Week 8 Wall
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
admin
-
admin
Week 9 Wall
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
-
lindswong
During the 1800s, Canada could be seen as a type of “Métis Civilization.” John Ralston associated Canada to this term as a result of the view Baldwin put forward in his view that responsible government was the only way for to create harmony of the state, or of the “two sides” which consisted of the French and English. The aboriginal idea of harmony was similar to this in that it was an idea of an “ever-widening web circle of interconnected beings.” Combine this aboriginal view to the European view, i.e. Baldwin’s view, of responsible government, the idea of a “Métis Civilization” is born. However, despite this term only came into being in the 1800s, the “Métis Civilization” had been growing since the beginning of colonization.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between the natives and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics as well. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt the native rituals or customs in order to better work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the the French political, cultural and social systems.
Even with the arrival and dominance of the British, relationships with the natives, such as the French had, continued. During the War of 1812, the natives, under Tecumseh, proved to be of great help to the British effort to ward off the Americans. Thus this furthered to strengthen relationships and ties between Europeans a natives.
As result of the many years of close association and relationship building between diverse groups of people the native culture became so intertwined with the European way of life. Thus Baldwin’s idea of responsible government could be seen to be simply a reflection of this European and native mixing of ideals, and, therefore, a “Métis Civilization” is the result. Perhaps the native influence also aided in the eventual acceptance of unity between the French and English.
-
jpellegrino
Canada can be considered a Metis civilization to a large extent not only due to the fact that Aboriginal peoples are native to the land, but because of the long-term, positive influences that the Aboriginal’s had on the country.
Most obviously, Canada can be seen as a Metis civilization because of the actual emergence of the Metis culture. After the Europeans settled in the West, the collaboration of French culture and Indigenous culture took place. The North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company began inter-marrying with Aboriginal women. The children produced by these groups of people would be considered the Metis Nation.
Another reason that Canada should be considered a Metis civilization is because the Aboriginals are responsible for much of the economic success Canada has had. While the fur trade brought political tensions, it did more good than bad because without it, the country would not have had foot forward when it came to prosperity in Canada. The fur trade was a huge stepping-stone for the unraveling of economic history in the country.
Aboriginal people of Canada also influenced the democratic system of the country. It is in the 1840’s that the Aboriginal desire for democracy surfaced. The Aboriginals drew this from the idea of social equality and the idea of harmony, created by Lafontaine and Baldwin respectively. In putting these two ideas together, the Aboriginals influenced the formation of what would later be called “Responsible Government.”
In looking back at the history of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, it is safe to say that they were accommodating to European settlers. It is due to the Aboriginal willingness to accommodate or find, “middle grounds” that Canada has come to the place that it is at. Using the examples provided, we can see that the Aboriginals shaped numerous aspects of Canadian civilization.
-
liorbarel
The question that is sort of behind this question is the idea of collective memory, and how far back exactly collective memory goes. Can it be said that Canada’s collective memory is unconsciously linked to its entire history as a people? In some ways, saying “yes” to this question can be seen as an Aboriginal idea in and of itself, and in some ways the answer to this question is in fact yes.
But Canada is a colonizer. In many ways, its collective consciousness is in direct opposition to First Nations culture. And it’s collective unconsciousness is in that case probably just as repressed as its colonization (which, some would argue, is pretty extensive).
Examined from the reverse extreme, Ralston Saul’s argument also doesn’t make complete sense. Because, if it can be argued that Canadians’ ontological epistemological reality – that is, their way of viewing their existence and knowledge – is unconsciously rooted in their repressed Aboriginal culture, then it also stands that Canada’s actions stem from every culture, well, ever. Because Canada has interacted with almost every culture ever, through some medium. Furthermore, if Saul’s theory is true, then it would seem to me that it should apply to the U.S., and I don’t see any connection there.
However (and this is the last however), there is an extent to which I believe this to be true. Why it can be at least partially true for Canada and much less so for the U.S. is a question I can not historically answer, but there must be something that accounts for Canada’s perceived “niceness” – and it’s definitely not the colonial chapter of its history. Stereotypes are often individually untrue, and collectively shaky, but there is some unconscious truth in them. And I would be willing to say that Canada can be seen to a small extent – in its collective unconscious, represented through its stereotypes – as a Metis civilization.
-
tyler5
John Ralston Saul makes a bold statement with his opinion that Canadian history is that of a Metis civilization. From what we have learned so far in this course, the aboriginal people’s of this land have had profound influence on the shaping of longstanding political, economic, and social spheres. This in mind, it is an interesting task to try and understand whether or not this influence had more of an impact than we had previously thought. Ralston Saul argues that Canada is a product of Metis principles, however, I believe that while our nation does reflect many Metis principles it is impossible to entirely credit Metis people with shaping the positive qualities of Canada.
Canada today, is a multicultural nation that praises tolerance and assimilation of cultures. It prides itself as a nation that respects differences and that has an effective way of ensuring that the rights of all its citizens are upheld at all times. Considering this, in the CBC article, “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” Ralston Saul claims that “we’d be mistaken if we thought our ‘institutional and cultural inheritance’ came from the usual suspects:” He then goes on to claim that our principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness, that we believe were inherited through Western Civilization, actually come from Canadian aboriginal people. I have trouble fully agreeing with this statement, however I understand why Ralston Saul came to this conclusion. The First Nations people of Canada, especially the Metis, embodied these principles within their civilizations, and this is clearly why Ralston Saul views Canada as a nation built on Metis civilization.
However, to back up claims like this, one must look at evidence. Thankfully, so far in this course we have learned many aspects of Canadian history that lend themselves to increasing the credibility of John Ralston Saul’s opinion. For example, it is undoubted that the First Nations people in Canada helped lay an economic fabric that encouraged interracial communication and tolerance. The Metis civilization that ensued as a result of French and First Nation interracial marriage saw a difference in culture. However, these two groups intermingled with relative success, and displayed signs of cultural tolerance and acceptance.
Making comparisons, one can look at responsible government as a reflection of this cultural tolerance and acceptance. In a way, responsible government acted as a way to ensure that neither the English, or the French would be subjected to unfair rule by the hands of the opposing culture. It embodies Metis principles of tolerance and fairness.
All of this evidence seems beneficial to John Ralston Saul’s argument. However, John Ralston Saul’s argument regarding Metis civilization as the framework of Canadian society is difficult to accept in entirety. I believe its merit is the enlightenment as to the importance of how Metis civilization influenced the shaping of a tolerant and cooperative nation. However, I find it a stretch to accept that our nation is strictly a product of Metis principles and that all of our vices as a nation are merely European characteristics outweighing the benevolent Metis values.
Ralston Saul even uses direct examples, claiming that Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping efforts as well as our esteemed universal healthcare are actually an unconscious response to Metis values. This assumption places Metis civilization in high esteem, and European civilization in disgrace and contempt.
Even Richard Handler, the author of “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” argues that Ralston Saul’s argument stretches boundaries. After examining Ralston Saul’s opinions, I fully agree with him to the extent that many defining positive aspects of Canadian culture in fact reflect the embodied principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness that were held in high esteem by the Metis. However, in the words of Handler, “are we then to believe that all the European ideals that flowed into the making of Canada just deceptive junk?”
-
tazizi
I believe the Metis culture has positively influenced Canada to a large extent; however, to say that Canada is a “Metis civilization,” as John Ralston Saul does, may be a bit of a stretch. It is true that traits such as tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, attributed by Saul to the Indigenous nations, can be seen in many aspect of Canadian life as claimed by Saul, but that does not mean Canada is solely built on Metis civilization. Today, Canadians pride ourselves on having a culture that represents the diversity present in Canada, so while many founding ideas can be traced back to Native ideology, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a “Metis civilization.” It’s almost like the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, which are the roots of many Canadian systems, came from the Indigenous people, but were then expanded and built upon by other cultural influences. In some instances, it can also be argued that these traits were not present.
For example, the economic success of the fur trade can largely be accounted for by the Natives. Without their help and willingness to tolerate the European traders Canada’s history could possibly look very different. Also, the first real permanent mixing of the two cultures was between the Native women when they married a European man. More recently in class, we learned about Canada gaining a responsible government, which was based on the idea of fairness. Something we recently learned about in class, which may possibly differ from the “Metis civilization,” is the police system. I don’t know of anything like this law system in the Metis culture, and furthermore, it isn’t like this system was exactly fair or inclusive. As the numbers proved in class, the system favoured those who were of the elite and put many men in jail.
Lastly, these great traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness taught to the Europeans by the Natives were not always present in Canada once there was more outside influence. Saul argues the Indigenous were very egalitarian, but it wasn’t until the 1920s when women won the suffrage movement, so it would appear that Canada isn’t as “Metis” as we would think. Today, although we are not fully there, we are starting to see tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness put back into our society. -
ecopeland
John Ralston Saul’s depiction of Canada as a Métis civilisation bases it’s argument on a cohesion of Aboriginal ideology and colonial politics. This intermingling of ideas is what defines Canada as Metis, and was brought about through the intermarriage of First Nations and European colonists. I understand from our studies so far that First Nations and French colonists did have high numbers of cross cultural relationships, and First Nations significantly affected the success of the immediate colonists survival and success of the fur trade.
However I do not agree with Saul assumption that intermarriage, which in the progressing years of colonisation resulted in a one way cultural transmission not shared, can be recognised as an attempt to bring the two cultures together. Rather the immediate relationships were a product of the male-only groups of explorers that ventured to the New World. I also believe that the attempted genocide of First Nations culture should not be overwritten with theory that throughout all that, Canada was using First Nations ideologies at heart and that their principles have guided Canada to through that to a Metis civilisation. Although some First Nations governing structures may have influenced the New England political system, as Richard Handler suggests, as well as French colonial systems, their recognition does little to change how those political systems in turn dealt with aboriginal peoples and how those systems can be regarded as Metis in practice, rather than in design, escapes me. Finally I would point out that Raul’s theory similarly could work in design, that Canada has attempted to progress in a Metis fashion, but considering the continued racial stigma’s attached to First Nations peoples and their disenfranchisement, it has failed. -
amandawoodland
In my opinion, John Ralston Saul’s description of a Metis civilization is not one that fully and accurately characterizes Canada. Although peace, fairness, and good governance – characteristics drawn from Metis ideologies, according to Saul – have been present throughout much of Canada’s history, it seems somewhat arbitrary to assign so much importance to these characteristics when so many bits and pieces of other cultures have played an integral part in shaping the nation. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge the Metis influence on past as well as modern day social, economic, and political practices in Canada; on the other hand, it makes more sense to think of this influence as a jumping-off point from which French, British, American, and other European cultures have shaped and molded society.
-
aviaah
John Ralston Saul labels Canada as a “Metis Civilization”, and maintains that Canadian history, “consensual politics and negotiation,” pay homage to aboriginal roots rather than those of European origin. There is no doubt that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have greatly influenced and contributed to the foundations of today’s political, economic, and social structures, but to say that they are the sole implementers is a rather limited and narrow assumption. This being said, Saul’s conceptual idea does not mesh with his use of the term “Metis Civilization”. The Metis population trace their descent to mixed First Nations and European heritage, and Saul’s entire championing of aboriginal influence while disregarding the influence of European political thought renders his use of the term inconstant with its inherent meaning, as he fails to recognize that both groups have influenced Canada much to the same degree. Such can be explicated by recognizing that First Nation’s diplomacy, cooperation, and tolerance were met with the similar minded openness of the French explorers when they first struck up trade agreements through intercommunication relations. Both groups adopted the practices of the other, reciprocating their respect for one another, and in turn meshing their own ideas and practices with their newly acquired ones. This exchange of ideas and adoption of customs to establish the agreements between the two groups reflects the broader composition of Canada. The Canadian framework is reflective of the diversity of Canada’s ethnic composition, an even influential mixture of both Aboriginal and European ideologies and methodologies, and thus it can be seen as a “Metis Civilization”, when using the term correctly and not by Saul’s terms.
-
FribaRezayee235
As the fur trade moved into the Western Great Lake in the early 1800s, the Métis developed a distinct identity, language and culture. By the 1870s, Métis lived throughout Canada, and in parts of the United States and Mexico. Métis people in different regions developed their own cultural features. Also called half-breeds, michif or bois-brulé, they contributed to North America’s economic growth as fur trade entrepreneurs, hunters trappers, guides, interpreters, cattlemen and artists.
Metis civilization is considered the root of Canada according to Saul, because by that time, some Métis were gravitating to permanent settlements at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine rivers. In the fall of 1801, a group of Metis settled on the banks of the Red River where Winnipeg now stands. They were called “freemen” because they were bound neither by Aboriginal custom nor fur trade company law. Their long, narrow river lots were reminiscent of farms along the St. Lawrence Valley. Three main groups emerged — buffalo hunters, traders, and voyageurs — and their cultural characteristics varied greatly depending on how much they had retained of the original Native and European cultures. John Saul suggests that we should train ourselves to say “Lafontaine and Baldwin not Baldwin and Lafontaine ”. He agrees that it is difficult to explain or reveal or lay out the Aboriginal roots of Canadian civilization whilte avoiding a simplistic sense that it is just matter of joining the dots. Certianly we are not use to digging around for the roots of our way of doing things at any rate the non-European roots. The
Metis played a central role in fur trade business with Europeans in 1800s.
One sector of the Metis population depended primarily on the bison hunt for its livelihood. These Metis left their settlements every June to hunt bison. The Metis fiercely guarded their customary rights to hunt and trade freely throughout the prairies. Rallying together under the cry le commerce est libre! (freedom of trade!), the Metis effectively ended the Hudson’s Bay Company’s trade monopoly.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between Aboriginals and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics too. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt Aboriginal rituals or customs in order to improve work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the French political, cultural and social systems. -
chliane
Canada is a multicultural country, as we established in the first blog entry. The people are made up of many cultures and nationalities, and all of these cultures have contributed in some way to what makes Canada today. John Ralston Saul’s claim that Canada is a Metis civilization is far too narrow, and does not cover the wide extent of Canada’s origins. His claim would perhaps be more valid if he limited his argument to Canada’s early history.
In Canada’s early history, the Aboriginal people were heavily integrated into the new settler society, and taught the European settlers many things. The Natives were a significant part of their economy, and provided the furs the Europeans so badly wanted. It was this interaction with the natives that the European settlers learned about the Aboriginal civilization, and the customs and traditions they used to interact with each other. Saul makes the argument that these Aboriginal customs are where the “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness” in Canadian culture comes from. I agree that the trade agreements between the different native tribes showed a lot of fairness and respect for each other, but to say that it has persisted to this day in Canadian society is a bit of a stretch. I would argue that the European settlers did not pick up much of this positive sentiment from the natives, especially after the French lost the war with the British, and most of them were evacuated from the colony. The French perhaps had the best relations with the Aboriginals, and learned a lot about their culture and were very accommodating in many ways. The European-Native relations only went downhill after the war, and the treatment of natives became more and more unfair, which we learned all about in the discussions.
I would not dispute the fact that the natives were extremely important in the development of Canadian history, but I do not agree with Saul’s claim that we are still a Metis civilization today.
-
Vinciane Boisson
“Métis” can be understood as the mix of white parentage and Native American parentage, or can take a more general meaning, referring to all sorts of mixed parentage. John Ralston Saul only uses the first meaning to define Canada as a “Métis civilization”, which is true to some extent, but far too superficial, if we consider both the British and French heritages in the past, and more recent immigration.
The first and most obvious element proving Canada to be a “Métis civilization” is its people. Since the very beginning of European’s arrival, Métis appeared in the form of children of fur traders and Native women. Then, we can consider both the cohabitation and the mixing between people of French parentage and British parentage within the same country, and later, with American immigrantsFinally, we can extent this observation to more recent occurrences, focusing for instance the large Asian-origin population in British Columbia.
The second element that concurs with Canada being a “Métis civilization” is the analysis of the country in terms of politics. While John Ralston Saul might be true when underlining the importance of the Natives’ ideals’ influence in Canada’s political system, this point of view seems to be too shallow. Indeed, we saw in class that from the start, French fur traders adopted some Natives’ customs to trade with them, and the opposite was also true. However, this analysis omits the succession between French and British governance, and the consequent heritage of those countries with two different political systems, as well as new political elements created in Canada in order to satisfied both parties.
Finally, the third viewpoint that confirms Canada as a “Métis civilization” is its language. The first obvious element of that is the state of Canada as a multilingual country, with the cohabitation of French and English. Considering French, its great difference from France’s French proves it to be a “Métis” language, with obvious English influences. As for Canadian English, some British influences and American influences can be found. More subtle, though, is the Natives’ influence in Canadian English (and not doubt French, though I do not know enough about that). Indeed, a closer look at Canadian English reveals words and concepts that are not present in other English “varieties”, but coincides with Natives’ words or concepts.
-
doraleung
The term ‘Metis Civilization’, termed by John Ralston Saul, means that Canada was predominantly built by the mix of Aboriginal and European white settler culture. Many people have the misconception that Canada was a European creation, however, Saul argues otherwise. It may seem so because most of the history recorded in Canada was taken down after the Europeans began to conquer the land that had actually already been inhabited by the First Nations. Also, much of the history had been recorded from the white settlers point of view, which leaves out the voice of the aboriginals who were already here. Looking to the very beginnings of the fur trade, which was what attracted the Europeans at first, the traditions of trading were mainly adopted from indigenous practices, such as gift giving and rituals. The natives also played a huge role in making the fur trade possible for the Europeans. The natives were the ones actually acquainted with land and the ones who acquired the furs so that the Europeans do the trading.
-
jenniferbishop
As John Ralston Saul defines it Canada can be consider a Metis civilization for many reasons. Saul makes the point that European setters survived after first moving in the western world because the aboriginal people helped them adapt to living on the land. This means that the first settlers lived as the Metis people did. Furthermore, after first moving here settlers married aboriginal further integrating them into the Metis society and adapting the Metis customs and traditions. Saul continues to make the argument that values we pride ourselves on having as a country such as tolerance, and fairness we have actually learned from aboriginal people. However, currently many Canadians do not understand how much of our initial roots come from aboriginal people because that part of history has been left out.
-
Tina Loo
General Comments on this week’s blog.
This week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. I especially liked how many of you took pains to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.
-
-
admin
Week 10 Wall
Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?
Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011
-
tazizi
Team sports can definitely be considered as part of governmentality as there a lot of parallels between the underlying principles taught through team sports and government institutions.
For example, as learned in lecture, schools, as well as other government organizations such as the police force or prisons, were first made to support ideas like respect for authority, nationalism, assimilation, and conformity, among others. Similarly, team sports follow along these lines. Team sports often include having a coach and some sort of officials or referees; if you don’t respect and obey the head figures, the situation will most likely end with sort of punishment. Also, team sports often focus on building team pride and a sense of community within your team, which is similar to nationalism. As for assimilation and conformity, you frequently see those who play on sport teams start to act like each other or perhaps dress the same way.
But that isn’t where the similarities stop. A big part of the reform in school systems was because the old structure wasn’t building character as the middle class would like. Having participated in a team sport for over ten years, I would say that being part of a team definitely builds a person’s character. It develops who you are as a person, teaching you certain characteristics such as self-control and teamwork skills. In addition, there is certainly a sense of discipline found in both team sports and other institutions that are part of governmentality, such as prisons.
Lastly, today we think of schools as having the function of socializing children. Just like schools, team sports can also act as a socialization tool for children if they start participating at young age.-
Tina Loo
Terrific answer!
-
-
tyler5
Team sports and governmentality share some similar characteristics. Governmentalilty advocates strongly organized practices in which to govern subjects. Sports teams follow similar technical practices in order to maintain authority over players, as well as produce the best possible player for competition and team progression. Governmentality focuses heavily on adjusting behaviour in a way that best serves the state. Penitentiaries, the education system, and the health system are the best examples of this. All three are regulated in such a way to provide the greatest returns, subsequently allowing for effective rule and advancement of the state. Sports teams act in a similar way. Teams have set techniques in regards to discipline, training, and medical attention; all of which are intended to provide the best possible returns for the team, ultimately allowing them to win. Discipline, will in essence allow a team player to recognize his mistakes by serving time away from the team. The goal is that he will correct his behaviour to that of being beneficial to the team. Health care, as a principle of govrenmentality, suggests that regulated clinical processes across the state are changed and perfected in order to, again, provide the best returns for the state. The goal is to have healthy citizens that can contribute to state functioning. The same principle applies to sports teams. Teams will have injury rehabilitation guidelines and physiotherapy practices that will provide the quickest and most efficient way to get players healthy, and therefore give them the ability to contribute to the good of the team. Education in the state, and training on a sports team is where I believe the greatest similarities are shown. Governmentality suggests that education is the primal way to get people to follow the track that the government has decided will progress the state in the best way. The citizens will in essence be productive as a result of proper education. Training for a sports team is exactly the same. The team will have players train and practice in a set way, educating them on plays, tactics, formations, etc. in order to give them the best possible chance of winning.
Sports teams can definitely be considered part of governmentality, because both the state and a sports team have similar fundamental principles that guide progression, maximization of happiness and effectiveness within their respective institution.
-
Tina Loo
Tyler, I think the similarities between team sports and govern mentality lie in the inculcation of discipline and deference to authority and the focus on character building.
-
-
jpellegrino
Yes, I think we can consider sports as part of governmentality because it’s goals as well as what sport stand for are similar to that of the qualities that this organization tries to implement. Similarly to how the government directs its people to live a life of success and prosperity, a coach is in charge of guiding his players into the right areas of the field or rink in hopes that the players win. Like the government of British North America implemented banishing, whipping or transportation system for those who did not abide by the laws, the players on a team who crosscheck an opposing group are faced with time in a penalty box or bench time. For those who committed serious crimes, colonists would face the blood code. As for the players on a team who physically hurt someone on the opposition, players might face being suspended. In order to force the players to follow the rules, they are faced with fear of that penalty box or bench time. In doing so, the coach is acting in a similar manner to that of the monarchy. Another way we can look at sports as part of governmentality is because a goal of it is to build character and therefore, morals. Like the Educational Reform, coaches build character into the players. They do this buy reminding the players to have good work ethic, team effort, problem solving skills and a trusting environment. However, if players fail to work with these ethics, they may often have to have a talk with the coach to see where they went wrong. Like the prisoners of Kingston Penitentiary, upon arrival they are sent to speak with the Warden who then determined what moral weakness caused the prisoner to commit a crime. Sports can be seen as part of this organization because it imitates many of the objectives that the government implements.
-
Tina Loo
Yes! I think the character-building aspects of team sports is the key similarity to governmentality.
-
-
liorbarel
Governmentality is defined by wikipedia as “the way governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill those governments’ policies”, “the organized practices (mentalities, rationalities, and techniques) through which subjects are governed”, and “the techniques and strategies by which a society is rendered governable”.
I would say that sports teams apply most to the first definition – that many of the values in sports are emulations of what it means to be a “good” citizen. In sports, you must always be obedient – you must at the same time think for your self and do exactly what the coach says, when he says it, without thought. In the same way, you have to be an individual player and put yourself and your career first, while at the same time being a good team member. In sports, you learn how to relate to your peers, you learn how to be on time, how to act so that you’re in a good social spot, how to have good work ethic, and most importantly, how to respond to orders by taking them, with obedience.
I would also argue that the higher the level of sport you are in, the stronger that sport is related to governmentality. That is, the higher the level, the more “real” it is, the more winning is important, the more capitalism plays a role monetarily and ideologically.
-
Tina Loo
Good points: I’d also say that when athletes play for national teams, like in the Olympics, the parallels are greatest.
-
-
doraleung
In a way, yes, sports teams can be seen as a part of governmentality. In a sports team, members have to work together in a orderly and organized fashion in order to obtain their end, which is ultimately to win the goal. Not only are there members of the team, there is perhaps one of the most important people, the coach. The coach is the one who has the final say and directs where and how the players of the team should conduct themselves on the field. The coach needs to implement certain techniques and strategies to ensure that the team wins, and conversely, the team players must follow those guidelines to reach their ultimate goal.
This can be an analogy for government (in Canada) in the sense that the coach would represent the prime minister or governor general and the team players are those underneath him representing the house of commons and the senate. The government must all work together and listen to each other so that order can be implemented into the system, a fully functional government.-
Tina Loo
Team sports try to inculcate the same qualities in people that government institutions do; they build character specifically by encouraging deference to authority.
-
-
lindswong
The characteristics that pertain to team sports are very similar to those of govermentality, even from the time of the 19thC. Responsible government, that the BNA colonies fought so hard to obtain, is the idea that the government is responsible to and represents the general population. Therefore, in a sense it was the people who were put in power. As a result, people were expected to be in a position where they themselves would also to responsible to handle a government that placed more power in the hands of the people. Institutionalizing education and setting up penitentiaries were some ways the state ensured that people would receive the education, training, or punishment needed in order to set them up to be those who could properly take care of colony in the future. In the government these aspects continue to play a role as the people, who influence the government, have been shaped by education or punishment. The people “created” can work well with others and are intelligent which adds good dynamic to governmentality.
Likewise team sports attract a lot of young people, some entering these sports at a very young age. Athletes go through a lot of training to learn how to work with and coordinate with team mates as well as learn how to play the sport and perfect their skills. Punishment can also come into play in team sports for example, if an athlete refuses to listen to the coach or isn’t playing to their best of their ability, they may be “benched” for some games. over the years these youn g athletes mature and become quite experience in their sport. Their ability to work with others is honed through frequent practices with team mates, and tus a great team dynamic is created in the end.
Likewise, today, our government needs to consist of people who are educated and mature. They also need to be able to work well with people in their cabinet or party as well as other party members. Thus, the idea of team sport correlates quite well with governmentality and even, in a sense, plays a role in it. -
aviaah
Sport teams can be considered apart of governmentality for they share similar aims, as well as have overlapping functional principles that they utilize and apply to their members. Firstly, sports teams and governmentality share the characteristic of authoritative imposition. Sports teams are controlled by the centralized figure that is the coach. The coach hold ultimate authority over the team, and commands the group as he sees fit. The same can be said for governmentality in terms of the body having authority over their constituent institutions, such as school and correctional penitentiaries. As discussed earlier this week in lectures, governments held the authority to establish institutions based on their own principles and aims, ensuring that the institutions follow the expectations of the governmentality that initiated them. This leads to the second similarity between both sports teams and governmentality: that both bodies have the aim, whether direct or indirect, to mild their members to the norms and conventions by which the system was established upon. Within context of a sports team, the general aim of the team is to have the players conform and moulded to the guidelines of the sport itself. An example of this can be made by looking at the concept of a lacrosse team. The team itself aims to have the players perform their best, all the while employing skills of agility, precision, and endurance. That being said, the players must be trained and shaped to represent and embody these qualities in order to be considered and exemplary players of the game. The same can be said for governmentality, which uses its institutions to mild and shape their members. Regarding education, the government of Upper and Lower Canada used the system to educate students based on curriculums that were state-devised. Such was imposed in schools to ensure that younger generations would be educated sufficiently to the standards of the government and come to understand politics and issues in order to be well-rounded and intelligible citizens when they reach the appropriate age to engage with such matters. As well, the government at the time also implemented the same reasoning and method with correction facilities and penitentiaries, keeping the prisoners from interacting with others, yet encouraging them to work side by side with other prisoners to promote teamwork while instating discipline at the same side. Therefore, it can be conclusively established that sports teams go hand in hand with governmentality because they hold similar principles and have the corresponding methods.
-
madden34
Yes. Team Sports can be considered part of governmentality. Anyone that has been part of a team sport would agree with this , as there are many similarities between team sports and governmentality.
A team sport includes players working together against a set of another players for the same objective. Whether it be football, hockey, soccer or many other team sports this is the common goal which is present. I play on the UBC football team, and we are taught that communication is key in achieving this common goal. Without communication, success will not be achieved as there will be no way of channeling ideas through to one another.
A responsible government, is the idea that the government has a set of responsibilities to look out for the people. A governementality is that which consists of a prime minister (Like a Coach in a team sport) that over looks the team and makes decisions for the team. For example, a coach would make a line change between player A and player B to accomodate for player C, because player C works well with player B. The same sense is in government, how the prime minister works together with the senate to make decisions.
-
Tina Loo
Great answer.
-
-
chliane
Sports teams are definitely a part of governmentality, and arguably a very important aspect of it as well. Education is no doubt the most important aspect of governmentality, and sports teach people the same values as the ones taught in the education system. The goal of governmentality is to create a society full of well-behaved citizens who can govern themselves, and this is illustrated very well in sports teams, where you have specific positions to play, and everyone depends on each other to keep up their end. I would argue that sports teams can implement governmentality better than education in some areas. For example, while it is difficult to remain seated for hours on end doing difficult equations, people can often find enjoyment in doing physical activities.
These sports can teach members important values for assimilating into societies, such as discipline, respect and working together to achieve a common goal. Perhaps the most important aspect of governmentality that sport teaches us is the idea of reward and punishment. We learn to do what is right and achieve our goals, because when we do there is a shiny golden trophy waiting for us. It creates a feeling of pride in ourselves, and we feel even better knowing there are people who are giving us their approval. But when we break the rules, there are consequences and we must accept those punishments, be it a red card or a time out. These punishments are small, but it is the meaning behind them that affect us significantly, and make us want to do our best to prevent the disappointment and humiliation that comes with punishment.
National sports teams are also a part of governmentality, because they create a sense of pride in the citizens, and are an important way in which the people can be united. When our sports team wins a competition, we feel pride and accomplishment at having done better than someone else at something, which contributes to the aspect of govenmentality that makes us not want to let our peers down, by being the best we can be.
-
Tina Loo
Terrific!
-
-
Vinciane Boisson
Team sports are part of governmentality for multiple reasons.
First, as a team, the idea is to be united in order to achieve a common goal. This unity or cohesiveness causes the people making up the team to influence one another, in a way that they share common personality features. The process is that of a standardization of the minds, so to speak. This could be compared to the standardization of the textbooks, if it take the case of schools, as we have seen in class.
The second element is the presence of a “higher power”, a ruler, which would be the coach. His role is to control where this standardization leads, and what common features are to be adopted. He is also here to make sure everyone works and trains to achieve the common goal (no idleness). His role is similar to that of a responsible government.
The last element is aim of success, and the absence of “outcasts”. The principle of “team work” is that no one is to be cast aside, and everyone should be part of this unity, and as a result, this standardization. In addition, the goal the team work towards is that of success. To put it simply, there is no room for losers. If we take the case of schools studied in class, this could be compared to their being compulsory and the progression through a curriculum with a system of grades.
-
amandawoodland
I believe that certain aspects of team sports are somewhat parallel to those of governmentality, and also that team sports can be considered part of the process of governmentality. Similar goals are achieved through both governmentality and team sports. For example, while governmentality seeks to shape a population into a model society, a significant goal of team sports is character building. When everyone on the team abides by the ruled of their specific team as well the rules of broader leagues, play is fair, which benefits more people. Achievements and commendable behaviour are rewarded, and bad behaviour is punished, though not in too harsh a way. What I mean by this is that when a player breaks a rule, he/she is not immediately kicked off the team (well, not usually). Similarly, when someone in a given population breaks a law, he/she is not immediately exiled from the country! In both cases, steps are taken in order to reform that wrong-doer into someone who learns the consequences of their actions and refrains from acting negatively in the future. Furthermore, when the teammates are considered good people, and even friends in many cases, often the play is more interesting and entertaining. Team members look forward to games and put in more effort. In a population, when people are courteous and make an attempt to get along with one another, life runs smoothly and is probably better for most people. Stressing these points is an important role of a coach, and of a government (both are in charge of ensuring the continued well-being of the team/population).
-
FribaRezayee235
Sports team can be considered as part of the governmentality, because there are many of parallels between the principles that are taught through teams sports and government institutions. Because the sports team has rule, authorities like a government in a state who enforces the rules and the regulations. Furthermore, it represents a nation in the world stage. For example, summer Olympic, it is an event which is held in every four years in different parts of the world. Different counties compete to host this historical event. By hosting it shows countries wealth, care, and hospitality and moreover it shows the organization of a country. For instance, Brazil won the bid of Olympic 2016 in the city of Rio the Jenrio. This is the first time that latin America will be hosting this event. Brazil wants to compete in world class, and this is a huge opportunity for it. Brazil is working very hard in the frenzy to prepare this city for its big moment as host of next year’s World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics, the authorities are razing slums, upgrading stadiums and shuttering some of the city’s red-light emporiums, hoping to present a cleaned-up image of Brazil’s sexiest metropolis.
An online article from News states the hard of of Brazil Olympic Committee “Race against time” and delegates heard a less than flattering assessment of Rio’s current construction progress against agreed benchmarks and schedules. Furthermore, host counties want a legacy of sports because the Olympics create something of an conundrum for successful bidding cities. According to his article “The $4.3 billion redevelopment of Rio’s Port precinct is also completely being paid for by private investment.” As much as a government in a given city, the government tries to improve the economy in the country, so does the sports team.
-
Tina Loo
GENERAL COMMENTS: Great job everyone. Most of you made very insightful links between team sports and governmentality. The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.
-
-
admin
Week 12 Wall
So what is Canada? Specifically, what are the storylines running through the first half of this course?
Yeah, baby! After the men’s hockey gold medal game, Vancouver 2010 Olympics
-
liorbarel
Canada is a country with a very similar history to the U.S. (at least up until the American Revolution). Canada began with an indigenous population, made up of the “people who turned left” and the “people who turned right.” After a while, a new population – the Europeans – came into the picture, sailing towards Canada while looking for “God, glory, gold” i.e. to spread Christianity and become famous and wealthy. When these two populations interacted, it was sometimes peaceful (when they could figure out how to make compromises over the land that they were both trying to have access to, albeit in different ways), and sometimes violent (when a middle ground could not be found, and a battle over who would have resources and dominance ensued). Eventually, the Europeans, now Canadians, won this battle for dominance, and began to reify their culture – generally at the expense of First Nations cultures, but sometimes with regard to them – expanding the reaches of their government more and more into all people’s lives. A major shift in ideology came not when the idea of government expansion was questioned, but when the idea of who was in control of this government expansion was questioned. Were the people in charge of their government, or was the government (the rich) in charge of its people? This questioning led to the rebellions of 1837-1838 in Upper and Lower Canada, and eventually to the establishment of responsible/representative government in Canada in the 1840s. In the first half of this course, the ideology that people are responsible over each other, and therefore responsible over how society looks and functions, culminated in the materialization of government institutions like the police, public schools and penitentiaries.
-
tyler5
There are a few storylines that seem to best describe the progression from early settlement to confederation within the nation of Canada. A storyline of that defines Canadian identity is that of escaping annexation by the USA. Throughout this early period of Canadian existence, there were often threats by the USA to take over parts, or all of Canada. Whether it be politically or militarily, Canadians can take pride and define themselves as successfully resisting this aggressive USA policy of manifest destiny. Next, one must consider the great importance multiculturalism has played in shaping Canada. The story has greatly developed from the first meetings between French explorers and indigenous First Nations. From early on, traders were forced to develop positive relationships that crossed cultural barriers, and eventually we saw the creation of a Metis Nation, as well as various treaties between European settlers and indigenous groups. Even during wars, the importance of multicultural cooperation was evident, through the value of Tecumseh’s aid during the War of 1812. Continuing on this trend, in a broader context, one can view Canada’s storyline as one of progression, and in my opinion, liberal progression. However, to say that the road has been free of controversy and steps in the wrong direction is an outright incorrect statement. This can be seen through the elimination of French as an official language of parliament, just prior to confederation. This in mind, it is more important to look at the positive liberal action taken by Canadians during this period, that created precedent, and in a way set the tone for liberal conventions that are most prevalent in modern day Canadian political, social, and economic society. Religious tolerance, liberal political change, and abolition of slavery are perfect examples. Furthermore, one can observe the loss of influence of the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact as further liberal progression. Also, rebellions in the name of progress showed that it was not in Canadian’s interests to accept what they believed to be as unfair. Responsible government is the ultimate prize achieved in this era. It embodies the goal of democracy, and it can be seen through Lord Elgin’s actions to make himself, as governor, accountable to the elected assembly. Canadians can look back on this era with extremely positive feelings. Canadians during this period set the stage worldwide for ideals of tolerance, multiculturalism, and liberal progression.
-
jpellegrino
Canada is a place that is defined by three specific words; they are, diversity, isolation and uniformity. While these three words describe a world of approximately ten thousand years ago, they also parallel to Canada as a country. Canada can be seen as diverse because of the different ethnic groups that arrived here to settle from Europe. Even though this diversity is what makes our country unique today, it was not always a place of equality. Isolation often erupted from this dominating diversity. More importantly, what stands out most, as defining Canada, is the way in which the people of this country were at continuous states of contentment and revolution. For example, The Great Peace would substantiate as the contentment and The Seven Years War would display the revolution. These alternating states are what represent the isolation between different cultural groups in Canada. The people were in constant search of a stable government who would look out for the best interest of them. Achieving responsible government in 1848 is one aspect of history that demonstrates the uniformity in Canada.
A significant piece of history that deserves a substantial amount of recognition is the fur trade. The industry not only brought positivity to the country but also negative aspects as well, further creating an alternating state of contentment and revolution. From the emergence of the fur trade, the North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, created the Métis nation. This was an historical influence for First Nations people.
Finally, one of the most essential parts of Canadian history to remember is the areas that regard Educational Reform. Similarly to present educational institutions, the formation and significance of school architecture influenced the way people would be taught and the way they would learn for years to come. For example, a fenced school, fixed seating and the obedience to the school bell are all factors of education still used presently. The use of standardized textbooks imposed a different type of learning that would affect education of all levels in the future.
In summation, Canada is a place where people came to prosper. In doing so, they were forced to learn how to conform, compromise and adapt. Throughout all of this, huge stepping-stones were made creating many important historical tales of our country.
-
tazizi
Although Canada’s history is relatively peaceful, it is definitely revolutionary. Themes of dominance and union run though our story.
When the British first arrived, they wanted to exert authority over the Aboriginals; they automatically assumed their ways were the right ways compared to those of “savages.” Again, moving along in the timeline, the French and British butt heads, ending up with the creation of Upper and Lower Canada. This power was not only sought for between different cultural groups. Within both the French and British communities, there were elites – whether that is the Family Compact or the Chateau Clique. In addition, with the creation of the school system, and improvements and solidification of the judiciary system, we can see people wanting to be able to control others. This need for dominance seems to stem from the fear of the unknown and a lack of understanding.
Even though it appears the majority of Canadian history is an on-going battle to fight for your own culture, there are times where we see unity between different groups. In the fur trade, to an extent, both the British and Indigenous peoples mixed cultures. They adopted traditional ceremonies and customs, such as clothes and gift trading. In the later part of the course so far, we began to see coalitions within government between the Canada East and Canada West; furthermore, last day we saw the joining of the Canada’s and other BNA colonies with the Maritimes in a hope for confederation.
We see Canadian history move from an extremely individualistic and authoritative way of life, to one that somewhat incorporates thoughts and ideas of different cultures. Although, at this point in the course, we still have a long way to go to reach what Canadians now would call a multicultural country. -
Vinciane Boisson
Canada is first defined by a long history of multiculturalism. Or rather, a long history of battle for dominance, ultimately ending in multiculturalism. It began with the fur trading, between Aboriginal peoples and Europeans (French, British, Spanish), and then European settlers. It continued with the recognition and eventually acceptation of different cultures within a same country by establishing Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Then came Americans.
However, if this multiculturalism is seen with pride, it must not be forgotten that it was sometimes source of violence and will to subdue assert domination, before it was eventually accepted. Indeed, if the relations between fur traders and Aboriginal peoples were initially pacific for the most part, with mutual understanding and respect, it changed when British settlers came and took over Native lands. Similarly, compromises between French Canadians and English Canadians took time, and the situation in this respect is still arguably tense to this day. The same happened with Americans. -
doraleung
Canada is a multicultural country with people from all different cultures, races and beliefs living peacefully and harmoniously. However, it was not always this way. It has taken centuries of history for people to learn from their past and improve relationships and the way their society cooperates. Canada had originally been inhabited by the first nations peoples. Eventually European voyagers came to Canada with original intentions of just discovery. Gradually they found a opportunity from profiting in the fur trade. The fur trade benefited both the aboriginals and the white settlers; they worked together to improve economically. Because white settlers knew that the indigenous groups had more knowledge about this new found land, the Europeans found common grounds for them to communicate upon to allow their profits to grow in terms of the fur trade. They learned the aboriginal traditions such as, gift giving and smoking of the peace pipe. However, eventually Europeans tried to push their white settler culture upon aboriginals and relationships began to fall apart as the fur trade was coming to an end. White settlers wanted to establish permanent settlements in different parts of Canada, taking away land from the first nations.
The British and the French began conquering different parts of the land and claiming it for themselves. With the arrival of the French, hostility not only grew between the aboriginals, but also towards the francophones now residing in Canada. The central parts of Canada decided to split into Upper and Lower Canada to accommodate for the disagreeing beliefs and values of the French and the English. The French were Catholic, believed in the preservation of the French language and preferred the seigneurial land systems, where as the English were mainly Protestant, were not for the preservation of French and preferred the feudal land tenure system.
Due to politics and government disputes on terms of different views of how the government should be structured and run, Canada then parted into East and West Canada. The government of Canada as a whole began to divide into different political parties, such as the Tories and the Loyalists. Eventually these two parties became, what we now know today as, the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Even though Canada is still considered one of the most multicultural countries in the world, it still arguably has its individuals in its society living with differences. And the disputes over government matters still exist, but the country as a whole has come a long way from when it first began. -
chliane
The answer I gave for this question has not changed much from the first journal entry. Canada is still a multicultural country that has a rich background from cultures all over the world. But looking at Canada historically is not as bright an image. The creation of Canada was not as smooth and bloodless as we like to think, as there were wars and invasions that went on as different groups of people fought for land. On the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the French fought the British for the right to control this piece of land, and the natives fought and invaded settlers for the right to their homes. For a country that is today known for being multicultural, we have many disputes in our history based on which groups of people would rule over the others. But to say that our past is defined by cultural disputes would be incorrect as well. Perhaps what defines Canada is the fact that we worked hard to overcome those boundaries, which is especially exhibited in the fur trade. The French and the British both had different ways of accommodating the natives, and learning how to interact with them is a very important part of our history. The colonies which made up Canada did not always get along with each other as well. During the Confederation talks, we see that the Maritime colonies did not want to join the Canadas at all, and Canada East and Canada West had very different values and traditions. All the Colonies had their separate opinions of how they wanted to be governed, and had different ideas of what suited them politically, socially and economically. But the colonies were able to work together and overcome those boundaries, which is really what defines Canada and our history.
-
ecopeland
Canada has evolved into what it is today through many trials and tribulations. It was at first occupied by many nations, the people inhabited it as a series of territories, then its identity was founded on another country and ruler’s ideology. It moved through this time, developing a sense of nationhood and identity that would bring it equal to the countries that had first ruled over it. Canada’s history has not been without violence or cruelty, but then no country could claim that. Defining Canada now is a desire not only to be home to many cultures, but to earn the right to called multicultural; through the acceptance, understanding and equality that each culture should be afforded. This is itself a hard task, a task many countries choose not to taken on because government and law will always demand dominance over someone, even if it means limiting the rights of people to ensure control. However from what I have learnt of Canada’s history so far, there seems to be few times in its past when there has not been a person willing to struggle for better.
-
aviaah
Throughout the first half of this course, I have come to understand that Canada is a nation of inherent progression. Such can be seen throughout Canadian history, from the initial occupation of Canadian territory by the aboriginals, to the landing of the French and British who sough to make our present day state a colony under their colonial rule, through the economic rise of the fur trade enterprise that saw the emergence of the Northwestern Tradition Company and the Hudson’s Bay Trading Company. These enterprises gave rise to prosperity that lead to intercultural connections and relations, and the larger implementation of a governance in North America. With the rise of America to the south, and the subsequent revolutions and ward that sparked to life among emerging and stable state alike, Canada was holding on for the ride, and experiencing changes of its own internally, while being influenced by external sources. Thus, the emergence of British North America, along with influxes of population that was variant and diverse, and the multiple peaceful and reformist stages in Canadian politics ultimately led to the Confederation of Canada, where the widely-scattered BNA colonies were brought together under a mutual desire for strength and protection as a coherent whole.
-
amandawoodland, 
chliane, and 7 others are discussing. 
jenniferbishop, 
doraleung, and 11 others are discussing. 
FribaRezayee235, 
aviaah, 
ecopeland,
jpellegrino 11:46 am on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada failed in taking up arms against the British in an attempt to cease independence, these rebellions influenced the way in which politics would unfold. Similarly to the Napoleonic War in the Atlantic colonies, there were effects in Lower and Upper Canada regarding economic tensions around land. To begin, in Upper Canada, the government tried to ensure security of the colony by limiting the American population. In order to do this, they decided to attract the British into their colony in hopes of having less Americans travel north. However, there was the issue of Americans already present in Upper Canada. In order to deal with them, the British pass the “Naturalization Act” which stated that Americans can hold land but do not have political rights. Later however, this was overturned.
In the Atlantic region of Prince Edward Island, there was also a problem with landholding systems. Since there was no crown land on PEI, townships were dispensed to those whom the government owed favors to. In doing this, proprietors were called on in hopes of colonizing the island with Scots and Roman Catholics. Spokesman, Cooper, takes part in an election of 1838 regarding the confiscation of this land because he, the Scots and the Roman Catholics believed that if you put work into the land, you should have the right to own it.
The 1830’s could be seen as an age of revolution for a number of reasons. For example, this time was the beginning of reform politics in Upper Canada. What this means is that the Tory’s desire to have a more “responsible government,” while the Family Compact believes they are already responsible. The radical reformers, who are in favor of the Tory’s, launched an attack on the Family Compact while voicing their belief that there is corruption in Upper Canada. This forces the British to replace their governor with Bond Head who creates a new executive council and calls for an election more favorable to him. As a result, the Family Compact and Tory’s try to push through the land, which eventually brings them back into power. Consequently, Mackenzie publishes a constitution for an independent Upper Canada in hopes of change, and attempts to overthrow the government. This should be seen as revolutionary because it displays the controversy over how far the Family Compact was willing to go to protect their colony and how far the Tory’s were willing to go to promote some kind of change.
tazizi 1:50 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Even though there was no real rebellion in the Atlantic region like that of the Canadas, the dissent expressed by Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came from similar causes. More specifically, both regions were upset with the economic and political power granted to those in the small group of elite. Like both of the Canadas, the Atlantic region was skeptical of the British control and government; they wanted a group to govern that would be responsive to the majority of the people and a government that would not only benefit the elite.
In Upper Canada, the “Alien Question” played a large part in the rebellion. The central conflict of land ownership, resulting in having the ability to participate in politics, was similar to that of Prince Edward Island. While in Upper Canada, the concern was based on making sure the Americans could not vote, in PEI, the Highland Scots were being kept from participating in the political system. In both regions, the elite (Family Compact in Upper Canada and Proprietors in the Atlantic) were able to use their power to influence who was gaining the ability to vote.
In addition, in the Canadas and in the Atlantic region, the majority of the people felt like elected assemblies (if there was one) did not actually hold any power compared to the appointed governors and council. What people in both regions really wanted was a responsible government who responded to the best interest of all the citizens.
The 1830s was definitely an age of revolution in British North America. We begin to see people taking a stand for what they want and believe, whether that is through newspapers, elected assemblies, or brining the government to a money halt. From this, we saw a significant change in the political system that was used to regulate British North America.
ecopeland 9:26 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The insurrections of Upper and Lower Canada were direct results of the oligarchical undemocratic rule that had disenfranchised much of the population for many years. This reflects the same rise to rebellion that many Atlantic-bordering nations experienced in the surrounding decades. This includes the United States, France, Spanish America and Ireland and it was these examples that led Upper and Lower Canadian governments to become more oppressive in their handling, for fear the ‘republicanism’ might spread to Canada.
The rebellion of Lower Canada in 1837, which was raised earlier in the political sphere by James Stuart and Louis-Joseph Papineau, represented the desires of the French-speaking populace who were dominate by the small group of elite, the Chateau Clique. Their domination over trade, politics and religious regulation was challenged by the Parti Patriote. However this political rivalry failed to affect any change of consequence when it was undermined continuously by the larger political faction. This led to armed rebellion in the Spring of 1837, led by Papineau, bringing together both Quebecers and citizens of the newly formed United States, in the Patriot Wars of 1837-1838. It sparked a similar situation in Upper Canada, whose primarily English-speaking working class were dominated by the Family Compact. Reformer movements sought to bring an end to the feudalistic society. Upper Canada didn’t see the same level of armed rebellion as Lower Canada, nor some could argue, the same degree of challenge to British forces that quashed riots quickly.
Regardless of the fact that both cases resulted in continued civil oppression and directly caused the unification of the territories into the Province of Canada by the British Parliament, the 1830’s can most definitely be seen as an age of revolution, a revolution of ideology, if not in political representation.
tyler5 10:21 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The rebellions that took place in the Atlantic colonies, Upper, and Lower Canada, were a result of dissatisfaction amongst the settlers. The proprietors, Family Compact and the Chateau Clique were in control of power, and it was a widely held understanding that the current elected members had little to no power or influence. In each region, there were key aspects of politics and the economy that settlers felt decisions should be made by a responsible accountable elected legislature. However, this was not the case.
Power and land were interchangeable in this era. This being so, land claims were a major issue that caused unsettling feelings of hostility amongst the settlers towards the unaccountable elite. Settlers were not pleased with the fact that land was being granted to friends of the elites, or in the Atlantic region, people with whom the British owed favours. Furthermore, American settlers found it impossible to claim land without pledging allegiance to the King, and their status was highly questioned. American’s were not the only non-British settlers that found it difficult to be treated respectfully, or given political rights in the British North American colonies. It was a widespread issue.
In response to the oligarchical control exercised by colonial elites, settlers in all regions were calling for constitutional change in the form of responsible government. This was their overriding objective. Responsible government would ensure accountability, keep the executive in check, and give elected members far more influence.
The 1830’s served as an age of revolution in British North America. There was an overriding desire for change across all colonies, and cries for revolution were widespread. Settlers had grown tired of oligarchical rule, and felt it was time to progress. Mackenzie and Papineau’s rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada reflected this sentiment, as did the dissent expressed to London by the Atlantic regions. In other words, this period saw real action taken by settlers who felt that there was need for change; and change would ensue.
liorbarel 10:43 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
The rebellions of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Atlantic region are similar in that they all involved the post-Enlightenment republican and nationalistic idea of the power of the individual. The right to be represented by your government comes from the feeling that you are part of the nation in which you reside, and therefore it should at least partially reflect you and your opinions. So, the rebellions can be seen as outbursts of these ideals, in response to a lack of their being fulfilled – a lack of ministerial responsibility and responsiveness to the political/economic wills and weal of the people.
To me, the difference between an “age of revolution” and a rebellion is the level of involvement of the people, at least in its spirit if not physically. And from the lectures, insofar as it is possible, this kind of “spirit” does seem to be the case; that each rebellion was not isolated in itself, but that each was interconnected in its ideologies and built off of the others.
However, I would also like to point out that this age of revolution engendered a societal evolution, not revolution; that in many ways, what the colonists were protesting for was a nicer looking version of the system they were in – not a new one. So, perhaps I would argue that the 1830s should be considered an age of evolution, created by sometimes violent societal participation, and not a full-on “age of revolution”.
Tina Loo 2:32 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Fantastic Lior!
aviaah 12:18 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This dissatisfaction among the colonists that led to rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies was fuelled by the friction between the ruling classes and the middle class colonists themselves. In Upper Canada, social and cultural tensions were at its utmost peak between the British Loyalists of the Family Compact and those of the colonists, many of whom were American immigrants. Social and cultural tensions also prevailed within Lower Canada between anglophone merchants that formed the the Chateau Clique and the francophone middle class. As well, in Upper Canada, economic discontent among the colonists brewed from land policies implemented by the Family compact, and also from the fact that land was being granted to their supporters. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system was sparking tension with American settlers who were used to free-holding land. This widespread dissatisfaction within the two Canadas provided a platform for rebellion, a call for change to the government and political system, and a greater focus on individual participation and representation of ideas in government and politics. Such can be seen when looking at the rebellion in the Atlantic colonies, as discontent stemmed from the middle classes against those who held power. The ruling classes tried to stifle the middle class’s push towards political freedom, much like the the two Canadas, and in certain colonies, like Prince Edward Island, land holding was an a large issue as well, as William Copper sought to extract the land from Proprietors and rightfully pass it into the hands of the tenant farmers. Thus, political freedom and land ownership, propelled by the widespread dissatisfaction of the colonists and middle classes are among the primary similarities between the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies.
The 1830s can be considered an age of revolution in British North America, as the rebellions of this time marked as an push for change. People sought to be represented within the government and the political sphere, as they felt that their needs were considered subsidiary to those of the elites, who basically shaped laws and policies to their own benefit. As well, this time period further brought about an enlightened understanding of responsibility. The middle class colonists wanted the government to be responsible to them, the citizens, for nothing at that point was holding the governmental and political officials accountable to those they were governing. Thus exploitation and disregard for the populations was rampant. The rebellions sought to bring about a new age through reform politics and further the pursuits of the colonists and middle class people in establishing personal individuality, personal freedom, and political representation, thus characterizing this reformation period as an age of revolution.
lindswong 3:23 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Colonies in the Canadas and the Atlantic region had very similar uprisings in terms of reason and catalysts that lead to dissent among the general population. In both the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies there were issues in the landholding system in which an oligarchy took control of general affairs in the colonies and, in particular, would hand out lands based on favouritism. In Britain’s attempt to fix this situation the governors were replaced. However the new governors acted contrary to what the the general people wanted thus furthering the discontent in the colonies. The discontent in the colonies was expressed through key people: Gourlay in Upper Canada, Papineau in Lower Canada and a vocal middle class in the Atlantic colonies, in particular Joseph Howe. Though these people were tried for expressing their dissatisfaction with the government, the situation continued to escalate until in was the brink of full rebellion. These colonies’ rebellion was largely spurred on by the ideals brought about through the revolution in France and in the newly formed States.
Where the colonies differ is that this growing discontent turned into a full rebellion in the Canadas, but not in the Atlantic colonies. The British government was able to more effectively deal with the situation in the Atlantic colonies partly due to the fear of having to deal with the same situation as was happening in the Canadas. The British were also able to quench the rebellion in the Canadas, but the legacy of the uprising remained.
To a great extent the 1830s in British North America could be considered an age of rebellion. Or better, an age of revolution. With new ideals as a result of the Napoleonic War and the War of Independence, the people in the colonies in British North America became more aware of the corruption in their current colonies. This realization, carried out through key people, resulted in the rebellions. However the rebellions were short-lived. Britian was better prepared to deal with the rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies mainly due to their prior loss in the American Revolutionary War. Britain also realized the need to keep British North America on their side, thus making more concessions in favour of the majority in these colonies than they had done in the past. Therefore, this age of rebellion, had a much different outcome than prior rebellions had in the past.
chliane 3:27 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The similarity between the rebellions in the two regions is mainly that they originated with dissent against the elites, who had much more that the lower classes while doing very little. For example, the seigneurs in Lower Canada who owned all the land, which was very much like the land holding system in PEI. There was also a lot of dissent against the political policies that were put in place, such as the Naturalization Act in in Upper Canada, and the taxes and restrictions placed on the logging industry that made people very upset. Most of all, the settlers all wanted a government that was responsible to the people. Upper and Lower Canada Had elected assemblies, but they had very little power and were controlled by the executive council. Several of the Atlantic colonies did not have and form of elected government.
General resentment towards the economy was also a factor that lead to the rising idea of rebellion in the colonies. Land was becoming scarce and the quality was bad in Lower Canada, and the farmers could not yield as many crops. The Americans in Upper Canada had their land rights taken away in 1818, which meant they could not make a living. The Atlantic colonies were also suffering in their economies as well, as most of their industry had been in supplying the British troops with timber, and building their ships. After the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the Atlantic colonies were no longer needed to provide large quantities of material, and they had no more ships to privateer, and so their economy fell, and the people became unhappy.
The 1830s could be seen as an Age of Revolution in British North America, although very little rebelling actually happened. I believe An Age of Revolution is when the majority of people have a need for change stirring in their minds, and this was definitely demonstrated by the lower and middle classes. Rebellions did not break out in the Atlantic colonies, but the masses recognized a need for change in the political system. They were very lucky that the British government recognized this need and made changes before and one was hurt. Revolution can also refer to change, which did happen, and so the Age of Revolution would be an acceptable term for the 1830s.
amandawoodland 4:39 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Similarities between the “rebellions” in the Atlantic region and Upper and Lower Canada stem from a common dissatisfaction amongst the people in regard to the distribution of power. In Upper and Lower Canada, the Family Compact and Chateau Clique (respectively) dominated the communities through abuse of land-holding and political rights. In LC, differing political opinions of the Anglophone and Candien groups caused controversy among the people. In UC matters were made worse by tension involving the large number of American immigrants as well as blatant favouritism of the British. Since the Atlantic regions adopted similar styles of government, similar issues of abuse of power – especially in regards to landholding – were bound to arise, and a similar goal of accountability for those in power was bound to develop.
The 1830s was certainly a decade in which change was desired, but when the lack of radical change is considered, labelling these years an age of revolution may be too strong. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the 1830s can be seen as a time of obvious desire for change. Political, social-cultural, and economic changes were desired in the various colonies, and the people were prepared to act in order to have their desires heard. Reformers such as William Lyon Mackenzie and the Baldwins made considerable arguments in UC while a change from Parti canadien to Parti patriote in LC drew much attention to the need for reform. Despite all of this, there was little action that can be strongly labelled as rebellion, least of all (it seems) in the Atlantic regions.
Tina Loo 2:34 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.
The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).