skippers would ask questions and share concerns. During the meeting, one of the cultural leaders of the host community stood up and made a reference of our feather. He didn’t call us out but he mentioned that, when a canoe came to their land with a feather hanging out of the canoe, their intentions were to start a war or a battle. Upon hearing this, I slumped in my chair knowing they were talking about my family canoe. They continued on to talk about other issues and ended soon after. After awhile, I picked up my pride and embarrassment, walked over to the leader and apologized about the feather and that we meant no harm. He said he was alright, knowing that we didn’t know but wanted us to respect their culture. With this, I made sure the feather of the paddle stayed into our canoe during the following protocols.

      Our common ground was built with the reaction of the cultural leader. He understood that we were a different nation, and therefor, didn’t react by being hostile and disrespect my canoe family. I believed I helped by not overreacting to him during the meeting and by owning up to my mistake. If we had both reacted differently, our canoe journey’s would have ended with one of our families being sent home or ended early.

    • Tina Loo 6:36 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Some general comments on Week 4 :

      Many people in the class brought up the fact that UBC is a very multicultural campus in a culturally diverse city, so that learning how to accommodate oneself to differences is something we have to do all the time. There were some great examples of how people react to differences – everything ranging from reacting with unease, frustration, and sometimes with aggression and bullying to making an effort to learn and adapt, whether through trying new foods, learning new words, figuring out new customs, or sharing (whether it be food or a love of football). But, as some of you pointed out, sometimes efforts to make a middle ground fail!

      Your stories led me to think that the key to making a middle ground is a mutual interest and commitment in doing so. The French and Indigenous nations that met at Montreal really wanted the same thing – trade and above all, peace – to the extent they were willing to be hostages in the “enemy’s” camp. Most of us don’t engaged in treaty negotiations, but we do have to find a way to get along in the midst of different cultures, and doing so successfully seems to be premised on an ability to get beyond our fears and to be open to new experiences, to let go, to a certain extent, of some of the ways we do things. This begins by recognizing that the way we do things, the things we think are “normal” aren’t necessarily seen that way by everyone!

  • admin 5:51 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 5 Wall 

    Given what you’ve learned this week about the politics of representation, what ideological purposes does the image below fulfill?

    Mort du Montcalm, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, 1902

     

    • liorbarel 11:11 pm on September 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In order to understand this painting of Montcalm by Marc-Aurele de Foy Suzor-Cote, we must understand the context within which it was painted. Louis-Joseph de Montcalm was a French commander in North America during the Seven Years War (1756 – 1763) who died at the Battle of Quebec. The story of his death is not especially triumphant – he was shot by a British soldier while retreating from the battle that was the result of his bad military decision, and had the result of French surrender.

      However, this painting portrays something quite different. Suzor-Cote, who was born in Quebec, is obviously portraying a strong sense of French Canadian nationalism. Montcalm, in his dying moments, is surrounded by many figures, who all look solemn – one man is even kissing Montcalm’s hand. The priest (in the only purple in the painting) and the nun (in the foreground) being there also suggests the importance of religion, and the importance of Montcalm’s death. Something else that might suggest religious connotation is the amount of white he is wearing, which connects him to many paintings of Jesus while Jesus was dying (Caravaggio’s Entombment of Christ, Mantegna’s Dead Christ, etc.). Finally, politically and historically, this painting elevates Montcalm and recognizes his importance in two ways: by making him the subject of the painting, and by painting so many French soldiers standing at his side while he dies (especially while there is the end of a battle going on outside!).

    • lindswong 10:38 am on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In my English classes I have taken in the past there was always a focus on perception. In particular we talked about framing in novels: how the narrator frames or “displays” an event or part of the story so that it gives off a certain meaning. Framing adds context and meaning to the story but has the ability to change the meaning given off by the event thus changing one’s perception of the event.

      Likewise in this painting, there is a framing of the event of Montcalm’s death to make it appear in a particular way to observers. Thus, framing is very important when used for ideological purposes. Marc-Aurèle painted this image in such a way that glorifies Montcalm. All the people surrounding his bed give off a sense that he was a highly respected person. Those kneeling around Montcalm, elevate his position as a leader of the people. Furthermore that fact that he is dressed in white is to show his type of character, and since white typically signifies purity, that is what is implied. In a sense, the painter connects Montcalm’s death to the many different portraits one sees of Christ’s crucifixion; almost putting Montcalm on the same level.

      Whether Montcalm was truly this type of person, deserving of such respect and honour is not a question that arises in this painting. Instead this painting fulfills its ideological purpose of glorifying, the general of the French army, and thus glorifies the French people as well. Ideologically the painting shows the “greatness” of the French and their leader, and can be used to help boost the morale of the French people or give off a sense to others of the solidity of the French people. In the end the French had lost the battle that Montcalm died in, which suggests that he may not have been as as strong of a leader as this portrait implies, thus showing the manipulation one makes to portray an event in a particular way.

    • aviaah 11:41 am on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The “Mort du Montcalm” is a painting that depicts just as it is named: the “Death of Montcalm”. In saying this, we can look at the painting with an observant eye, and extract from Montcalm’s dying moment a plethora of ideological and symbolic representations. The setting of the picture is that of Montcalm’s deathbed, and there is a grave tone to the painting. This can be inferred from the grey and brown undertones used by the artist to convey a solemn atmosphere, as well as the fact that those surrounding Montcalm, who appear to be soldiers or people of significance, are sullen and remorseful. Their hats are off to show respect to Montcalm, as well as to show that they are in the presence of someone, in this case the fallen lieutenant general of the French forces, who still deserves the respect of his superior position despite his vulnerable and weakened state. This picture also places heavy emphasis on religion and significant elements of Christianity. Firstly, the presence of the ornate priest and the kneeling nun place emphasis on the fact that the french, and the Canadiens, were devout Catholics. Catholicism was one of many attributes that separated the French from the British, the two groups that rallied against each other during the Battle of Quebec. From this battle, Montcalm earned a fatal shot from a british soldier, which is seen here in the painting: there is a red mark, a bloody wound, on Montcalm’s illuminated chest. As well, drawing attention to idea of light, it can be seen that Montcalm is the primary focus of this painting, as his bed is bathed in white light. His illumination is symbolic of the fact that he is depicted in this picture as pure, almost saintly, which links directly back to the religious elements of this painting. This saint-like portrayal plays upon the idea that Montcalm is being recognized for exceptionality, most likely for the fact that he led the battle against the British to defend their territory in North America. Because of this, the French most likely looked to Montcalm as a heroic figure and appreciated his contribution. What we must keep in mind, though, is the fact that this is a painting from a single hand, and therefore provides us with a single interpretation. We must ask ourselves: did everyone hold the same perception of Montcalm as the artist did? Whereas Suzor-Coté may have held certain opinions, and thus allowed his creation to exhibit his personal ideas, the painting does not account for the general perception of Montcalm that others may have held, and therefore we must take this into account when interpreting such work.

    • karinbjorkdahl 11:55 am on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      There is quite a few represents from the church portrayed in the picture, and due to their clothes I believe they belong to the Catholic Church. So you have the religious part. In the background it looks like poor people stand to grieve him, as well as people with higher social statuses. So the picture tries to visualize a representation from the whole society. In a situation where a whole country comes together and cross social-economical borders and grieve together there has to be a reason. The most likely would be that the dying man has done something for the whole country. Which is true, he fought for his country against a common enemy. The fact that there wasn’t anything special with his story is irrelevant though. That isn’t what the painter wants to mediate.

      As you said in class, the winner always writes the history and therefore, the winner has the opportunity to interpret the outcome. The easiest way, and the way that has always been used is to divide everything in black and white, bad and good. The dying man himself are dressed in white along with his bed and linens, which gives the viewer the impression of him being heroic and innocent. This enhances the purpose of the picture. The picture represent how the situation should be looked upon at that time, everybody how gives their lives for the country is heroes and should be glorified. And its purpose is to unify the people against the enemy.

    • tazizi 2:09 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From the painting, a person could assume that Montcalm was a man of importance, and his death is of great significance. After some research, one can find that his death was in fact, not that special or heroic. However, the artist is able to make a person believe this is not the case if they do not have any background information.

      Montcalm is the only character in the painting that has an abundance of light shining on him, drawing the attention of the observer to him. Also, being the only one dressed in, and surround by, the colour white, I would assume there is some significance to that. Perhaps it is representing his sacrifice and his heroic attributes. Painting people who kneeling, the artist has stressed Montcalm’s higher status and importance in the society. The man in the purple, who I am guessing to be a clergy member, paying his respects, reinforces the idea that Montcalm was important as the clergy had high status during this time period. Furthermore, the colour purple generally represents a person being high on the social ladder or belonging to royalty. The weeping people in the background are not as well dresses, and obviously not as well stressed by the artist, so maybe they are of the working or poorer class. With people from all ranks of society in the picture, it makes it seem that Montcalm is a well-known and liked man by many.

    • ecopeland 11:23 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The above image of Montcalm’s death shows that both the painter and the intended audience had immense respect for Montcalm. The onlookers in the painting are praying, some sobbing and others deeply shocked. This suggests that Montcalm’s death was a serious loss to his New French comrades who surround him with expressions of love and adoration. The figure that kneels beside Montcalm, clutching his hand conveys a sense that even on his death-bed Montcalm is their leader and they looked to him for advice and wisdom. In this respect it also could be seen to suggest that Montcalm’s death lent to the defeat of Quebec against the British, as he died just one day into the conquest of Quebec.
      The presence of the Roman Catholic Priest, possibly there to perform last rites on Montcalm, also reveals the significant religious ideology of the nation. The portrayal of his last moments, the way in which he is painted to look peaceful, clean and sage gives his death an honourable atmosphere and therefore gives the actions of the New French honour, that whilst they lost to the British they fought for valiant reasons.

    • tyler5 11:40 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The painter of this work used many details, some more subtle than others, to make implications about both the French general and the French people in general. There are several key factors that make the status of General Montcalm quite clear. Judging merely by the number of people beside his death bed indicates the massive level of respect this man had amongst his people. Men of wealth and importance, wearing redcoats, wielding finely made swords, and wearing powered wigs, signify the elite of society. In essence, within the painting, their purpose is to elevate the status of the general. They do so simply by their actions. Men are kneeling, praying, and crying; all due to the death of one man. As the general of the army and as a leader in the preservation and expansion of the French world, Montcalm’s ideological position is one of representation for all of France. The painter expands upon this position by dressing Montcalm in white garments. White is a symbol of purity, beauty, and grace. The painter implies that these traits are qualities of Montcalm, therefore qualities of France. He represents the glory of the entire nation, hence the beam of light shining upon him. Furthermore, the presence of the priest in the foreground of the painting indicates the importance that the Catholic Church had in influencing French people. He is dressed in extravagant robes, and is also under the beam of light. The priest looks down upon the French general with a solemn glance.This could be merely because he is mourning the loss of a great man, or, because during this era, the protestant church was gaining influence quickly; the priest may in fact be mourning at the loss of a French general who would have been a protector of the Catholic faith. Overall, this painting indicates certain French ideologies, specifically the role and preservation of the Church, as well as the characteristics of the French people and their leaders.

    • chliane 2:25 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The painting by Marc-Aurèle of the “Mort du Montcalm” depicts the death of a commander who served in the Seven Years war, which was fought over the colonies in what would become Canada. He won several glorious battles, but was eventually shot on the Plains of Abraham and died the same night as Wolfe, the British commander.

      In this painting, Montcalm is lying on his deathbed entirely in white robes, which can symbolize his purity or cleanliness from sin, signifying that he fought for what was right. He is surrounded by people of importance, such as generals and members of the church in their religious attire. They all have their hats removed, and have bowed their heads, and some are kneeling. All of them have sad or solemn looks on their downcast faces. The fact that these important figures are all present shows the reverence for whom the artist depicts as a holy, righteous man who was highly honored.

      The ideological purpose of this painting was to celebrate the French people and bring them together. It celebrates the spirit of the French people, who fought with God on their side, as suggested by the religious figures present. By depicting Montcalm as holy and good, the picture tells the French people that they were the “good guys,” fighting against the evil forces who had come to take their land. Marc-Aurèle reproduces Montcalm in such a way that he becomes a martyr, which also affirms this point, that the French and Montcalm were soldiers of the righteous, and those that died had done so for the greater good in upholding their beliefs. Even though the French lost the war, the painter tells the story that they died for a good cause, and they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

    • amrita 4:09 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The image that Marc-Aurèle depicts in this sketch is the death of a commander in the French army in New France. The commander, Montcalm, died from a musket wound in 1759 after the French army was defeated in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The painting shows that Marc-Aurèle believed in the goodness of Montcalm as illustrated by the symbolism present in the empty chair, the colour and lighting on the main character in question, as well as the number of people surrounding Montcalm’s deathbed. This painting may demonstrate that Marc-Aurèle had great admiration for the French of New France. For the first example, although it can be overlooked, there is an empty chair present. By itself, it may mean nothing, yet it could also represent the spirit of Christ or the person. It may show that that Montcalm was blessed and did no wrong in pursuing command and attempting to defeat the British. Secondly is the main object the sketch focuses on: Montcalm. He is shown dressed in white and lays on a bed covered with white sheets. Again, this could be something innocuous as many people do have white bedsheets and white dressing gowns, yet many cultures use white as a symbol of something pure and clean. It may be that the white shows the goodness of Montcalm and the brightness of the white in comparison to the darker colours also aids in emphasizing the elevated status of Montcalm. Lastly, we see that in his death Montcalm is surrounded by many people. These people could have been persons who served under his command, perhaps friends as well. We also see a nun and a priest. Everyone appears to be upset at his death which demonstrates the importance of Montcalm, as quite bluntly, there would be no need to show grief for someone who did not mean something to many people. In conclusion, the ideological purposes served by Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté’s painting shows the righteousness and greatness of Montcalm in leading the French army in the battles of the 1700’s.

    • madden34 4:18 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The artist Marc-Aurele has painted a very significant photo here named “Mort du Montcalm” which provides a visual representing the death of Montcalm. Montcalm has many people surrounding him including a nun and a priest. This depicts that religion was quite present in this time, and the importance around it. Montcalm is in his deathbed , the French Canadian nationalism is present. It is made clear by the painter that their intention is to portray the man in his deathbed in the spotlight. There is a man kneeling kissing his hand while it seems the other are sulking over the death of him. The white clothing he is wearing is promoting the purity he holds, while being a key concept for the observer to see. The overall purpose of this painting is to glorify Montcalm and to show the hero Montcalm and his sacrifice for his country.

    • amandawoodland 4:52 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “Mort du Montcalm” is a striking representation of the death of General Montcalm, who died in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. The dark and neutral colours give the image a somber tone, which is reinforced by the stances of the people; some have their heads bent, some kneel, etc. Two figures in particular are made to stand out through use of brighter colour. The first is the Catholic priest dressed in traditional robes, who represents the significant role that religion played during the time (the praying nun further supports this). The second is Montcalm himself, whose white clothing and bedding draw the eye to him as the central subject of the image. The use of white also implies glory – Montcalm’s death is portrayed as somewhat glorious in this image. The men surrounding him can be assumed to be high ranking, prestigious figures as they are all dressed well. They have clearly come to pay their respects to Montcalm. When searching for more information on General Montcalm, I discovered that he was not loved by everyone; however, he died in the position of respect and that is the view that this artist has illuminated.

    • Tina Loo 12:09 pm on October 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments:
      Good job everyone. Most of you picked up on the fact that this painting, like Benjamin West’s, makes a visual argument about their subjects; i.e. Generals Wolfe and Montcalm. That said, the two paintings are very different. Many of you commented on the significance of the colours used by Suzor-Coté as opposed to West, but not many of you picked up on the significance of portraying Montcalm dying in bed.

      Why show Montcalm in bed rather than on the battlefield? Is it some sort of critical commentary; i.e. that generals die in bed while their troops suffer? Probably not in this case. Could it be that the painter wanted to avoid showing Montcalm dying on the battlefield because that would call attention to a French DEFEAT? He still wanted to portray the French general as a hero, though, so he showed him inside, with no reference to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (or any other battle for that matter). If you didn’t know anything about the circumstances of Montcalm’s death, you wouldn’t even know he’d been fighting….

      • liorbarel 10:57 pm on October 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        That’s a good point. You don’t think the painter would assume that the person looking at his painting knows who the subject is, and his history, at least a little bit? Also, isn’t he surrounded by men with swords?
        But maybe he could be saying Montcalm is a hero, despite his defeat (not in loo of it).

  • admin 5:50 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 6 Wall 

    Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?

     

    • liorbarel 7:17 pm on October 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behaviour is not universal. Different societies with differering economic cultures and values in relation to what is important engender people who have different economic behaviours from those in other societies. Furthermore, while generalizations can often be made about societal economic behaviour, individuals within each society often have different economic behaviours from what is expected of them, and from what they grew up with. A relevant modern example of this is the changing economic culture of Sweden, from a pseudo-socialist welfare state to a neo-liberal capitalist one. Those economic cultures, while very different from each other, were both put into place by government elected by people – which means that the opinions with regards to economics within Sweden have changed. (One might argue that both systems were created in order to maximize self-interest, but I would argue that the former system was created to pursue societal self-interest, with the self-benefit following from that.) Also, on an individual level, people act out of non-self interest every day, when they help someone with homework or with getting a job, etc. (again, one can argue that these actions can be done out of self-interest, but I believe that self-interest is most often not the motivating factor, and therefore not the reason for the action.)

      An example of a backward sloping supply curve in my life would be summer camp. As a camper, there is no material benefit from attending summer camp. Furthermore, as a counselor, I am paid very little, yet I have worked for both of the past two summers where being a counselor was available to me – at the opportunity cost of finding a job that is better paying, and therefore more materially beneficial. I think that in general, non-material self-interest comes from two places, both of which I would say apply to me: from a non-material self-interest, like making friends and learning; and from a material or non-material interest in something “greater” than oneself (i.e. the collective, the group, the organization, etc.).

    • amandawoodland 12:15 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I do not believe that economic behaviour, when described in terms of the pursuit of material self-interest at all times, is universal. While it is not controversial to suggest that groups of people must pursue their own interests in certain ways at certain times (for the purposes of survival and health, or simply for comfort, security, and pleasure), to suggest that people pursue their material self-interest all the time would be too strong an argument. There are plenty of counterexamples to suggest otherwise. These can be found on both a group and individual level. One notable example of someone who consistently put herself at the service of others was Mother Theresa, who, despite numerous health issues, personal conflicts of faith, and other hardships dedicated the majority of her life to helping others in need. This kind of behaviour (in varying extremes) can be seen within certain religious groups in which people forgo material luxuries and dedicate their own lives to supporting greater purposes than their own. It could, of course, be argued that these people must emotionally or spiritually benefit from their service to others; however, I do not consider this self-interest to count as economic behaviour by which they are seeking to advance their material interest. In terms of a backward sloping supply curve, I think that there are certainly times in people’s lives when this description can be applied to their behaviour, especially as described by the example of a worker choosing to replace hours of work with more leisure time. Yet this does not seem to advance the worker’s own material self-interest so much as it is does help him gain comfort/happiness through other means. What I would truly consider acting out of material self-interest would be finding an even higher paying job and working more hours in order to make money that can be spent on luxury items.

    • jpellegrino 4:14 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I do not think economic behavior is universal. I strongly believe that depending on how or where someone was raised, one might be more inclined to pursue their material self-interest than others. For example, if a child were raised in Los Angeles by a wealthy, affluent, material seeking parent, I would assume that this child would grow up more predisposed to pursue material things. I say this because both, the way in which the child was probably brought up mixed with the type of society he or she occupies makes for a perfect economically, self-interested individual. Unfortunately, I must generalize using this example. On the other hand, if a child we raised in the small town of Spence’s Bridge, British Columbia and were raised in a modest home, struggling to make ends meet, I think this child would be less inclined to pursue material self-interest because he or she was probably taught to appreciate what little they have. While I say that not everyone in the world is self-interested, I believe that you could, in another light say that everyone has an instinctive right to pursue the necessities of life in order to sustain themselves. However, in looking at this, it is safe to say in order to sustain one’s life, materials are needed. Thus, is it appropriate to assume that even the homeless in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver are also inclined to pursue their material self-interest because they are trying to live for tomorrow?

    • tazizi 4:15 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      No, economic behaviour is not universal, especially when it is described as the personal need to always pursue material self-interest. It appears that as a whole, industrialized societies have adopted this economic behaviour and consumerism as a way of life, but that’s not the case for all people or societies. If a society does not have their basic physiological needs, such as food, sleep and clean water, I doubt the people of that society would be immersed in economic behaviour and have need to pursue material self-interest. In addition, economic behaviour only plays a significant part of someone’s life if material items are what are valued in their society. Some cultures, societies or tribes do not place importance on physical material but rather spiritual growth or helping others. Also, one can argue that true altruism (if that does indeed exist) would promote a person to have selfless concern for others and not be concerned with materialism. Both Ghandi and Mother Teresa have seemed to demonstrate this. Of course some people would debate there is no true altruism, as everyone is trying to help themselves in some way. Another example is the Aboriginal potlatch. While the practice was used for elevating status, the Aboriginal tribes did not necessarily pursue their material self-interest as they would often give their best items away. Doing some research on the “backward sloping supply curve,” in labour terms, it would appear that a higher wage means workers can reach their target income by working fewer hours; so, because it is easier to get enough money they work less.

    • karinbjorkdahl 8:41 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      There is no universal economic behaviour. I believe that the economical behaviour is strongly connected with culture. Western societies is a consumer society and wealth gives you a higher social status so I believe that you even can say that people tend to develop greed in some extent in western societies. And it’s very much focus on material things, or it has been so for a long period of time. However, I do believe that things are changing a bit. Today, there are some tendencies towards another direction. Family, travelling, quality time and well being in general is the new “thing”. I believe that this trend actually will change prioritising people have today.

      But there still is this problem that you can’t get around. For travelling, quality time etc. you do need money. Of course it differs depending on what you want to do but the more money you have the more you can travel and the destinations increases when the wallet is thicker. I read an article not long ago saying that money won’t make you happy, BUT the happiness is easier to access with money. Unfortunately I think that that actually is true. And as long as that is the case this economical behaviour will exist, at least in the western societies.

    • ecopeland 11:09 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behaviour could be qualified as universal when looked at on a world-market scale. Globalisation has ensured that for most transnational businesses to succeed they will run on according to certain well defined, well practiced behaviours (economic theories) e.g. profit margins go up when labor costs go down.
      On a personal scale, economic behaviour may and may not qualify as universal. What a single male does with his per-annum earnings will differ significantly to the way two adults with three children will use their hourly-wage earnings. However given that, without thorough study, I could presume that the out of 100 single men the majority will spend their money in the same practice and the same for family units- this shows that economic behaviour for both groups is universal, but only with units alike.
      The ‘backward bending supply curve’ applies to labor supply and wages, e.g skilled labourers that employers want to entice with higher wage. This theory is based on the premise that wages over a certain level will result in a universal economic behaviour; that workers will work less because the time they spend not working is compensated by a higher wage in their working hours. Leisure time is increased and as a result the worker feels less drawn to increase their working hours. The employer sees little improvement in labor supply and employee spends their wages at the same or even higher rate than before the pay rise.

    • tyler5 1:00 am on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe that a very basic level, the majority of people follow a set of fundamental economic laws. For example, laws of scarcity and opportunity costs are seen in everyday decisions. However, when it comes to material self-interest, it’s impossible to say that people act in a strictly universal manner. In the context of this week, the economic action shown by the Indians shows that even people thought of as backwards savages, were practicing universal laws of economics. Now, this in mind, to say that all people pursue this action all the time is incorrect. One can’t make the assumption that everyone on earth acts in the exact same way economically. To illustrate this principle, one can look at a backwards sloping supply curve; or in other words, something breaking a basic economic law. An example of a backward sloping supply curve would be something of limited exclusivity. For example, top end sports cars. A company, as the price and value of their car grew, would produce less due to an increase in status. In turn, creating a cycle of increased demand due to a status effect. Therefore, the value would increase even further, driving up the price with it.

    • lindswong 12:02 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In my opinion economic behaviour is dependent on country and therefore, culture. Some countries’ economic behaviour are similar if not near identical due to the physical proximity of particular countries resulting in similar cultures or simply due to the close economic relations between certain countries. For example, generally first world countries, such as China, the States, Britain and Canada, have close economic ties and economy is based on a consumerist society. Therefore in countries such as these, people generally tend to pursue their own material self-interest because the mentality in these countries is very much focused in making the best life for oneself and taking advantage of every opportunity. However, in other countries, such as developing nations, they don’t enjoy all the luxuries that the developed countries do. Therefore, their economic behaviour will be different and possibly not as focused on the pursuing of material self-interest.

      The concept of a backward sloping supply curve does not well apply to me. As in the definition the idea is that, for example, a person who gets a pay increase would be able to obtain the same equivalent amount through working less, therefore it seems likely the person would work less. However, my mentality is very much that I would work just as much or more in order to earn just that much more than before. This is in the case when profit is involved, however, but for example in high school when I volunteered I would give the minimum amount of hours in order to meet the quota needed to graduate. So, in some volunteer positions I would have to volunteer about 2 hours once per week in order for me to obtain the hours I need. One volunteer position, however, would round up a few hours in order to help us meet our quota faster, therefore, I could volunteer less and still meet my quota. This behaviour depicted here is a good example of the type of economic behaviour generally present in developed countries where a backward sloping supply curve would be expected to happen, yet this is by no means a universal behaviour.

    • lsmack 1:27 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In today’s day, all countries and people would be involved in economic behaviours. Countries are importing and exporting trade goods to and from outside their country. They are trading to improve their status at the world scale. People are taught they need to work to pay for their basic needs. Some people even work more to gain more materialistic items they want. The elite people of social class are pursuing their self-interest all the time. They work strictly for money. Money is first and foremost while their families are second in terms of values. The lower class are not so lucky. They work at minimum wage to make ends meet and to survive.

      The “backward sloping supply curve” idea is new but the one thing that I can make a connection to this is poker. Some guys are playing every hand to keep their head above water. They are constantly betting and calling but sometimes losing to better hands, therefor having to start from the bottom again. When they lose so many chips, they become selective of choosing their hands. They don’t make the right decisions, meaning the flop could go their way but they folded. Then you have the guys who have luck and win the one big pot, making them the chip leader. when they are chip leader, they can choose and pick which hands to play and muck. sometimes, they just sit there and wait until the blinds are high enought to jump into the action.

    • aviaah 2:12 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behaviour is indeed universal, for as long as there is some monetary form and value, people will subconsciously follow economic rules. Economy is essentially a global enterprise, and does not only deal with the individual or a single society, but is characterized by the interconnection between state economies that rely on each other.
      Economic behaviour as we see it so far is based on how people have acted thus far. People will always pursue their self-interest, for they want to better their condition and their lives. Whether that is material or immaterialistic is debatable, but again, monetary forms help make that decision and transition. The amount of fiscal goods you have will, of course, limit and define your self-interest. My example of this lies with the idea of the “backwards sloping supply curve”. Say that it is in your self-interest to go to University. But if the price to attend increases, it will naturally become more selective and exclusive. If the price rises up to a certain extent, it may be in your self-interest to not go to University for the time being, and instead get a job in order to attain other things that would serve to be in your interest. This is also a matter of opportunity cost, if one were to delve into the topic further.

    • jenniferbishop 3:14 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      No, economic behavior is not always universal. I think it greatly has to do with how you were raised. There are a couple different options for how you were raised will affect your economic behavior. One option is lets say you were born and raised in the Upper Eastside of New York, you have been raised with lots of money so material objects are of importance to you. If someone raised in the Upper Eastside was in this situation and offered a higher wage, they would mostly likely continue to work the same amount of hours. If you compare this to the backward sloping supply curve, this person does not follow the backward sloping supply curve and take more leisure time. They wouldn’t take the leisure time because they have been raised in an environment where earning more money is most important. However on the other hand take some one raised in a very family orientated environment, and is offered a higher wage would follow the backward sloping supply curve. They would choose to work less and spend the extra leisure time with their family as long as all of their basic needs were covered; this is because family is most important to them. In conclusion, someone’s economic behavior can be determined by their values: for example family or money.

    • chliane 3:16 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I do not believe economic self interest is universal. Economic behaviour is how people act and make decisions in economics. Every society has their way of dealing with economics, and it is not necessarily in a self interested manner. Particularly with the natives, who appear to be more concerned with keeping the land and preserving their way of life than exchanging it for profit. We learned in the lectures that when given better offers for their furs, the natives would provide fewer furs to trade. This flies in the face of all that we understand to be modern economics. Clearly they were not acting in self interest in this early trading economy.

      Their actions follow the backward sloping supply curve, but I do not believe the graph explains their motives. This figure explains the phenomenon where workers will eventually begin to work less after a certain point in rise of wages is reached. This is fairly self-explanatory, as having higher wages means less work needs to be done to acquire more money. In the case of trading goods however, the trend is often to acquire as much as you can. It is not until a person is so incredibly ‘saturated’ with material goods that they are satisfied, and will slow their intake of goods. In the case of the natives, they could have gained so much more for very little effort on their part, but as it was mentioned in the readings, they traded mainly for need, and were satisfied not because they had all they wanted, but because they had all they needed. This is a very different economic that we see almost anywhere else.

    • amrita 3:27 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In terms of pursuing material self-interest, I doubt and disagree that economic behaviour is universal, as there are many indigenous cultures in the world who focus on the well-being of the society before they act out of their own self-interests. Yet I do agree that economic behaviour in the form of trading of items to obtain items is universal. For instance, there are cultures which exchange animals in order to trade their daughter or perhaps to gain land. Others exchange jewelry to obtain other materials they desire.
      Asking if all people pursue material self-interest all the time rings a clear answer in my mind, and that would be a definite “no.” Of course, many people pursue material self-interest some or most of the time; for example we go to work to earn money so that we may obtain and buy material items only we desire, but saying all people all of the time is a bit of an obvious exaggeration.
      In relation to the course, it is possible that the indigenous people, as the formalists say, were motivated by their own material self-interest to gain materials they may not have been able to utilize without participating in the fur trade. Seen at another angle, however, we could also say that the indigenous peoples participated not out of their own material self-interest, but for other altruistic reasons because generosity and helpfulness was a large of their culture.

    • Vinciane Boisson 4:40 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I do not believe economic behaviour to be universal. It is based on politics and economics – for example, it is generally held true that a capitalist environment allows for a strong need for material self-interest. If we consider this week’s tutorial reading, this may not have been the case at all for some Native tribes. History of economics and politics also plays an important role, in that if the features of economics or politics change, the behaviour of people concerned by these changes will not change in the short term.

      I think nowadays all people pursue their material self-interest all the time, albeit at different levels and to different extent. Poor people aspire for a greater wealth (I know “all you need is love”, but being able to eat every day has its perks too), and middle-class or rich people aspire to maintain their wealth, if not increase it. Except for potential still existing Indigenous peoples in the world (though, from what I gathered, many come to understand the importance money and material possessions have in industrial societies), everyone has to pursue material wealth in order to survive, or live. What changes it the ratio people applies to their pursuit of wealth and their social life and hobbies, or the importance they put on volunteering and similar activities.

      I cannot think of any instances of my life when there has been a “backward-sloping supply curve” situation, as I never found myself in the position to earn enough money to be able to cut back work hours in favour of leisure time.

    • Tina Loo 12:49 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on Week 6:
      What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone was at pains to be very careful about generalizing about human behaviour! That’s great. Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….

      It would be hard to believe that economic behaviour is universal; i.e. that all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). Even within one time and place it doesn’t seem universal. Many of you gave me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?

      Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and (in another tutorial) art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?

  • admin 5:40 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 7 Wall 

    What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?

     

    • tazizi 1:40 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Political, economic and social factors played a large part in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s.
      It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as they could; for example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791 to try to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based they law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigneurial system. Also, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take.
      However, we also have to think about the political system as well. Even with an elected assembly, the majority of the power was left to the elite Anglophones in both Upper and Lower Canada. The elite were also given large plots of land and had advantages that most people didn’t. In addition, they were able to keep their wealth by the booming timber trade that was caused by the Napoleonic Wars; this created a wider separation between the elite and the majority of people. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French. As for the Aboriginal, it appears the British didn’t do as well accommodating them as the some of the other groups of people. I believe the Indigenous people kept being pushed west of the colonies and if they chose to remain, found themselves being under the control of the British government system instead of their own. Plus with the British fear of the French Catholics in Lower Canada, and the Americans in Upper Canada, even though the British tried accommodating as many people as they could, they still couldn’t stop the tension between different groups and the fear of treason.

      • chliane 2:20 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Many factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America. The British in many ways were less accommodating than the French toward the natives. The French learned the native traditions and customs, and kept up trade even when furs weren’t in demand, just to keep good relations. The British were not as accommodating, particularly towards the Métis, when the Governor of Assinaboia put up laws that went against their lifestyle. The factor here that limited their ability to be accommodating would be economics, as the governor wanted to maximize profits for his own people.

        The British were somewhat accommodating towards the French. It was the British who had control of the land, but the majority of the settlers were French, and Catholic as well. The British desire to have the upper hand would have been a limiting factor in terms of accommodation. The Anglophones would have expected their mother land to take their side, and make sure they were well provided for ahead of the French. But they would have worried about possible separatist movements rising up if they did not give them some accommodations, and so some provisions were made to the French, such as dividing the colonies into Upper and Lower Canada, and giving them the right to vote and hold office.

        The biggest limiting factor of accommodation however, is most likely greed. Governments always want the support of the wealthy, and so many provisions were given to the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact, namely large land grants. Things were not so good for you, whether you were a French or English farmer. Both groups had the right to vote, but their votes were essentially useless as the elected assembly could do nothing against the will of the executive legislature. Just like we learned in lectures, ordered liberty can only work with inequality.

        • Tina Loo 2:32 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          You’re right that the British and French accommodated themselves to different groups, but why? What did they gain by doing so? And were they always accommodating? What factors affected how far they were willing to go?

      • Tina Loo 2:29 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Tarah, I think you’re right that the British did try to accommodate different kinds of people in their empire, but why did they do so? Because they were nice? 🙂 Or did they have particular motives for doing so? Why was it that certain people – like Indigenous people – were accommodated and then weren’t?

    • liorbarel 2:43 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      It seems from what we’ve learned so far that the British were willing to accommodate almost everything politically, socially, and economically, that didn’t threaten the inherently British national character (or the attempt to create a British national character) of Upper and Lower Canada.
      In Britain, there was a parliamentary political system that had been around for 100 years (since the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and was relatively stable. And so, the British assumed that a replica of the British system in North America, with a couple changes, would be the most stable system. However, they were wrong, and soon they realized that the national characters of Upper and Lower Canada were very different than that of Great Britain, filled with republican, radical, revolutionary, enlightenment and nationalist ideals that could not be fulfilled in the context of the straight British system.
      In Upper Canada, Britain was less accommodating. They tried to create a hierarchy by giving large land grants and high government posts to the Loyalists who had just come from America. But, probably because they had just dealt with Americans in the Revolutionary War and were tired of American ideals, when this idea was rejected, the opposition was crushed (as shown by the story Joseph Willcocks, who was removed from office for espousing the idea of ministerial responsibility).
      In Lower Canada, however, the British were slightly more accommodating. When the same “create a pseudo-aristocracy” idea was tried there, and the Parti Canadien was started in response to protest a lack of ministerial responsibility, there was no response of dissolving that political party. A possible reason for this seemingly hypocritical juxtaposition of actions from the British is that in Upper Canada, the Americans were arguing for ministerial responsibility with their American ideals, which were seen as threatening to the British national character, whereas in Lower Canada, Pierre Bedard used the rhetoric from the British Constitution in order to argue for the same thing.

      • Tina Loo 2:33 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Lior, I like the idea that the British accommodated people when it was in their self-interest to do so. What was that self-interest, exactly?

    • jpellegrino 4:05 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British took several different actions in attempting to adapt British North America to the diversity they were faced with. To begin, the British accepted those loyalists who fled from the America’s in search of some place safer. In moving to places such as Nova Scotia and Quebec, the loyalists ended up shaping the British colonies. Having to accommodate different types of groups, the British were forced to create imperial governance. Since the loyalists owned black slaves, they were forced to bring their property with them to British territory. In doing this, there was an influx of racism. Not only were the blacks a racial minority, but they were also given smaller areas of land than the whites. As a result, the blacks began to complain that Halifax was much too far from the area they were settled in and the loyalists voiced that they longed for an elective assembly. The British were then obliged to accommodate the black loyalist immigrants. In order to accommodate their demands, British in London, divided New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, into Upper and Lower Canada. By doing this, each colony would receive their own legislative council and consequently, the British would assure the “loyalists’” loyalty. Since the loyalists began to get their way, the Indigenous people felt as if they were displaced, ignored and betrayed because the blacks began to make their way through Indigenous land. Frederick Haldimand, the governor of Anishinabeg territory, was forced to accommodate his aboriginal peoples. Haldimand did this by making arrangements for attractive land to be set-aside for aboriginals. By accepting loyalists of both black and white, British North America was forced to acknowledge a domino affect that these diverse groups would bring to their colonies by accommodating three different races concurrently; blacks, whites and indigenous.

      • Tina Loo 2:34 pm on October 21, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Jessica, you’ve got some good examples here of how the British tried to accommodate different groups. But the question is why? And why did they stop trying to accommodate certain groups, like Indigenous peoples?

    • ecopeland 7:54 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      British North America made attempts to accommodate loyalists during the American Revolution, including slave populations. To make room for this large growth in refugee population Nova Scotia was settled greatly and expansion westwards was made inevitable. This caused some dissonance amongst settlers because land promises to loyalists grew smaller in the later years of the Revolution. Those who arrived after would receive smaller parcels than those who came earlier, leading them to argue their loyalty was not as valued by the British. This came into conflict with land promises made to aboriginal people and resulted in additional treaties being made to appease them.
      There was also anger because of the growing contact between Anglophone settlers and the black ex-slaves that sought sanctuary in Canada, and with the French Canadian peoples too. The British white elite were unhappy with this contact and effectively segregated the French. Resulting in Lower Canada and Upper Canada being created in 1791. This is a prime example of how British North America stopped accommodating challenges to their governance. This action was repeated when French elites attempted to secure political representation for themselves by creating an assembly and populated it by election, they dismantled their assembly and enforced stricter political restrictions on Lower Canada bringing them under the control of the executive branch of legislature.

      • Tina Loo 8:31 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Elizabeth, you’re right that one of the ways that the British accommodated diversity was to divide Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, and that there were limits to how far they would go in the examples of what happened to former Black slaves and freemen as well as Indigenous people – they were accommodated but in a limited way, and the extent of accommodation changed over time. What you need to think about is why; i.e. what was the context in which the British accommodated and then stopped accommodating?

    • amandawoodland 10:37 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      A well-known idiom states, “You just can’t please everyone.” The act of redefining British North America (BNA) in the early 1800s is an excellent example of this. Following the American Revolution, immigration by a large number of Loyalists triggered what would be a series of major changes to the strategy of governance within BNA. While the British went to great lengths to accommodate themselves, not everyone around them was treated as well as. A number of factors shaped the limits of this accommodation, leading to a situation in which the British just couldn’t please everyone.

      After the Constitutional Act was enacted in 1791, BNA was split into Upper Canada (UC) and Lower Canada (LC). This split allowed for a divide in the prevailing systems of law, land-holding, and so forth. Both the Anglophone majority in UC and the Francophone majority of LC were appeased in this way; both areas were represented by their own bicameral legislature. Unfortunately, in the early 1800s, seemingly arbitrary hierarchies developed, causing controversy and an upset to the balanced constitution.
      Anglophone elite – known as the Chateau Clique – came to dominate both the appointed legislative and executive councils. Their growing wealth bought them most of the available land, giving them more power to vote. As their power grew, they posed a larger threat to Francophone identity. In UC, Loyalists – especially the Family Compact – were also favoured in order to create a “model British colony.” In these ways, the constitution which was supposed to create balance ended up strongly disfavouring the Francophones.

      Furthermore, while the focus was centred heavily on loyalty issues between the British and the French in BNA, the interests of the Natives were largely overlooked. Even after the Aboriginal population supported BNA against Americans, the common enemy, their attempt at regaining their previous level of independence was ignored. The British did little to accommodate this group, showing a massive change in priorities from earlier centuries.

      Because of the growing variety of cultures present in BNA, it is likely that it would have been impossible to accommodate all groups. However, despite the fact that the British seemingly went to greater lengths to accommodate themselves than others, the situation led to a number of positive outcomes, the most significant of which being the rise of modern-day nationalism.

      • Tina Loo 8:33 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Amanda, You’re right that the British accommodated Americans – and then stopped doing so. You’re also right that they accommodated French and English differences in Quebec by splitting the colony into Upper and Lower Canada. There are other examples too, but what you need to think about is why the British did so – and why they stopped.

    • richardj 12:51 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The limits of accommodation by the British Governments were affected by the three major factors, the Indigenous First Nations, Loyalist immigrations and the original French Colonists. In order to get their house in order, the British Government had to make concessions, the most influential were the Haldimand proclamation of 1784 and the Constitution Act of 1791. The British knew that anarchy would prevail if they didn’t act to recognize the distinct nature of different cultures in their new territories. The creation of the upper and lower colonies of Canada accommodated the needs the English and French speaking citizens by giving a voice to Political autonomy. This being said, the British Government accomodation were limited by the hierarchy that it created.

      • richardj 1:16 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Though divided by language and a new border, the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly were still controlled by the wealthy landowners who occupied the seats. In order to facilitate ongoing loyalty of the Six Nations, the Haldimand Proclamation satisfied the interests of the Mohawk Nation but ignored the Anishinabeg peoples to the west. The British Government could not answer every petition placed before them however British Sovereignty was always the cornerstone of any concessions granted.

        • Tina Loo 8:47 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Richard, you’ve given some good examples of accommodation and how their willingness to accommodate changed over time. But remember that the British didn’t just accommodate Indigenous peoples. They were willing to accommodate Catholics (in Acadia and Quebec) and Americans as well as former slaves and Black freemen, and they dealt with differences between French and English by creating the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada from the larger colony of Quebec. They also carved out New Brunswick from Nova Scotia in response to demands from Loyalists for more responsive government institutions.

          I don’t expect people to include all these examples, mind you. But what I did want people to do was to think about the contexts in which accommodation occurred because as you point out, the willingness on the part of the British to do so changed over time. Why? In other words, what factor shaped their willingness to accommodate different groups of people?

    • FribaRezayee235 1:14 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Blog Week Seven

      What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?

      According to the Canadian history, politics, economic and social factors had an important role in limiting the accommodation of the British in British North American in the early 1800s. People who were there were the People of BNA, French people majority in Canada East, British people majority in Canada West and Maritime, First Nations and Metis majority in the Prairies, British and Americans majority in British Columbia. In addition to that The Great Migration attracted settlers. Many people moved from Europe in the 1830s and 1840 due to poverty and food shortages forced them to emigrate. Especially Newfound Diversity has a history of People from Netherlands, Germany and Ireland now part of Canada, and Irish came because of Potato Famine. It seems the British did as best as they could to accommodate as many people as possible. For example, they separated Quebec into two different colonies with the Constitutional Act of 1791, and tried to please both the French and the English. Within these colonies, they based their law system off of the majority of people living there; British laws were adopted in Upper Canada while Lower Canada had the continuation of the French civil law and the seigniorial system. Most importantly, voting became more available with the special oath Catholic men could take. Even with their advantages, the elite Loyalists, at least in Lower Canada, people weren’t happy that the French were now able to vote and that the civil law was in French.

      The life in BNA was based on gender roles. For instance, women were responsible for domestic chores, men responsible for outside tasks, everyone helped with big jobs. The sad part of the history was the Social Characteristics, because Canada East was mostly French and Roman Catholic, West was mostly English and Protestant, the black communities in Nova Scotia, and in West First Nation people were apart from Europeans due to their distinct class divisions. Therefore, constant movement caused
      people always looking to improve their quality of lives. Last but not least, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island united in 1866. Traditional British government system American influenced it for gold rush. There were thought it should join America, than being a British colony.

      • Tina Loo 8:51 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Friba, You’re right that the British tried to accommodate many different groups of people, but remember that their willingness to do so changed over time. To take one example, Indigenous people were accommodated through the Proclamation of 1763, but it wasn’t too long afterwards that they were placed on reserves. What was the context – in other words, what were the circumstances – that made the British more or less willing to accommodate different groups of people?

    • lindswong 2:41 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British went to great lengths to accommodate the different groups of people in North America during the early 1800s. With the creation of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, each respectively dominated by Francophones or Anglophones, the British were able to adapt laws to suit each group best. In particular the French in Upper Canada were permitted to follow their own laws, such as the landholding system they followed was the seigneurial system despite being under British rule. Furthermore Britain was aware of the English minority that would be living in Lower Canada as well and thus still allowed to accommodate them according to British law. Furthermore, though the British were predominately protestant, they allowed for catholic representation in the government, in that they were allowed the right to vote. What was strictly to remain under British rule was the criminal law however. The British would tolerate only so much, but when it came to the court and punishment the British knew they had to be in control in order to keep the country in order.

      Much accommodation was made for the Loyalist settlers coming from the States as well. As more and more Loyalists came they began to disperse further than Nova Scotia, many settling in Upper Canada. In Upper Canada concessions were made for the Loyalists as Britain knew it was important to have their support. But trying to settle these new groups of people resulted in a lack of accommodation for the native people. Natives were constantly being pushed off their lands and although they were granted reserves, they often weren’t large and also not as good of a quality of land as the settlers received.]

      Overall, the British did do a lot in the way of accommodation as has not been done in the past. Factors for this were not only due to the increasing white settler population but also the need to have the majority backing the British in order for them to keep control of British North America. In the end to accommodate some groups meant that others would be left out. Therefore, Britain’s accommodation was limited to the groups that thy felt were the most vital to have support from.

      • Tina Loo 8:53 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        YES! You are one of the few people to get to the heart of the matter, to address why the British were more or less willing at different times to accommodate different groups. It’s in your last sentence – I would have liked a little elaboration of this part and less of the description of accommodation, but great job!

    • dallasyassinsky 3:03 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British implemented many factors into accommodating new settlers. Factors such as political, economic and social advances that adapted in to problems. The problem is that these factors didn’t always accommodate settlers and especially the indigeneous peoples. New settlers were often promised large parcels of land that would be granted to them in hopes of cultivating it and thriving economically. Later on this land continued to diminish for settlers which created social problems for the settlers. For the native peoples it was not very beneficial, they continued to not get respect from the new British colonists and were socially crippled by the British in an attempt to increase settlement population.

      • Tina Loo 12:50 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Dallas, can you elaborate on what you mean by political, economic, and social advances? I do think the political, economic, and social contexts shaped how and how much the British accommodated other people but it’s not entirely clear what you mean from this. Also, you’re right to point out that people who were accommodated at one time weren’t accommodated at other times, the best example being Indigenous peoples. So what made the difference?

    • madden34 3:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From what we have learned so far the British in the early 1800’s were faced with a large amount of diversity, allowing them to accommodate anything that wasn’t a threat to British National character of upper and lower Canada. The British were significantly less accommodating towards the Native than the French were. This was evident through the French’s actions such as learning the culture and customs of the Natives and doing trade with them. Quebec was separated into two in order to please both the French and English. They based the law off the majority of people living there, and voting was changed through the special oath Catholic men could take.

      Throughout time there has been a quite sufficient parliamentary political system already installed in Britain. They thought that this government would be fine to install with Upper and Lower Canada however this did not work out , they soon noticed that the national characters of Upper and lower Canada were different than Great Britain.

      The Native peoples suffered essentially because of the British not wanting to accept them. They kicked the natives while they were down and did not let them get back up. Social problems like these occurred which significantly lowered their acceptance with natives.

      • Tina Loo 12:51 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Kyle, you’re right to say that the British viewed different groups differently with respect to how far they’d go to accommodate them. But what made the difference? Indigenous peoples were accommodated (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example), but later on they were not. What contexts shaped accommodation?

    • Vinciane Boisson 4:17 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British were at first not accommodating of the French Canadians, whom they tried to assimilate. However, they soon learnt that it was in their interests to be accommodating of them, for British immigration was not important enough to assimilate them. This led to the creation of Upper and Lower Canada, with a tolerance of French politics and law.

      Similarly, accommodations were made for American Loyalists.

      On the contrary, the British were a more less accommodating of the Natives than the French were. While the French conducted trade, going as far as to adopt some of the Natives’ custom in trade, with no intention of taking over Aboriginal land, the British did not understand this agreement and proceeded to take over lands they consider not to be properly exploited.

      • Tina Loo 12:53 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Vinciane, I think you are right to say the British acted differently towards different groups, but why? And was it not also the case that their attitudes towards a single group changed over time? Indigenous peoples are a good example: they were accommodated in the Proclamation of 1763 but pushed aside later. Why?

    • karinbjorkdahl 4:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      During this period of time there were a few different groups in Canada which led to some tensions. The aboriginals, the Americans, the Loyalist and the French populations. It must have been somehow strange since the size of the population didn’t represent the power.

      I believe that when every country experience this situations, they try to please all groups in order to avoid aggravation and to much tensions. However, in Canada it seems like they went pretty far. The Quebec act in 1774 enabled for both English criminal law to be applied alongside French Civil Law. The Quebec act also recognized the Catholic church which aggravated the Americans. The Constitutional act divided Quebec and made an English speaking part. Although you could say that this is relative large changes that was approved, it didn’t seem to be enough to please everybody

      What happened was that they tried to compromise in order to keep the different groups calm, in order to maintain the power of the colony. However, the diversity was to big, and the way I see it, the situation could be compared to a “triangle-drama”. The economical, social and political differences between the groups became limits that arose during their attempts to accommodate all the groups.

      • Tina Loo 12:55 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Karin, I think you are right that the British tried to accommodate different groups in order to be able to govern their colonies. But can you say more about why they stopped accommodating certain groups? For instance, they accommodated Indigenous peoples (the Proclamation of 1763 is an example of this) but later on they pushed them onto reserves. Why? Similarly, they welcomed Americans who were fleeing the American Revolution, but later they tried to take political rights away from them. Why?

    • amrita 4:55 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      When the large influx of loyalists came into Canada after te American revolution, which consisted of a diverse array of people in terms of gender, ethnicity, class and religion, the British accommodated the loyalists and indigenous peoples by making the Treaty of Paris, the haldimand proclamation, and the constitutional act. The treat of Paris in 1783 the British made caused the Mohawks to feel betrayed because of how little they got in return for what they had for the British, so in 1784, the British made the Haldimand Proclamation. This allowed the mohawks to settle near the Grand River. Seven years later, the british made the the constitutional act in 1791 to prevent many of the people from being swept away by republican notions. This act was mainlyfor the aforementioned reason, but also for the loyalists and to further accommodate the loyalists, the british ended up dividing Quebec into upper and lower Canada since the loyalists had petitioned for a representative government of the type they were used to. In short, the British made many special accommodations for the people of British North America.

      • Tina Loo 12:57 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Amrita, Yes, the British did try to accommodate people as you illustrate with your examples but why? What factors shaped their willingness to do so and what factors shaped their decision not to?

    • aviaah 5:01 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The British took it upon themselves to accommodate some of the numerous groups that resided and immigrated to British North America, such as the First Nations, the Francophone Canadiens, the American settlers, the black slaves who were deemed free when coming to British North America, and the loyalists who escaped from America to BNA due to their prosecution. One of the main accommodations the British made was establishing Upper and Lower Canada, where the Anglophones and Francophones resided respectfully. This territorial division aided in the process of mitigating any tensions between the groups and allowed the francophones to practice their laws, civil law, and seigneurial land-holding system that fundamentally differed from the the laws (i.e. common law) and landholding patterns of the Anglophones. As well, the British accommodated the loyalists by granting them complimentary land in Nova Scotia in promote growth in the province and also provide them with concessions to ensure their loyalty and repay them for their loyalty while they were in America. The British were rather fond of the loyalists for their patriotism and loyalty to Britain, but in doing so the aboriginals whose land was being handed over to the loyalists were put at disadvantage, as their land was being stripped from them. That being said, although the British did seek to accommodate those in British North America, they failed to maintain the relations that they had earlier with the Aboriginals, thus showing that their accommodation efforts were only directed to those of whom they considered important.

      • Tina Loo 12:59 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Aviaah, Your examples of accommodation are good, but you need to think about why the British did this? What led them to accommodate different people? Was it just because they were nice? And why did certain groups who were accommodated cease to be at other times? Indigenous peoples were accommodated by the British but later on they were put on reserves. What social, economic, and political contexts shaped how far the British were willing to go in accommodating diversity?

    • Tina Loo 1:06 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General comments on Week 7:
      Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.

      Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.

      The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?

      In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.

      Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.

← Older posts

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