Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • tamyers 4:18 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 8 blog – Women and WW2 

    comment on these two primary sources by women during WW2

     

    • maxgardiner 10:37 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The main message prevalent in both of the primary sources is that gender was used to bring women into the war effort and that this made them begin to question what role they would play in Canadian society after the war was over.

      The first article outlines how women at the time felt that the war against Germany was not just a war for political freedom, but a war for the freedom of women. The primary source give excellent insight on how the war could be framed so as to call women into action. It is a great view as to how gender affected the war. Women felt compelled to help fight Germany as the Nazis (and fascism) were subverting what was viewed as the traditional role of women in society. While these women may have still held somewhat unexceptional views of where their place was, they still wanted the freedom to be where they liked to be. For example, it is said that although women enjoy being in the kitchen and cooking for their families, it should be their choice to do so and not be forced by the government. The main message in the first source is that fascism presents not just a threat to democracy, but a threat to womenhood as a whole.

      The second article outlines that later int he war once women had acclimatized to working in the factories and for the war effort there began to be much though regarding what a women’s place would be in Canadian society after the war was over and the men were home. Working on the war effort had broken many of the myths surrounding women in the workplace and it became apparent that women were just as good workers, and enjoyed working as much as men did. The prospect of returning to domestic work was not a happy thought for many women who wished to continue working at the jobs they had become quite good at during the five years of the war. The main message of the second primary source is that as the end of the war approached there was serious discussion amongst working women about continuing on in the workforce even after the men had returned home.

    • Vincent Yam 11:46 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Blog: How was WW2 a watershed moment in Canada history? and commenting on primary sources by women during ww2

      M. Rotenberg’s “It’s a Women’s War” is a very nationalistic speech addressed to Canadian women, envoking many values we earlier discussed as maternal feminism. As a example on how maternal feminists and women reacted to the rampant militarism and policies of the Nationalist Socialist Party. What’s significant about this transcript is that it occurs in the midst of 1944, towards the end of the war (assuming the discovery of the concentration camps puts this into late 1944) and this speech seems to indicate that even then, Canada’s women felt united to serve in the war effort. Moreover, the speech also gives an idea of how traditional gender roles affected how women saw the war and affected how they served in it.

      The second article addresses more directly the original blog question on the syllabus. Anne Frances’s reflections on the role women in the wake of the Second World War, certainly help explain why to women, World War 2 was a watershed moment. Frances’s reflections reveal that the participation of women in volunteer organizations and factories had actually altered or at least got a degree of women to question traditional gender roles. The detailed examples Frances uses to outline participation of women in national organizations and the conclusions she draws from how women were able to work together in the war further reveal the changed conditions of gender roles and how women saw them as changed. The primary source also reveals that now that the war was over, women wanted to continue working in the volunteer organizations, explore job opportunities or increase their participation within their communities.

    • Susanna Chan 1:21 am on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Rotenberg: this primary source from 1944 gives readers a direct sense of how gender was viewed back then. There is the idea of fascism and democracy, but women would need to take action if they wanted democracy. There was a sense of contributing to the war, but also doing the traditional roles at home (like “double duty”) The idea that “some are naturally inferior” and being viewed as the weaker sex was a popular norm back then. Do women move forward to gain more freedom, or potentially risk what they have? In this sense, it was a women’s war.

      Frances: Also from 1944, it gives more of an insight to how women were viewed in society post WW2, compared to the first one. This looks at how women were perceived after the war; would they return to their homes, or continue working? Because of the war efforts, women emerged into the workforce. For example, they worked together to raise funds (ie: auxiliaries), volunteered, etc. After the war, some women wanted to continue working, which resulted in many taking up courses such as nursing. However, not everyone wanted to work, and simply returned to their homes. The idea of the “weaker sex” was challenged as women proved they could do a double duty. in later decades, we see more emergence of women in the work sector, and finding for more equal rights…

    • Tamara Ling 11:46 am on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In this week’s readings, the two primary sources show how women contributed to the World War II (WWII), which made them question what would happen to them after the war was over.

      In Mattie Rotenberg’s broadcast in 1944, she critiques the treatment of German women by the Nazis. The Nazis had an important phrase that explained what were the responsibilities of women, which was: “Kuche, Kinder, Kirche”, which translated to “Kitchen, Children, and Church”. On the outside, this might seem like the correct behaviour during World War II, however the Nazis were constantly interfering in the women’s private lives. For example in the kitchen, they lost their freedom when inspectors were freely able to observe and boss around the women. As for the children, females were purposely used for their bodies to try and produce male soldiers for the war. In addition, the mothers were not able to raise their children the way they would want to, without the narrow-mindedness that was a part of the Nazi regime. Finally the Church constantly preached to the women that they must continue to worship the State compared to other perhaps more ‘humane’ faiths. Through her broadcast, she argues that WWII suppressed women. Furthermore, they were used by the State to satisfy its needs almost to the point of forcing them to become robots. This just goes to prove that this war was indeed a “women’s war” and that they had to fight for their freedom and also for equality for all women.

      In the second primary source, also from 1944, Anne Frances explains how WWII made a significant impact on Canadian women as they realized that there are more opportunities for them to work or volunteer in society rather than just being a housewife. During the war, women volunteered and fundraised to help the troops overseas. Also, they proved that they were capable running a home efficiently while also having a career. As the end of the war grew nearer, there was a sense of suspense as everyone was unsure of what would happen when the males came home. During this time, according to Frances, there were many acts of social activism involving women, further solidifying their role in society. In other words, the war was part of the reason why the women started to work together and was able to feel empowered through teamwork, which has continued through to the present day.

      Overall these two pieces have a common end goal of wanting gender equality. In Germany, women worked hard to fight for their own freedom in their own spheres of influence. In Canada, the women had two options after the war ended, to go back to how they lived in the past (as housewives) or to rise above and build on the women’s rights that were awarded to them during the war. By allowing women more rights, Canadians could start over to try and solve societal problems, including poverty and unemployment, which can only be done with the equal involvement of all females.

    • eself 2:58 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The topic of Anne Frances and Mattie Rotenberg’s papers was the role of women once WW2 had ended. Rotenberg touches upon the idea that a woman’s role in German society was for the “Kitchen, Children and Church”. Rotenberg argues that because of the war, army officials were impeding on the livelihood of women and controlling their lives. Being written mid 1944, Rotenberg expresses her frustration with the controlling behaviour of the armed forces on how women were to cook for the men in war, raise their children to become soldiers, but also keep their Christian faith while their children were not to be raised to have faith in Christianity. This was a problem because Rotenberg was speaking about women sticking up for themselves and protecting their children and the way they live.

      Anne Frances speaks about the role of women on the Canadian home front, and in late 1944, the possible positive repercussions of women continuing to work in factories. She also talks about how women can continue their responsibilities to the home, her children, and her commmunity and country. This is significant at the end of WW2 because it would mean women would have a more equal role in society to men if they were allowed to continue in their new lives that they have had for the previous 5 years.

    • slali 5:03 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Rotenberg’s article stressed the message that WW2 was a Women’s war. Women’s roles in the war have always gone overlooked and it was overlooked that Women were also victims in this war. They were denied many of the rights the Jewish were denied so this war was about their freedom as women as well. Fascism in Nazi Germany was altering what women were and creating “obedient robots” of them. Because the role of women was changing, they craved a democracy but the only way to obtain it is to make it themselves.

      In Frances article, is it evident that women’s roles during the war were very significant and what is the potential reason women today are proud business women. This was the shift from women solely having responsibilities within the household to doing the “double job”. They made the government fully aware that women are able to care for the home and family while maintaining work outside of the home. They had the drive to continue this work after the war to better their communities and country. They finally had a different role they felt they belonged to and that was working for their country and not only for their families. Gender roles were changing and the women were all for this change.

    • Pierre-Marie B. 6:49 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The first article deals with Mattie Rotenberg’s view on women’s participation during WW2, especially Canadian women. The basis of her analysis is that despite women were not fighting in the front line and taking bullets for their country, they are as much concerned as men by the international situation at the time. Women were enslaved by the Nazi ideology, which considered them inferior to men, and forced them into “Kitchen, Children, Church”. Those activities are indeed more female-oriented as Rotenberg admitted, but what she was pointing out is that Nazis were intruding in their personal lives, using them as obedient robots to reach the German youth and indoctrinate them. As a consequence, WW2 was a Women’s war because they had to fight themselves for a better democracy at home, “building up and guarding the spirit” of democracy, as imperfect as it was. Women needed to defend their home, their children and their religious beliefs in order to strengthen their nation, then not letting doors open for barbarism and slavery imposed by National Socialism.

      Anne Frances’ article is more focused on which behaviour volunteering Canadian women would adopt after the war. It is obvious that war-time had deeply changed the structure of gendered roles in society, with women getting involved in more and more different fields they were not before. Some women, whom are referred to as “the most intelligent” by Frances, wanted to carry on improving education, raising money, reducing juvenile delinquency with on-field work. It seems women felt like they had proven their value by taking professional jobs while still doing useful work for their communities, or by working together, which was not thought possible before the war. After reading the article, I think it could be seen as a statement that Canadian women had to be prepared to take responsibilities and find their place in the post-war world, continuing on the path they had successfully taken to support their husbands and children during war.

    • bedard 6:58 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The First article by Rotenberg is stressing the theme that World War 2 was a “Women’s war”. Rotenberg describes the women’s war as a war in a special way, not necessarily in the front lines with the bullets and bombs, but a war to sweep Nazi tyranny from the world. Rotenberg addresses the role women played in the Second World War, particularly Canadian women. The women were fighting against the Nazi ideology, which forced them into the kitchen, children, and church. Rotenberg however does point out that the ideology isn’t so bad, as those three are the women’s field, however, she disagrees with how the Nazi’s go about it, by interfering into their personal lives, treating them to be obedient. The women wanted change, wanted a democracy, but in order to achieve democracy they had to go and get it themselves.
      The second article from Anne Frances talks of the role of Canadian women after the Second World War. Frances talks about the shift of the role played by the women, as they moved from stay at home wives, to proving they can shoulder more responsibilities, evident in the role in which women played during the war. Frances touches on the fact that women can shoulder the “double job” by continuing to take care for their family and uphold the house, as well as taking up work outside the house. Frances suggests that the intelligent will want to keep on going when the war is over, carry on what they are doing opposed to going back to the way things were before, remaining solely in the households.

    • hartcamp 5:56 pm on March 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The first primary document for this week’s blog entry focuses on the idea that the Nazi movement wasn’t only dangerous in the obvious senses such a violence, but also that it was a war on women, and women’s rights. The author shows her frustration and concern with the Nazi mindset, stating that is is detrimental to her role as a woman in the church, the kitchen, and as a mother. The author then goes on to voice her concern for what the woman’s role in society will be after the war. She makes it clear that women have proved themselves as being useful, functioning members of society, and it concerns her if these will be forgotten once men return from the front lines. And very importantly, she touches on the notion that women themselves must continue to make themselves responsible, and actives members of society, it is their duty to themselves, and their nation, to keep active in politics, and to continue to maintain a powerful image for themselves.
      The second source focuses less on the philosophical outlook of way that women are being perceived, and more on what their functionality in society has actually been like in the war time/absence of men. The Author, Anne Frances, touches on the capability that women have shown in the work place, and the potential that they have if given the opportunity to shine. What is interesting, is both of these text place a majority of the responsibility on women to allow themselves to be respected and valued both at home, as well as in the work place.

    • Tyler Cole 12:04 am on March 7, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      How was WWII a watershed moment in Canadian history?

      WWII was a watershed moment in Canadian history because it was the point at which Canada truly came of age as a nation. Canada had taken large strides during the First World War to “grow up” as a country, but it fully turned the corner to become a nation on the world stage during the course of WWII. It did this in a number of ways, both on the home front and fighting in both the European and Pacific wars. At home, Canada’s women were a critical part of the war effort, and without their service Canada’s troops would never have been able to win the war. Canadian women also became politically active at this time like never before, and showed the rest of Canada that they could do a job to the same degree as men.

      In Europe, Canada’s soldiers fought bravely alongside the long-established armies of Britain and America, and took part in major military operations such as the liberation of Italy and the invasions at Normandy. Canadian soldiers one again proved their mettle as soldiers in a major conflict, and their efforts were heralded by all.

      The Second World War was a major turning point in Canadian history, and one of the most important moments in the ongoing process of nation building. The work of Canadian women on the home front and Canadian soldiers in the wars in Europe and the Pacific set the stage for Canada to a grow into a player on the world stage in the second half of the 20th century.

  • tamyers 5:59 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?

     

    • maxgardiner 4:15 pm on February 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think that today social class is still a rallying point for Canadians looking for change. However I think the main issue is that class divisions today look very different than the class divisions in 1919. In 1919 there were clear defined lines between the working, middle, and upper classes. The working class was the biggest of all the classes and as such was able to effectively push for change through things like strikes. The working class did this to fight for the right to organize and better working conditions. They were successful in their push for change getting things like the right to unionize and the 8-hour day.

      Class can still unite people for change in 2014, however the classes that exist today look much different than the classes that existed in 1919. Today the middle class is the biggest class and the rise of globalization has drastically shrunk the size of the working class in Canada. The upper class, while still small has some of the highest concentration of wealth the world has ever seen. Today class is less dependent on the type of work you do but rather on the amount of wealth you have. The astronomical differences between the Haves and the Have-Nots is what I see as being the main antagonizing factor that can cause people to unite along class lines. Movements like Occupy have shown that people can still be unified for change based on social class to try and raise awareness/fight wealth inequality. However it is not as much the working class fighting for better rights for its self from the middle and upper class. The struggle today is the middle class and the now smaller working class fighting to ensure they get a decent share of the wealth and to keep the upper class from gaining all the benefits of their work. It is the struggle of the 99% against the 1%.

      I think class identity is still an effective way to try and organize Canadians to create change. The main issue is that trying to view class today through the lens of 1919 social structures is a major failure due to the massive differences in society. Movements like Occupy are the first step in getting people to start to develop a 21st century class consciousness that recognizes the imbalance of wealth in today’s society and decides to take action against this unfairness.

      • maxgardiner 5:26 pm on February 13, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Email question:

        The argument being made in the graphic novel is that many of the things now considered common place 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 8-hour work day and the 5-day work week were won at the cost of lives. The graphic novel encourages us to remember those who fought and died for workplace rights that all of us expect to have today.

        I had a very emotional response to the graphic novel. This is probably a result of my family’s heavy history of involvement in workers and union movements. To see what people were put through simply for fighting for better lives made me very sad and upset. But at the same time it was inspiring to know that there is a huge history to draw on for inspiration in fighting for change. The novel shows that there is a huge precedent for taking direct action to change the world. My favourite part was at the end detailing how the Quebec students took up the cause and helped to make May Day celebrations relevant to young people and to help young people understand why May Day matters.

        I feel that the graphic novel format is very helpful in conveying the message. It helps to humanize those who fought and died for better rights. It also allows you to easily draw sympathy for those who were involved. The image of the men on the gallows on page 12 is particularly powerful. I think it would have been difficult to get this kind of emotional reaction without the graphic depiction. I thoroughly enjoy this book and plan to keep it around for future use in teaching people about the importance of unions and May Day celebrations.

    • Susanna Chan 1:13 am on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Response to the Q sent in the email last week: Please blog about your response to the novel – What is the argument ? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      May Day is unique in the sense that the story/argument is told through pictures like storybook.The images werent all that convincing to me, but it was a nice change from reading another long article.The goal of May Day was a day to get better work conditions, wages, and shorter work hours. The struggle of workers, their lack of rights and class power got attention worldwide. I think the writers are emphasizing the importance of being active citizens because it is our country and history. The story proves that worker power can change policies and structures and fight towards change in society if we really want it. It is effective b/c the novel shows many powerful aspects that show the commitment of working class people who were willing to do anything, even sacrifice their own lives (ie: 4 people hanged in 1887) to get better work conditions for everyone, incl. future generations, which affects us today. For example, people refused to go back to work and demanded better hours/wages/conditions in the On-The-Ottawa-Trek. The need for a better government and solving unemployment and poverty issues was a major problem.

      It shows us that we need to be active voters b/c it affects our current life, and will afffect future generations. We are all affected by the decisions made by our government in some way, so this novel was a very good way of showing what citizens are willing to do when they believe in change. We continue to see the issue of unemployment and poverty today, however, it is an ongoing struggle that does not have the same amount of commitment compared to a century ago now that globalization and gaining wealth is the main focus. Even though May Day is a story of celebration, and workers got what they fought for, the government today has some what shifted back to what it was like before May Day protests began.. Post May Day, the government created programs such as the Worker’s Compensation Act and Employment Insurance in response, but today these services are becoming reduced b/c of government cuts, which means we still need to continue to improve conditions in the workplace. In general though, this was an important historical event that affected people worldwide, and brought out the importance of solidarity and a day for workers.

    • brendanjf 4:15 am on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This is a response to the questions in the email from last week:
      “please blog about your response to the novel – what is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?”

      The graphic novel May Day is an attempt to tell the history of labor struggle, class tension and worker mobilization through a visual medium, and I have to say for me it fell very flat. The argument that the book was making was not only that the history of May Day was an important milestone in the attempts of workers to unionize and demand better wages and hours, but that this history itself has been somewhat forgotten by the general public, and that it is essential to raise awareness of the day in order to help the struggle for workers’ rights. While the argument itself is an interesting and relevant one that is worth reading about, and raising awareness of, the manner in which the book presents it is poorly executed, which is a shame.
      The way the book presents its argument is not conducive to actually conveying the context of the history it presents. The book doesn’t read like a history book or an article, but seems more like a piece of propaganda. The tone of the book is very straightforward and simplistic, and it clearly feels as if it is a children’s book on labor history rather than the serious social commentary is tries to be. The events are laid one after the other with almost no connecting information, feeling more like a collection of interesting facts than an actual story or argument. Although even the simplistic nature of the presentation is sabotaged by the amateurish and often confusing art, where on several occasions I had trouble determining where the flow of the narrative was going on the page and what was supposed to be connecting panels.
      I feel I should mention that I actually do agree with the argument they are trying to make, and moreover, the graphic novel format is one which I hold a great deal of admiration and joy for, which is why this attempt at using the format feels to me to be hamfisted, cursory and disappointing. The foreword of the book tries to draw comparisons to some of the greatest historical graphic novels, including Art Spiegelman’s Maus and Chester Brown’s Louis Riel, but the fact is that this book completely missed the points that made those works great, hoping that the graphic novel format alone would be similar enough. What this book lacked that the others have is a personal touch. Those stories had nuanced protrayals of characters, a strong narrative, powerful themes and emotional gravitas which made you feel attached to the story, the situation, and the characters, long after you’ve finished reading.
      This book feels as though it was intended for a young audience, and if that was their target, then I suppose the short length and simplistic presentation is what they were aiming for. I feel like trying to raise awareness of labor issues is admirable cause, and if they think this format will help reach people then good for them. I do feel though that if they were aiming for a young audience, the authors seem to have forgotten the fact that children are generally a lot smarter than people give them credit for, and if they were trying to aim for a more mature audience, the shallowness of the narrative is not going to help them convince anyone. As is, the story doesn’t feel like it provides anything more than a cursory overview of the history behind May Day without giving much context or depth to the issues they are trying to raise awareness of.

    • Connor Munro 10:38 am on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Question from email sent out- please blog about your response to the novel – what is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      The argument presented in May Day focuses on the importance of May Day through the use of images, while also presenting and describing the history and goals associated with May Day. For me, the images were not a helpful tool in trying to convince me of the importance of May Day and did very little in trying to push home the underlying significance of what was achieved in the history of May Day. I think that it is effective because of how it uses art to try and enhance the reading experience to some level (as shown with the hanging of the 4 workers, and August Spies quote), but because of the organization of much of the book it drops off on the impact it attempts to make. The arrangement and clustering of most of the book makes it feel cluttered and at times confusing to read. However, I do agree in the books end message about voting involvement and the history and future of the struggle described.
      May Day describes the hardships and challenges that faced workers as they tried and later succeeded at getting shorter work hours, better wages and better working conditions, going up to 2007 and including not just the struggles of Canadian and US workers but workers all over the world as they got these new and improving rights. Showing that change is always possible and can be achieved if you stick to it and that we do need to be involved. That involvement involves everyone and that we need to be active in these issues and can be a part of change. Most importantly, that May Day is historically significant and that the struggles of the past will be important to know in the future and that we all need to be aware and participate.

    • Vincent Yam 2:38 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Question from email: Please blog a response about the novel. What is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      I think that writers: Folvik, Carleton and Leier try to present via the graphics created by Bradd and McKilligan aren’t exactly presenting an argument so much as an argument through detailing a narrative of the history of May Day. The writer’s narrative of the history of May Day, focuses on the social movements and protests that workers used to fight for their labour rights. Not only do the authors of the graphic novel depict these labour movements, they justify them in a graphical sense, often portraying the bosses as rich, callous and the workers as those who are oppressed by the government and factory owners. Moreover, they chart the struggles of the working class, trying to evoke their audience’s sympathies so that the importance of May Day may be acknowledged. Their end goal with this graphic novel, is to use the history of May Day and the social history surrounding the labour rights movement to inspire political action (as noted in the end of the novel) and cement the significance of the labour rights movement.

      Personally, I must say the graphic format, would be effective, for some people, but not for me. Reading graphics and depictions as well as symbols allows the authors to convey a very condensed argument that is also very entertaining to read. In a short period of time, one can absorb the history of May Day and the labour rights movement. Additionally, the drawings also do something a written argument can’t really do or not do so easily… They evoke sympathy for the workers, it has an emotional pathos based argument that is viable because this is a graphic history/novel, but isn’t viable for more academic history/textbooks.

      But I found… well I found this novel to be very… well I found the novel to be very left-wing and filled with socialist propaganda. The graphics, while expanding an emotional argument and helping in relating simple concepts… lack the ability to give context. The graphics also are unable to forward any specific argumentative points, which explains to why they used a narrative to present an implicit argument as opposed to an explicit one where various concepts and perceptions would be discussed in context.

      The novel especially fails to address where the values of the bosses and governments came from. The novel labels that the bosses are greedy and evil without even bothering to explain the fact that in a sense, they were just a product of an economic system that produced the workers, who are also human and are not immune to greed themselves. Also, the novel presents the images and the struggle from a very worker-supportive perspective, which is useful because mostly we hear what the government says of workers, but still… once one notices the rather one-sided nature of the images, its jarring to read. While I might agree that the workers were oppressed, this heavily one-sided perspective and I severely doubt the workers were so idealistic or noble as the ones painted in this novel.

      So I liked the attempt that May Day: A Graphic History of Protest attempted to do and the graphics are effective to a degree. Yet, the execution and the limitations of the graphic content create issues as to the ability to establish historical context and discussions without stereotyping or polarizing the situation.

    • slali 2:51 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Question from email: Please blog a response about the novel. What is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      The graphic novel May Day portrays the argument that the working class were determined to fight for better working conditions such as higher wages and shorter work days no matter the consequences through the use of graphic representation. It shows the struggle of the working class and how they were so eager to improve it. They set out with the intent to captures the governments attention and to be heard and eventually, that was what occurred. The citizens were persistent and they never let any obstacles such as police interventions during protests or losing jobs stop them. May Day became an international issue and it was recognized by many as a very important issue. Through out the protests, labour unions were created and this is a significant event because labour unions today guaranteed many rights to a lot of workers. It efficiently and effectively shows how the working class citizens were very united and never backed down from what they believed they deserved. The countless numbers of strikes they conducted over long periods of time, the commitment of the working class and the numbers of them who joined in the strike showed just how important this was for the average working citizen.

      The graphic format is an effective format because it gives you a visual of the actual events that took place. It can eliminate confusion and help us to understand May Day better. It conveys the historical events in a powerful manner, showing the reader the intensity of the events that took place such as the conviction of the eight random activists for the bombings despite the lack of evidence and the hanging of four of them in 1887. Hearing what happened in history is not often an effective way of understanding what happened, but when we are given images of history, we are able to get a realistic portrayal of the historical events. I was more engaged in this graphic novel because the images were more appealing than just words on a page and for that reason, I remember more about the events leading up to May Day and May Day itself. The graphics relayed the historical content in an emotional way and it was from a very socialist perspective, but the reader is more likely going to relate to the citizens of the working class than the powers in charge at the time. If it were written from the perspective of the government, there would be a lot of criticism siding with the powerful side because the working class was indeed right. They did deserve more than they were being given.

    • Tamara Ling 6:58 pm 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?

      May Day: A Graphic History of Protest is a graphic novel written by Folvik, Caleton and Leier and illustrated by Bradd and McKilligan. It tries to convey to the reader, the history of labour struggles and how the working class was able to bring about change for themselves. The novel argues that May Day is very significant in history when in regards to better working conditions, and most importantly, it is trying to raise awareness about an event that has been forgotten over the years. Thousands of workers protested to get us the better working conditions that we take for granted today, such as an 8-hour work shift, better pay, and benefits that include safety standards.

      In this story, through images, we are shown how May Day has been celebrated from the late 19th century to the present. At the beginning, May Day was mostly used for large strikes to better the working conditions overall, especially in the industrial sector. During the cold war, working conditions were improving drastically, however, there was an overhanging fear of communism, causing the number of protests to decrease. Near the end of the graphic novel, we see how modern-day unions are using May Day to improve their sectors, including the teaching industry.

      For me, I thought the graphic format was very effective and engaging as the authors were able to capture key scenes in a way that would be relatable to readers today. Furthermore, the pictures draw attention to specific images, so that the message will really stand out in my mind. These images were able to convey specific events in a way that just reading or hearing about it, would not seem so important. The images invoked emotions within me such as sympathy for the workers. Before reading this novel, I honestly had no idea what May Day was, and now I am able to see that it was a very significant event that affected many people across the globe and brought a sense of community and unity within the workers.

    • Tyler Cole 7:40 pm on February 13, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Regarding the May Day graphic novel:

      The graphic novel May Day tells the story of worker-led protests against the capitalist structures that oppress workers. The novel focuses on the work of Canadian protestors, and uses the celebrations around May Day (May 1st) to tie it all together. May Day represents the struggles faced by workers around the world, and in the over a century since the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, it has served as a rallying point for workers to fight for change in areas such as workplace safety, reduced hours and increased wages.

      The era of industrialization was not an easy one for workers to endure, and they fought hard to be recognized as more than simply a commodity to be used in the generation of capital. Certain jobs, such as mining, had an extremely high fatality rate for workers in this industry, and workers were desperate to change the status quo. Governments and the Captains of Industry of the era were reluctant to make the changes workers desired, and thus conflict ensued. The workers were forced to utilize the only bargaining tool they had at their disposal – themselves. Without the workers at the machines, companies would not make any money, and were forced to take note of the protests.

      The graphic format of this text aids in the telling of the story, as the illustrations offer more than simply a basic narrative. The illustrations give some visual context to the movements of the period, allowing the reader to glimpse more into the world of the workers. As well, the graphic format also makes the somewhat dreary story of workers protesting their rights more colourful. The way in which the illustrations are drawn show a definite pro-worker stance, which also aids in the argument of the text.

      The story of how worker’s rights came to be in Canada follows the Marxist class conflict archetype. Two opposing parties, the workers and the owners, were in conflict over the question of the rights of the worker. This conflict spilled over into a political issue, with the passing of the Trade Unions Act in 1872, legalizing the assembly of unions. This conflict was also a bloody one, with the most infamous confrontation being at Haymarket in 1886. However, the determined efforts by Canadian workers, and their counterparts around the world, directly led to the working standards seen in Western society today. Without the tireless efforts of these ordinary workers, the working conditions enjoyed by Canadians today would not have come about.

    • doraleung 8:13 am on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Please blog a response about the novel. What is the argument? how effective is the graphic format and why?

      “May Day” is a graphic novel that focuses on the importance of May Day and its history. It is a day that celebrates work, renewal, solidarity and the struggle for better. It outlines the past of the working class and their fight for more reasonable pay and work hours, from ten to twelve hours a day, to 9 and eventually 8 hour work day. It also highlights the protests and strikes that were highly prevalent throughout the period, such as 9 Hour Day Movement made in 1872 by workers who formed the Canadian Labour Protective and Mutual Improvement Association, the gathering of workers in Chicago at Haymarket in 1886, and the newly created type of strike in Canada – the General Strike. Workers who felt unfairly treated did would not show up to work, and every city that did this caused a ripple effect, for another city to raise awareness by calling for a strike in demand for better work wages and conditions. May Day eventually became an international issue, causing a world wide movement. Governments were forced to re-evaluate policies to accommodate the rights of the working class.
      A picture is worth a million words, and the graphic format of this novel is highly effective. It makes a topic largely believed to be boring into an interesting and colourful issue to be reading upon. From a personal stand point, reading long pieces becomes tedious and difficult to read. I tend not to be able to focus on readings over ten or so pages. This novel makes the issue of May Day and the history of protest and strikes very digestible as the text is minimal but meaningful and highlights the message that hit home. The graphic aspect of it brings the issue to life and gives better context of how it may have looked like during that time. It also helps me remember the facts and details of May Day history.

    • hartcamp 11:08 am on February 14, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Response to the email: The graphic novel, Mayday: A Graphic History of Protest, is intended to demonstrate the importance that Mayday has help within North America as well as Internationally, throughout the world. Having this story be told in a graphic form allows the reader to visualize some of the struggles these works went through, and what it was like to have them gather en mass and come together, the working class, to stand up for their rights, and to fight for better conditions in the work place. Better conditions in the work place however were more than just that, they led to happier employees, as well as wealthier employees, and wealthier employees had a higher chance of being able to spend more money, therefore stimulating the economy even further. The Mayday graphic novel show that many governments, even today, are not very willing to make the conditions of the work place any better for their people. The novel visually demonstrates how when a crowd of large numbers demands something of its government, or an establishment in general, the crowd has the power of the people, and often, especially when taking the proper tactics when protesting, can get what they want (at least to some extent on most occasions). The main point that the novel gets across is that we, the people, have the ability, the right, and the dexterity to stand up for ourselves, and better our situations in the world. -Campbell Hart

    • Pierre-Marie B. 8:03 pm on February 15, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      May Day: A Graphic History of Protest is based on a series of events which led to the claiming of May 1st as a day for political protest. The time period covered goes from approximately 1872 to 2007, and focuses on working-class people who have been militating for better work conditions and higher wages since the late nineteenth century, especially in Europe and North America. The main theme developed is the struggle of laborers against the oppression of their bosses and the overgrowing capitalism and industrialization.

      As a mean to protest, working-class activists and other people who supported their fight organized strikes and demonstrations in order to be heard by the government and the employers. For example, before 1872 labor unions were illegal, but the march of the 1500 Strong in solidarity to the 9 Hour Movement pressured the Canadian government to pass the Federal Trade Unions Act. It was the first victory of the working-class uprising, but the history of May Day as a day of worker protest after that has been written in blood, sweat, and tears. Indeed many protests turned into riots and were violently repressed by the police or strike-breakers. However, working-class people never gave up their ideals and the movement spread worldwide.

      Concerning the argument of the graphic novel and its effectiveness, I think the format is well adapted for an introduction to the topic, focusing on major events and not sweating useless details. Even though the arrangement of the graphics was not always easy to understand, it did not affect my overall reading so much. Moreover, the use of images and short written sections to convey the message really stroke me, I am especially talking about some quotations such as August Spies’ “The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today.” My personal background is not directly related to middle-class working people, but this graphic novel showed me that you can and should support this fight even if you are not a laborer, if you can relate to the idea of never giving up your rights and contesting what you think is wrong in society.

  • tamyers 5:58 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?

     

    • Vincent Yam 5:29 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canadian attitudes toward drug usage and who used drugs were highly affected by their views on nation and identity. The white anglo-canadian majority did not view the Chinese as Canadian and saw them in certain racial terms. Being seen as aliens and unassimilable, meant that the Chinese did not fit into the national identities that were presented by a majority white government, which meant that the chinese became the target of racial stereotyping. This racial stereotyping could take place due to the general lack of economic and political power that the CHinese community had in general and the isolated, foreign nature of the chinese immigrants in European eyes.

      Being viewed as different, exotic, alien and unable to assimilate, fears developed such as the myth of the Yellow Peril, the idea that chinese were feminine, deceptive people. Mackenzie’s report in the aftermath of the Anti-Asian riots created a link between drug use and the increasingly negative image of the CHinese. Drug usage, seen as a cause of the disruptive Anti-Asian riots was seen as a negative aspect of a negative racial community… But it was the fear that drugs would transfer from the CHinese to the whites or be used by Chinese to seduce white women, that created incentive for law enforcement. Thus, Opium therefore became the target of the RCMP.

      Hence, Canadian national identity of what constituted as ‘part of Canada’ or ‘not foreign’ played an essential part in ostracizing the Chinese, which led to the Anti-Asian riots, which in its aftermath, linked the Chinese to the drug trade. This resultant fear of this foreign group led to law enforcement policies that targeted the chinese and opium users.

    • Susanna Chan 9:39 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The Chinese were especially targeted during the War on Drugs period. the RCMP devoted their full attention to the drug problem, resulted by racist discourses against Asian-Canadians. Identity factors played a big role towards the attitudes and drug usage in the 20th century in various ways. For example, opium was seen as a symbol of assault on white race. King’s report also created stereotypical beliefs about the Chinese such as “Chinese men are dangerous to white women and seen as unmanly” They were also seen as unable to become assimilated into the Canadian culture. Emily Murphy’s work also reinforced the view that Chinese were “bad” and deeply affecting our nation.

      Much attention was made to the Chinese in the 1920s b/c of all these factors; this impacted law enforcement. There was the typical view that those who used opium were those at the bottom b/c of race/class background, and that the CHinese were the “worst offenders”. The RCMP even hired “spy’s/informants” to watch those suspected of being in the drug trade. As shown in Steve Hewitt’s article, the # of Chinese people convicted was much higher than Caucasian’s.

      All of the negative stereotypes reflected the laws put in place towards the drug problem in the 20th century; not only did it specifically target Asian-Canadian’s, it resulted in many being deported and/or doing jail time for something they may not have necessarily been apart of.

    • maxgardiner 12:27 am on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Concepts of national identity deeply played into the relationship that existed between law enforcement and drug use in the early 20th century.

      In the early 20th century before the passage of legislation like the Opium Act in 1908 there was little concern over drug use in Canada. However after the 1907 Anti-Asian Riots in Vancouver William Lyon Mackenzie investigated opium use as one of the agitating factors in the riots. Before the riots opium use had often been tolerated so long as it remained confined to Chinese communities, however a perceived increase in the amount of white men and women using the drug scared many authorities and resulted in a moral panic of sorts against the drug trade as a threat to “good” (white) boys and girls who it was feared would be sucked into the “slavery” of drug culture. This shows that white-Canadians at the time viewed themselves as distinct from ethnic groups like the Chinese and other non-Europeans. This shows the importance that certain kinds of identity had in defining what was Canadian in the early 20th century.

      The issue of drug use, specifically opium use, was a racially charged issue that seemingly pitted the “yellow menace” of Chinese opium users against the bold, righteous, and white RCMP out to enforce morality and order against the anarchy and sin that opium was said to induce. Opium was cast specifically as a Chinese drug in order to frame it as a threat to Canadian identity. In enforcing laws like the ONDA the RCMP specifically targeted Chinese individuals often turning a blind eye to any whites that were found in similar situations. All this shows how a white, masculine national identity was enforced through the RCMP by “othering” Chinese individuals and targeting them as a corrupting influence to Canadian society. As well, the RCMP’s involvement in monitoring the drug trade was the result of a existential crisis that threatened their future in Canada. By having the RCMP step into the war on drugs they could be used to perpetuate a “proper” show of power by the federal government. The RCMP’s involvement in the drug war int he 1920s was very important to building the dominant idea of what Canadian identity was.

    • jamesrm 4:25 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Early 20th century Canada was mostly unconcerned about drug use, but the Anti-Asian Riots of 1907 in Vancouver caused a shift in attitude. Canada’s attitude towards drugs, opium in particular, became racially charged. Prior to the riots, law enforcement turned a blind eye to opium use, as long as it was confined to Chinese communities. The Chinese communities in question were ostracized by Canadians, with the sentiments surrounding most Canadians was that Chinese people in Canada were not considered Canadians. Furthermore, the Chinese community wasn’t exceptionally influential, neither economically nor politically, so they were often racially profiled by a majority white Canada and Canadian government.

      • jamesrm 4:34 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Sorry, sent that too early. Part 2:

        After the Anti-Asian riots, the Canadian government blamed opium use for being one of the mitigating factors that contributed to the riots. RCMP and other law enforcement specifically targeted Chinese people, incarcerating them for drug usage and other petty crimes, while propagating their white supremacy by ignoring drug use by white citizens. Overall, Chinese Canadians in the early 1900’s were prosecuted at a significantly higher rate than Caucasian Canadians, even with a much smaller population. This highlight’s Canada’s ethnocentrism in the early century.

    • slali 4:44 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      National identity was a key target during the War on Drugs period. Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement were greatly influenced by this national identity, the Chinese. The Chinese were seen as menaces that brought opium and other narcotics from abroad. This is classified by the Anglo-Canadians as assault on Canada. The Chinese were discriminated against and singled out because this was the ongoing belief. In the eyes of the RCMP and the law, the Chinese introduced such drugs in Canada. It was a “Chinese drug” and set apart from other “white drugs”.

      The stereotype that began to circulate was that the Chinese were unassimilable Asians. This stereotype caused hatred amongst their group. They topped the list of the most despised people in Canada. The Chinese were not treated right during this period. The majority of the arrests for drugs were Chinese people and the Anglo Canadian RCMP’s arrested them turning the other way to many whites that were also in possession or under the influence of drugs. Opium was threatening Canadian national identity, it was sought to undermine societal stability so in 1923, the Chinese exclusion Act was their solution. The Anglo-Canadians blocked further Chinese from entering into Canada and those who remained here were deported if necessary. This really emphasized that drugs were not a part of Canadian identity, and the RCMP and law enforcement made this very clear.

    • bedard 4:58 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Up until the anti-Asian riots in 1907, drug use in Canada was viewed as being socially acceptable, however, it was the anti-Asian riots, which made the Canadian government take a step back and figure something had to be done to protect the middle class Canadians from drug use. In 1908 Mackenzie drafted the opium act to prohibit the drug, then in 1911 the act was edited to include usage of the drug, keying in on the crime not the act. When world war I ended in 1918, according to Steve Hewitt, the RCMP needed to justify it’s existence by starting a war on drugs in the 1920’s, inspired by racist discourses against Asian-Canadians when there was a great fear towards challenges to the Anglo-Canadian dominance. The war on drugs included propaganda and slander towards the Asian-Canadians to protect the middle class Canadians. The Asian-Canadians were blamed for drug usage, and faced much racism, as well as some casualties.

    • Connor Munro 5:45 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Much of the Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement were very specific and focused. Firstly, law enforcement was given many tools to target those involved with drugs. The fact that they were guilty until proven innocent showed the bias against drug users and dealers. As with many of the other advantages given to law enforcement(such as not needing a search warrant), the government and law enforcement tried to do almost anything to discourage and get rid of the criminal drug problem.
      All these disadvantages against drugs were implemented specifically because of who they saw that was involved with drugs. They mainly saw Chinese being heavily involved, even Chinese-Canadians. They specifically did not see them as Canadian. All of their efforts were made to prosecute and convict them because they saw them as the worst offenders and paid minimal attention to others, namely Caucasians. White people, especially white Canadians and the drugs associated with them were not the focus of many investigations. There was a stigma attached with the Chinese and opiates. Attitudes towards them were heavily against them especially when considering the advantages given to law enforcement so that they could go after and prosecute them. This focus was a result after the Anti-Asian riots in 1907. Prior to the riots, attitudes towards drug use were not as heavily opposed. Attitudes had changed because they wanted to protect the White middle class.

    • Tamara Ling 6:31 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Throughout the early 20th century, Canadians attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement has greatly impacted how they view themselves as a nation. Similar to the rest of Canada, the white Anglo-Canadian majority looked down on any visible minorities. In BC, they were especially racist toward people of Chinese background. This was because Anglo-Canadians considered them to not be able to assimilate into their culture, since the Chinese are so unlike the “Canadian norm”.

      During the War on Drugs, RCMP officers were focused on fixing this “drug problem” and constantly targeted people of Chinese background. Opium was viewed as a way to negatively impact the “pure-ness” of white Anglo-Canadians. It was believed that the Chinese men smoked opium because then they can “have their way” with Anglo-Celtic women. In other words, the white Anglo-Canadians had a fear of the Chinese people negatively affecting their females. It was believed that people of Chinese background were the lowest in the social hierarchy, which reflected in how the RCMP officers were ranked. For example, Chinese people could be hired as spies to watch suspects. However, RCMP officers with backgrounds from the UK, were usually portrayed as heroes. For example, they were portrayed in a patriarchal role where they are protecting the vulnerable population – the women and the children.

      Overall, the RCMP made a significant impact in forming Canadian identity because of their involvement in the War on Drugs.

    • eself 6:46 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Before 1907, drug use was legal in Canada. The anti-asian riots in 1907 brought the threat of the increased population of Chinese-Canadians to the attention of the anglo-Canadian people in government. The use of opium was tolerated across Canada with the condition that it only be present within Chinese communities until 1908 when the Opium Act was enacted. Acting as a defence line for Anglo- Canadians against drug crimes, the RCMP believed this act, and the edited versions after were to protect “Canadians”, or white middle class, from themselves. These acts were very targeted against specific drugs and the later increase in imprisonment times allowed for a more direct and assertive approach to the use of drugs in the 20th century and beyond. The sudden implement of the anti-drug laws changed the national identity as being more defensive because Canada was the first country to make drugs illegal. The war on drugs impacted Canadian identity stating that the RCMP would not allow the use of drugs or other illegal products anymore, and in the early 20th century if suspicious or harmful drugs were introduced, the government would immediately act. This shows a no-nonsense identity to be associated with Canada.

    • Pierre-Marie B. 6:58 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As we saw in Berger’s article, Canadian nationalism was heavily based on ethnicity and race in the late 19th century. The strong and masculine “northern” race was praised and considered the most adapted to live in Canada. The idea was still persisting in the early 20th century and obviously had an impact on law enforcement, especially concerning the “war on drugs” fought by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Canada started to realize that drug usage and trade was a growing issue and decided to enforce the Opium and Narcotics Drug Act (ONDA). Firstly, drug was compared to communism, as an external threat infecting Canada from abroad, but after the anti-Asian riots in Vancouver, Chinese-Canadians were held responsible for drug addiction and trafficking.

      The RCMP enforced the ONDA according to the idea that the Chinese-Canadian community was perverting the Anglo-Canadian citizens with their opium, especially for having their way with Anglo-Celtic women. Consequently, “drug narratives” appeared in order to portray opium as an assault against the purity of the “white” race, and demonized the Chinese community. The “yellow peril” ideology pictured the Chinese as deceitful and evil who would eventually take over and destroy Anglo-Canadian identity, gave the state and the RCMP a reason to beat the Chinese with the ONDA. Indeed, people of Chinese background usually topped the list of arrests under the ONDA. The name of the law itself was directly aimed at stigmatizing the Chinese community, making a distinction between opium considered as a Chinese drug and other drugs. All this racist rhetoric helped the construction of several acts limiting immigration from Asian countries.

      The racist aspect of drug law enforcement could be seen not only in who was targeted by the law in priority, but also in who was to enforce this law. Indeed, members of the RCMP were almost exclusively from Ango-Celtic background in the first decades of the 20th century. They were seen by the Ango-Canadian community as a symbol of strong and masculine white men, leading a crusade against evil Asians, whom did not fit the assimilable type of immigrants, because they were too different from the Anglo-Canadian norm. Moreover, even though immigrants such as Eastern Europeans mostly were recruited as undercover agents, the RCMP only used those from Chinese backgrounds as informants, which was the lowest category in drug enforcement forces. This shows one more time the racist ideology spreading in early 20th century Canada, through law enforcement towards drugs.

    • Tyler Cole 12:45 pm on January 29, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the early 20th century, Canada was undergoing a number of changes that would shape the country going forward. Many of these changes were aimed at forming a national identity, something that Canada had always struggled to define. Through this process of forming a national identity, certain groups were identified as negative influences on this progression, and were targeted as such. An example of one of these groups is Chinese immigrants, who were growing in numbers in British Columbia in the late 19th century. This growing number of Chinese immigrants led to many headaches for the government officials tasked with forming this national identity.

      One area where Canadian officials and Chinese migrants came into conflict was over drugs and drug legislation, specifically with the use of opium. Many Chinese were habitual opium smokers, and this was an area that the Canadian government targeted in order to reduce the Chinese influence on young white men and women. In 1908, opium was made illegal in Canada, and the battle between Chinese opium smokers and opium den owners and the law enforcement agents began. This conflict was rooted in the belief of the Canadian government that the Chinese would never assimilate fully into Canadian culture, and so keeping them on the fringes of society was important. The drug offensive led by the Mounties was an attempt to save the emerging Canadian ideals from the “cunning” and “deceitfulness” of the Chinese opium smokers.

    • doraleung 3:18 pm on February 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Throughout the post confederation era in Canada, the ongoing main motif of national identity was one of the strong, true northern white man. During the early 1900s, the Canadian RCMP try to find a way to appeal back to the public because the need for this kind of police force was needed less and less due to the rise of provincial police forces. The perfect way for them to do this was to find an issue to fight against, which conveniently, at the time was an increase of drug use, mainly opium, which was seen to have been brought in by the Chinese. Simultaneously, the increase of Chinese immigrants was unwanted by the white community.
      The RCMP would, of course, use this situation to their advantage. They would end the “war on drugs” by manipulating the scene so that they would be seen as the heroes and the yellow skin man as the villain. Anti-Asian Riots, such as the “Yellow Peril”, were ensued to “stop the yellow man”. Some Chinese were even deported as a result. This also continued to shape the “white” identity to Canada that the nation was trying so hard to seek.

  • tamyers 5:56 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

     

    • jamesrm 1:02 pm on January 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These shorts both highlight the changing attitudes Canadians have about their national identity in the 21st century. In “Canadian, Please”, two young Canadians try to convince viewers that they “want to be Canadian, please” by highlighting common Canadian accomplishments like inventing the zipper, having large amounts of multiculturalism and boasting “the world’s monopoly on trees”. This song plays both on Canadian nationalism and also by highlighting the differences Canada has to other countries in the world, stating that “The Brits have the monarchy/ The US has the money/ But I know that you wanna be Canadian”. Trying to give Canada a name for itself is difficult, as it shares many similarities to other countries, like the US and Great Britain, and this song emphasizes these differences.

      In the Molson Canadian ad, “I am Canadian”, senses of nationalism and patriotism are heavily invoked, with the speaker basically debunking many Canadian stereotypes, claiming that “I don’t live in an igloo, or eat blubber”, and that “I pronounce it And I pronounce it ‘a-bout’, not ‘a-boot’ “. Additionally, the speaker attempts to distinguish Canada from the United States, claiming that “I speak English and French, not American” and that “I have a Prime Minister, not a President”. As with many commercials, this ad is invoking a strong emotion, in this case Canadian nationalism, and then showing their product, in this case Molson Canadian. The people whom this ad is targeted towards are people (like myself) with strong nationalist feelings who identify as Canadians.

      Both these short videos show the changing Canadian ideologies in the 21st century. As Canada’s influence grows in the international community, many Canadians are searching for a clear identity. I imagine being Canadian to many people is similar to being from New Zealand and comparing yourself to Australians. Being the “little brother” of a much larger country always poses problems for national identity, and many Canadians find that identity by identifying as being specifically not American, British, French or any other nation. In my eyes, that diversity and amalgamation of different cultures is what makes Canada unique.

      • rsamfenn 7:40 pm on January 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        One of the key words that you used in this blog post–I think–is “changing;” these videos demonstrate some modern stereotypes about Canadian identity. Hopefully over the course of this term we will be able to historicize some of these stereotypes and explore how modern Canadian identity has been constructed.

    • Vincent Yam 7:13 pm on January 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The shorts are quite different, but there are several common themes and similarities that identify the key areas about Canada’s identity in the 21st century.

      In both shorts, wildlife, and Canada’s natural resources are mentioned. “Canadian, Please” particularly emphasizes Canadian’s natural beauty as well as some of its native species such as the goose, moose and the beaver. The Molson ad specifically focuses on the beaver, but its “Canadian, Please” that really focuses on the advantage Canada has on its natural resources such as its lumber and its fresh water supply.

      There is a common theme that both video shorts sell is the idea that Canada is different from the US. Both videos emphasize on how Canada is not as violent, and pursues a non-violent foreign policy approach. This also implies Canada to be superior to the US on this issue. “Lose the gun” is one of the rules in the music video, while in the Molson commercial its the line “I believe in peacekeeping not violence”. The Molson commercial and “Canadian, Please” further differentiates Canada from the US through language, and that in particular, Canada has a second official language. However, the Molson commercial takes this language differentiation one step further to focusing on the accents and cues of Canadian English “not zee, zed” and “I speak English + French, not American”.

      Multiculturalism is another subject that both videos touch upon. Interestingly enough though, the Molson commercial mentions that Canadians believe in “multiculturalism, not assimilation”, which can be seen as an implicit criticism of the “melting pot” immigration policies of the US and is a further evidence of an attempt to differentiate Canada from the US.

      Not to say that Canadian, Please doesn’t attempt to differentiate Canada from the US. The singers often bring up Canadian achievements such as the zipper, and unique institutions such as the Mouthed Police. Coupled with the lines comparing Canada to the other countries, it shows how Canadians are beginning to look into their nation’s past to craft their own identity.

      This leads to probably the summation of what is being sold here and who is buying. The videos are attempting to sell a uniquely Canadian national identity that is quite patriotic and emphasizes on Canada’s natural strengths. It focuses on differentiation from the USA through perceived moral and societal differences as well as cultural and linguistic ones. The people who would buy this idea would probably be children and adolescents in Canada. Particularly, this would apply to those youth who had recently immigrated, or who came from families that immigrated to Canada and who lack a national identity. Ads and videos like these would help ingrain this particular target audience with patrioticism for their new country or the country they were born in.

    • Susanna Chan 11:00 pm on January 8, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both of the videos highlight Canadian identity in a positive way in the videos…

      In “Canadian, Please” the theme they emphasize on include invention of the zipper, natural resources/land (ie: fresh water), free health care, friendly-ness etc. It plays on many different things that are symbolic in Canada such as the outdoors, mounties, and beavers. It suggests that Canada’s identity is based on a wide variety of things, especially multiculturalism and freedom. The environments the actors are in also reinforces their statements b/c its showing the beauty of Canada, which could potentially be a seller to an audience.

      In the Molson commercial, there is a commonality with the 1st video. It talks about some of the stereotypes associated w/ Canada, but also talks about the positive aspects connected to identity such as friendly-ness. Also, it compares Canada to other places; for example the speaker suggests he can proudly put the Canadian flag on his backpack, which compared to the states is not always the case. The theme of peace and freedom is also emphasized greatly. Symbols such as the noble beaver is suggested similar to the 1st video too.

      Since Canada is known to be multicultural, I think the videos could be a potential seller to newcomers into the country who may not know their own identity, so this could be sold as a place where you can “find yourself.” The 1st video refers to other countries a few times, but in the end it tries to kind of sell Canada by saying “…you know you want to be Canadian” emphasizing that our country is compared to others. Both videos refer to all positive features of Canada, so in a sense, it is very one-sided.

      Both videos suggest that Canada is the best country by mentioning tons of symbols, features, and reasons why Canada is the best place. In general, I think Canadian identity in the 21st Century is associated w/ freedom, peace, multiculturalism, and identity.

    • bedard 2:26 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both of these short videos “I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” are short little clips, yet they get the point across of a proud Canadian identity. The First video “I am Canadian” displays a proud Canadian named Joe who is listing off sever Canadian stereo-types, debunking the majority of them at the same time. However, while he lists off these stereo-types about Canada, there is proudness behind the identity of being Canadian. Joe is distinguishing the differences between Canada and other countries, proudly saying that it is ZED not ZEE. The video “Canadian, Please” displays a strong, proud Canadian identity, highlighting accomplishments coming from Canada, such as the invention of the zipper. “Canadian, Please” also highlights that Canada may not have a monarchy, or as much money as the United States, however Canada is the second largest land mass in the world, and you know you want to be Canadian. These two little shorts display a proud nationalism to Canada, and these two shorts are targeted towards Canadians who have a strong pride in the country we come from.

    • Connor Munro 5:54 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These shorts describe the stereotypes of Canadians and some of the most commonly things associated with Canadians. They depict the generalization of Canadian identity with certain aspects associated with Canada as shown in “Canadian, Please” when the singers are wearing RCMP uniforms that are heavily associated with the Canadian law enforcement and in the case of the Molson ad the arguments against common misrepresentations. While also bringing about Canadian nationalism and patriotism by proudly stating how Canadians may feel and stating some of our accomplishments that may be overlooked even though they are beneficial and commonly used in everyday lives. Canadian identity in the 21st century goes along with many ideas and themes presented in both shorts.However, it is the identification of some of the more outrageous claims that are not true that also make Canadians view of their own identity in the 21st century. Really, it is the irony of what is most commonly, associated with being Canadian that partly shapes Canadian identity. In the 21st century Canadian identity is the combination of these generalizations but more importantly, Canadian identity is based on each individual’s interpretation of being Canadian with some facets of the generalizations.

      In both shorts they are attempting to sell to Canadians because many Canadians find them funny or ironic because we know of these stereotypes and typically brush them off as ironic. There are some non-Canadians that will watch these videos because they are so widespread but, the main audience is Canadians because of the association with our identity. In the video “Canadian, Please” they are selling the music, while in the Molson ad they are selling beer. Both shorts sell to Canadians or at least those who identify as Canadian what is said to be Canadian in the videos.

    • maxgardiner 7:12 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      These two videos say much about what Canadian identity is in the 21st century. “I Am Canadian” attempts on its own to define what “Canadian identity” is. The ad does this specifically by defining Canadian identity in a negative fashion, defining it by specifying what it is not. In this ad the contrast is specifically with the US displaying many of the common things that Canadians view a being different between Canada and the US. This creates a negative identity that makes up being Canadian. The character on the stage is Joe, an average, white, anglophone, hockey watchin’, casually dressed guy. He is what many Canadians would probably view as being the “average Canadian”. It plays up many of the stereotypes Canadians have about themselves and delivers it with a powerful messaging to be proud of these things. This shows that much of 21st century Canadian identity is based on what makes us different from the US and that it is OK to be proud of that.

      The second video shows a different, yet similar view of Canadiana. Two people, dressed as Mounties, rapping about more Canadian stereotypes. They discuss things like the monarchy and multiculturalism which would be hard pressed to make an argument that these are not part of the 21st century Canadian identity. The ethnic makeup of the second video contrasts with the first, displaying a more accurate depiction of what Canada “looks like” today. The Canada of today is much more that white and male. This video builds on what I Am Canadian talked about and displays a more nuanced approach to what 21st century Canada looks like by melding old traditions like the RCMP and modern forms of art like rap.

      The audience for these videos is different for each one. For the first the beer commercial is probably targeting white, anglophone, men who enjoy drinking beer and watching hockey to unwind. This is the group that would probably be quite apologetically nationalistic and this ad plays directly to this attitude. The second video targets a younger demographic and with that will come an increase in diversity. However this video carries much of the same messaging about what Canadian identity is and that it is OK to be proud of being Canadian. It also does much of its defining by saying what it is that makes Canada different from the US. This brings into question how much of 21st century Canadian identity is defined simply as “not American”.

    • richardj 9:16 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both short films reflect upon the Canadian Identity and what it means to be Canadian; the use of multi media added a modern touch to older stead fast stereotypes. To be Canadian, to identify as one means that you are patriotic and proud of to be different. The message in the rap video obviously spoke to a younger crowd, its message was vague and the use of the Red Serge didn’t help selling the video’s message. The second video was entertaining, it exemplified what makes Canadian different through slam poetry with obvious commercial overtone regarding beer. The ‘I Am Canadian” slogan has stood the test of time; its message touched on iconic Canadian symbols and vocabulary form coast to coast. Canadian pride speaks to an individual freedom that we as Canadians enjoy that is envied around the globe. Ultimately, its still a beer commercial promoting a false idea that to be Canadian one must drink Canadian branded beer.

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

      The short videos “I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” show many positive aspects about Canadian identity in the 21st century. The “I am Canadian” Molson Beer advertisement portrayed a sense of pride in being a Canadian. They chose elements for the advertisement that a large range of the Canadian population could relate to. It focused on the Canadian Image today such as our two official languages, the hockey sensation, the great beaver, our government and what we are well known for (peace keeping). It specifically mentions in the beginning that history does not define a Canadian, so a fur trader is not a Canadian. This video portrays Canadians as how they are viewed today by other countries and people. The examples used were all very positive and well known, as a Canadian watching the short video, I felt proud to be a Canadian. This is a good thing since the Molson is trying to sell this notion of pride to Canadians, and as a proud Canadian, we should do what all Canadians do and drink “Canadian” beer.

      The “Canadian, Please” song/video suggests that others should want to be Canadian for a variety of reasons. It promotes Canadian nationalism. This video is more for the non-Canadians, showing them that us Canadians take pride in who we are. The examples used to lure in the non-Canadian population is Canada’s location, having the largest fresh water supply, free health care and so on. There is an emphasis on living multiculturally here in Canada and this is shown as a part of our identity. All these wonderful things are what make the Canadian identity. This video is aimed at the world that is not Canadian, showing them that there are plenty of reasons why they should want to have Canadian citizenship and be a true Canadian. The video makes comparisons to other countries but in the end, it is established that it means more to be a Canadian.

    • Tamara Ling 12:39 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both of these short clips show what it means to be a Canadian citizen in the 21st century. Each clip is able to portray one or more Canadians being very patriotic and nationalistic about their country.

      The first clip is a Molson Canadian ad called “I am Canadian”. It portrays a speaker on a stage proudly speaking out to an audience discrediting many Canadian stereotypes, thus, showing a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism. ¬¬Some of these stereotypes includes that Canadians “live in an igloo” or pronounce ‘about’ rather than ‘a-boot’. In addition, the speaker shows nationalism for his country by trying to show the differences between Canada from the United States by stating that English and French are spoken here and that Canadians have a Prime Minister who runs the country. By showing the differences, the speaker is able to convey that Canada is a country that Canadians should be proud of. In this ad, Molson Canadian beer is trying to be sold to males who enjoy watching sports games, specifically hockey. When males are cheering for a specific team, they are showing a sense of patriotism, thus identifying themselves as part of that country. Molson Canadian is trying to sell their beer to these proud Canadians because they should be only drinking beer that is from their country rather than a foreign one.

      The second clip is a music video called “Canadian, Please”. In this music video, two young people dressed like Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing their patriotism for their country by trying to convince all the viewers to become a Canadian. In the video, the two people brag about Canadian achievements so far such as inventing insulin and the zipper. To help people become Canadian, the singers have ‘steps’ for the viewers to follow, which are just additional stereotypes. The first step is to “lose the gun”, secondly “buy a canoe” and thirdly, “live multiculturally”. Finally, the singers further distinguish Canada from the rest of the world by stating that “Brits have got the monarchy/The US has the money…The French have got the wine and cheese/Koalas chill with the Aussies”. By differentiating Canada, they are able to show that Canadians can be just as “strong” as any other country in the world. I would say that this video is aimed towards any person who is not a Canadian. These people are trying to show all the positive features that come with being a Canadian citizen.

    • brendanjf 11:35 am on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      What these videos tell me is that Canada has an identity issue. Canadians seem to be insecure about what it means to be Canadian and have tried to form an identity for themselves, but they appear to have latched onto the stereotypes of Canadians and Canada that other countries have of them, such as Mounties and beavers. Rather than trying to create an identity that is uniquely Canadian, they try to present themselves as being proud of all the things that other countries mock them for. They also appear to try and embrace ideas of Canada removed from their reality, such as the videos’ references to a lack of guns (Canada ranked 13th in the world in handguns per capita in the Small Arms Survey 2007) and their purported bilingualism (less than a fifth of Canadians are able to speak both official languages according to Statistics Canada’s 2006 Census).

      The overall impression seems to be one of denial and confusion, where Canadians are desperate to have this idea of what it means to be Canadian, but aren’t really sure what that is supposed to be. In the process they have fixated upon the stereotypes that other nations see in them, attempting to claim them as sources of national pride, while at the same time maintaining an air of self-deprecating humor, as if to have an excuse of not really being serious. In doing so, they have denied an opportunity to define for themselves what it means to be Canadian, instead defining themselves by what other countries think of them.

      There is also a demonstrated defensiveness with regards to America, with efforts taken to try and differentiate Canada from its southern neighbor, and highlight Canada’s achievements. It could be seen as a slight sense of inferiority, and a desire not to be confused for their loud neighbor and instead be appreciated for their actual values. This, however, still means that Canada is defining themselves in relation to other countries to a certain degree, in that they are trying to define themselves as “Not American”, rather than emphasizing what it means to be “Canadian”.

      The videos seem to be trying to sell a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of Canadian identity, but who they are selling to is more nebulous. I think that they could be trying to sell this to foreigners, in an attempt to manipulate the stereotypes they have of Canada to show themselves in a positive light, but more likely they are trying to sell this sense of identity to other Canadians, in an attempt to fill a gap in the sense of national identity that Canadians have.

    • Tyler Cole 10:16 pm on January 13, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Both of these videos serve to perpetuate the most common stereotypes associated with Canada. The images and ideas that they portray are those that most outsiders would associate with Canada, if they knew nothing else. Things like beer, hockey, beavers and red Mountie outfits are symbols of Canada to people of other nations, and these videos glorify them.

      However, I also feel that they are displayed in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, especially the Molson Canadian beer advertisement. Molson, one of Canada’s oldest and most storied breweries, has long played off on Canadian stereotypes to sell their products, especially their “Molson Canadian” product. This product is marketed to be an all-Canadian brew, one that takes the best of Canada and puts it into a can. So it is fitting that the marketers would build off Canadian stereotypes to sell beer to both Canadians and people in other countries, such as America.

    • doraleung 3:17 pm on February 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think that what these two short videos are trying to say that Canadians in the 21st century are proud to be Canadian, as the Molson Canadian Beer advertisement states. In the first beer commercial, what’s being sold and bought is, well of course, beer. But on a more figurative level, Molson is trying to sell the image of Canadian identity. The man on the stage begins by comparing his country, Canada, to the United States, and busts all the stereotypes of what other countries would have about Canada. Though he corrects those stereotypes, he does it in a very polite manner, just as Canadians are “supposed to be”. In the other video “Canadian, Please”, the two figures describe what living in Canada is like and many of the positive aspects of being in this country. Essentially, both shorts express how amazing Canada and being a Canadian is. It’s seems maybe slightly ironic because there is a general idea amongst foreigners that Canada is a country without much of an identity because it is a merging ground for different cultures. Throughout all of history, Canada has been a mixture of different races, beginning with the Aboriginals, then white settlers, then Spanish, following the Chinese and etc. However, it seems to be the mixture of cultures that is Canadian culture. The differences of Canadians is what unifies them and the common grounds that many Canadians have are the things stated in the videos.

    • Pierre-Marie B. 8:12 pm on February 15, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The first video “Canadian, please” sounds like a praise for Canada as a country, but also for its inhabitants and their lifestyle. The basic idea of the video is to present caracteristic elements of Canada as opposed to some of other countries such as the United States of America, Australia, China, or Britain, which are all powerful nations in today’s world. The other video “I Am Canadian” also plays on stereotypes : it defines what Canada and Canadians are not based on worldwide spread clichés, then move on to what they are with positive images: multiculturalism, free healthcare, respectful and proud people, strong hockey teams etc. By doing this, the video affirm Canadian identity as something unique and now independent from that of countries with which it has historical links.

      Both video definitely target two different audiences. Firstly, it targets Canadian people to enhance their sense of national pride and belonging to a great open-minded country. Especially since Molson is a Canadian brand of beer, it is important to flatter Canadians and make them want to buy and consume products from their own country to support local economy. Then the second target is broader, it includes people from the whole world and the cited countries. It is an attempt to prove that maybe these countries have renowned touristic sites, food, money or philosophers, but Canada has nothing to be jealous of because it has as much if not more to offer. I think the “Canadian, please” video is the more effective of the two for promotting Canada worldwide for two reasons. First, it is not judgemental toward the symbols used to represent other countries, consequently it is not excluding people from these countries, and finally because it refers to things that everybody can relate to in a funny way : animals, food, nature, peace, health.

  • admin 9:14 am on September 9, 2013 Permalink |  

    I’m going to write some general comments here about your posts, all of which were good. The only problem that I can see – and something to keep in mind more for the coming weeks and the blog entries you will write there – is that some of you didn’t address the second part of the question about what the story of Canadian history is. Or if you did, it tended to be more implicitly stated than directly. Go for the direct approach. I’ll give an example shortly.

    Most of you said that Canada was a multicultural and diverse country; in addition the diverse First Nations, it’s home to people who have come here from around the world. Many of you emphasize that this makes Canada unique, especially since relations among people are peaceful. Yet at the same time, others of you pointed out that if Canadian history is about how this place became multicultural, it’s also the story of how that process wasn’t without its tensions. There was conflict; there were winners and losers. A number of you pointed out that the gains of settler society were often achieved at the cost of First Nations, yet as the two First Nations students pointed out, many indigenous cultures and communities are thriving now despite colonization. They also make the point that how history looks – what kind of story it is – is shaped by who is doing the telling….

    So…what does this all add up to? A very complex history! The history of Canada is in many ways the history of relations among different groups – social relations, but as one of you pointed out, trade, or economic relations It’s about how differences were accommodated – or ignored and denied. We’ll see in the coming weeks how much of your first impressions change.

    Good job everyone!

     

  • 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!

     

    • Vincent Yam 10:39 am on September 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country of a multitude of nationalities and cultures. It was first the territory of a multitude of native american cultures, (some prominent cultures/tribes include Iroquois Confederaxcy and Huron). It was colonized by the French and then taken by the British in the 7 Years War, where Canada remained a dominion of the British Empire, it recently (well sortof recently) achieved independence) and is one of the younger countries of the world. However, it has contributed significantly on an international stage in both world wars.

      And Canadian history is about the development of Canada’s culture and national identity, including the assimilation and amalgamation of the various cultures/national identities/races, as well as the conflicts and issues that arose from them (some of which still exist today). It also includes the role of this many-cultural country/colony/dominion on the international stage.

      Vincent Yam

    • maxgardiner 2:13 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the name given to the country located on the northern part of North America directly above the United States. It was first settled by Europeans in the late 15th century. Eventually the country was settled by primarily French and English settlers along the St. Lawrence River. Canada as a country was created by the unification of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1886 by the passage of the British North America act. Early Canadian history was been dominated mainly by the theme of western expansion and nation building. The building of the CPR to bring British Columbia into confederation helped expand western influence into the uncharted west. The railway also helped to bring together the country by linking the Pacific to the Atlantic. As well, conflict was common in early Canadian history, both internationally and domestically.
      With this expansion also came a downside. As settlers built the nation, they did so at the expense of the aboriginals who had lived on the land for thousands of years. Aboriginals were often forced to sign treaties and made to move onto reserves. As well, the establishment of the Residential Schools by the Canadian government with help from the churches worked to systematically destroy aboriginal culture, in a sense to “kill the Indian in the child”. The repercussions of the residential schools are so great that their effect are still being felt today even as the last school closed close to 20 years ago.
      In a sense, Canadian history is about the westward expansion of the country and those who that expansion came at the expense of. Of course, Canada has also played a part in major world events in the 20th century such as World War I and II. Canada is a great country with a rich history, but it cannot be forgotten what has been sacrificed to create it.

    • squamptonmafia 6:19 pm on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country of toque wearing, igloo living, hockey playing, “eh” saying, beard growing lumberjacks who just want to go for a beer. Right? Even though stereotypes are generally rooted in some sort of fact, Canadians are, actually, a bit more complicated than that. It’s a nation that stretches over 5500 km from east to west, with some parts that would rather not be there in the middle (here’s looking at you, La Belle Province). It’s a place where everybody is welcome, no matter where you come from, and once you get here, it’s pretty likely that there will be a community of people somewhere who are just like you. Examples of these sorts of places are Little Italy in Toronto, the Haitian community in Montreal, the Eastern European community in Winnipeg or the Chinese community in Vancouver, to name but a few. One thing that I feel isn’t talked about enough in relation to Canada is that even though we get the tag of being a multicultural country today, we’ve been multicultural since the very beginning, what with the English and French bickering over who would get to keep us before Confederation. Canadians are often perceived in the international scope as “too nice”, which I’ve always found really funny. I mean, who’s complaining when the worst anybody can say about you is that you’re nice? Even though Canadian history sometimes gets a bad rap for being “too boring” (owing to our lack of killing people to get what we want), I believe that it is important for every Canadian and even people who are just students here to have an understanding of what makes this country unique. Being Canadian is something to be proud of, even if that means sucking up a few Don Cherry or Tim Horton’s jabs along the way.

      Tyler Cole

    • connordm 8:32 pm on September 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country of diversity, from the people to the land and everything in between. Multiculturalism is evident throughout Canada as immigrants arrive and add to the growing diversity of languages as well as religions and cultures. The two official languages of Canada are English and French. There are still many other languages that are spoken in Canada everyday. The land spreads from sea to sea and borders the United States making Canada the second largest country in the world. The extreme weather in Canada that feels like a desert in the summer and blizzards in the winter make Canada’s weather diverse through its many provinces. While Canadians may be stereotyped as overly nice people, Canada welcomes everyone and continues to add to the communities that are in each city.

      Canadian history is about immigration, the treatment of previous immigrants, the treatment of previous immigrants being harmed, the first immigrants and the First Nations that made Canada. Canada had mistreated many cultural groups in its past and is now trying to make amends. The country is attempting to right the previous wrongs like the Komagata Maru Incident to the Head tax, the treatment of the Japanese after the bombing of Pearl Harbour as well as the treatment of First Nations and the Fur Trade. Canada has tried to change its image and has done so somewhat(even though they are still trying to make amends for various incidents). Canada is now where immigrants look to for a place of peace, security, a better life and future for themselves and family. Canadian history is what represents Canada to the world as a premiere destination in life to either visit or move to.

    • jerry942 4:13 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country where multiculturalism is apparent and respected. Everywhere we go, there are talented individuals that may come from different cultures. These are people who wanted a better life, and also to contribute to the Canadian society as best as they could. However, this is only part of what makes this country unique. Canada also plays a huge role in the world’s economics, politics and even sports. Out of the 196 counties in the world, Canada has the 13th highest GDP, which is astonishing considering it’s merely 33million population. As a proud member of the NATO, Canada has also taken part in many wars and peace missions. When it comes to sports, the Canadian people take pride in their national sport, hockey. Whether it’s to play or to watch, this sport has never failed to bring together fans, friends and families.

      Canadian History is all about where and how this great nation was formed. How multiculturalism was adapted and how it was able to influence the world in a huge manner.
      To be more precise, the relationship between the First nation people and the Europeans are one essential part of the story. Also, how Chinese railway workers came to this country and their life here in Canada. We can even turn back the clock to Second World War and Korean War to see what kind of a role Canada played on the world stage. All in all, Canada is a great nation with a long and interesting history to study from.

    • jamesrm 10:02 am on September 8, 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.

    • tling 11:05 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is located in North America along with two other countries. It borders the United States on both the Northwestern (with Alaska) and the Southern side. Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories. The Canadian flag is white with two red stripes on the sides and a red maple leaf in the middle. The capital of Canada is Ottawa and the two official languages are English and French. Canadians are usually stereotyped as people who love hockey, tend to say “eh” at the end of every sentence, and are always respectful to everyone.

      However, Canada is not without its faults. A couple of these faults include the residential schools, which tried to assimilate the First Nations children with those of European descent, and also the Head Tax, which tried to keep out all people of Asian descent. Conversely, in modern day, Canada is well known for their universal health care as well as their peace-keeping efforts.

      I have lived in Vancouver all my life. I love the lush, green environment, and the friendly people that live around me. In my life, I have only been as far as Edmonton, Alberta (within the Canadian border) but I would love to see the eastern part of Canada in the near future. I am proud to be considered a Canadian.

      -Tamara Ling

    • brendanjf 11:11 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I put this on the wall for the wrong discussion group earlier.

      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.

    • slali 3:41 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Diversity, multicultiralism and equality. These are all some significant abstractions that come to mind when Canada is mentioned in conversation. It is no secret that Canada is made up of people from all over the world and that if you looked around your university classroom, you would see people of all colours and cultures. We live in such a non-discriminatory country that welcomes you no matter what your origins are and what your background is. People can live and breathe without feeling suffocated by the judgements of society that may be felt in other countries. Women can feel equal to men, lesbians and gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and people have the right to be themselves in this country so tame, civil and free. What is Canada? It is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. Its beauty shines through the rights Canadians receive on a daily basis, and how easy it is to live here. The stresses and struggles felt in Canada cannot be compared to those felt outside of North America. As a country, our struggles are minor compared to those of South America etc. As a proud Canadian, there is no other place I would call home.

      Canada is not only home to many diverse Canadians but it is originally home to the aboriginals. These are a group of people whom lived with the earth. Their souls were connected to Canada’s nature and beauty and they were one with the world. European settlers came afterwards, settling in Canada, and to this day many take credit for inhabiting these lands before the aboriginals. Because of what has been taken from the aboriginals, from what has happened in the past, the Canadian government is still making up for it today. Some may find it unfair that the first nations population in Canada receives benefits, free post-secondary schooling, priority housing, no taxes etc. But I believe that they had so much taken from them that this is the least our government can do to restore what has been broken in the past.

      -Suman Lali

    • eself 4:10 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is my home. I am Canada. Canada is me.
      Canada is where my national family is ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse. It is a nation where people feel comfortable to express themselves. It is a nation that comes together in skating rinks to cheer on hockey teams, where preserving the environment is important, and where beautiful forests and mountains are common all across the nation. It is also a place where there can be cultural centres for the Haida, a place for them to express their rich cultural heritage in a contemporary context. Canadians respect this, and know the importance of preserving culture. It is a country that respects that government has a role but also empowers the individual. It is a place where we all are concerned about poverty and education, and our fellow canadians who have less or who are unwell. We are all Canada. We all must protect our home.

    • bedard 4:12 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is a country many different cultures and ethnicities call home. My name is Owen Bedard and I come from the Haida Nation of Haida Gwaii, located of the coast of Northwest British Columbia. Canada has been the home to my people and other aboriginal people since time immemorial. I have spent my whole life growing up in Canada and surrounded by First Nation culture and history, however I find that First Nation history is strongly overlooked in the education system and in Canadian history. I am in the NITEP program, which is a concurrent program with the faculty of education for First Nation students. Although, now a days First Nation history is becoming more vibrant and more alive, with one example being the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada or the TRC. The TRC was established back in 2008 to inform Canadian citizens about the history of Indian Residential Schools and the impacts the schools had on First Nation children who were taken from their families and sent to the schools by the government. The TRC has enabled healing for all those affected by the residential schooling, and informs Canadian citizens what the First Nation people went through. This upcoming September 18th, UBC is showing its support to the First Nation people affected by residential schooling by cancelling classes and allowing the students to observe the events taking place and witnessing the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

    • lsmack 4:59 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is made up of many different ethnic races that worked together to make up Canada. A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into creating what we now know is Canada. Generations were lost but there were new generations created.

      Being a First Nations Canadian, I only learned of the ‘good’ things that the government did. I feel our Canadian History is like a coin. You only see one side until you flip the coin over then you will see there is another side. As a society, and from school standards, they were only teaching one side of the coin. Only in the last few years, they started showing and teaching both sides of the story. My point is that they only touched on the topic of “Residential Schools”, the banning potlatches, and the creations of reservations.

      Even when the Asians migrated to Canada, they taught more of their culture in history and social classes. Not to insult the Asian History in Canada (comparing what they teach of each culture and history), but they focused and emphasized on their losses and gains. The Asians had a rough time too with the Head Tax, the cheap labor they were forced in, and their horrible living conditions they had while working. We even learned of the dangerous work they had to perform while laboring to build the famous Canadian Railway.

      If you think about it, every country has some history they choose not to teach or choose to put on the back burner. Just like the regular person on the street, they are not going to tell you about their shady past. They will avoid or dodge what they have to say if they feel uncomfortable.

    • hartcamp 6:11 pm on September 8, 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.

    • rustyj 8:32 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is the second largest country in the world, its people are as diverse as its topography from coast to coast. Canada is a country rich in cultures and traditions brought to its shores by the immigrants that formed its population through the ages. Canada’s First Nations welcomed and traded with nations from around the long before confederation. The Beotuk people of Newfoundland traded with the Norse in the 11th century; the Haida of Canada’s northwest coast traded with the Russian traders. Canada history is bound to the resources it holds in its oceans, lakes and forests; however Canada’s history is built upon conflict, alleged ownership and greed by those who would profit from its exploitation.

      Canada is one of very few countries in the world where freedom of expression, association and cultural beliefs can be exercised without fear of persecution. This was not always the case when one refers to the wholesale genocide of the Aboriginal culture at the hands of Canadian government policy in the early 19th and 20 century.

  • 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?

     

    • squamptonmafia 6:07 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As we’ve learned in lectures and readings thus far, in the past 1000 years, 3 separate European countries have established settlements in Canada, two of which lived alongside each other for hundreds of years, not to mention the First Nations populations that were living across the country. So yes, Canada has been a multicultural country since the very beginning. However, the term multicultural tends to suggest that there is some degree of harmony or inclusion between the different cultures. This is most certainly not the case throughout Canada’s history, until relatively recently. The numerous wars between France and England over Canadian soil showcase just how well they got along.

      • squamptonmafia 6:09 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        ^ Tyler Cole

        • Tina Loo 11:01 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Excellent – glad to see I’m keeping you awake in lecture 🙂 And thanks for inserting your name.

      • FribaRezayee235 1:19 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

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

        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.

        Friba Rezayee

        • Tina Loo 11:02 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Friba, You didn’t really answer the question. I’m not looking for you to repeat what I said in lecture, but to answer the question using the information you learned in lecture. See Tyler Cole’s answer above yours for a good example. It means you have to write less, not more.

    • slali 9:15 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The concept of a multicultural nation has many other meanings attached to it. Not only does it mean a nation is made up of many different cultures, but along with this definition, it signifies that there is peace amongst the cultures. It suggests that people can live with each other while embracing the different cultures that surround them on a daily basis. The mixing of cultures is encouraged in the present day, where as people were hesitant to do so in the past. This idea of multiculturalism is relatively new to Canada, but the idea of different cultures and people living together in Canada is not. In history, many different Europeans lived with many different tribes of Aboriginal people here in Canada. When the European settlers came to Canada, there were already indigenous peoples living on these lands. Relations between the Aboriginals and the French were established, mostly due to the fur trade, but the relationship and alliances made were strictly political. Throughout the whole process, both groups wanted power, in fact the Europeans went as far as trying to convert the Indigenous population to christianity. There was no mixing of cultures, but the opposite was occurring, the slow eradication of a culture. This is not multiculturalism. The groups of people were not pleased to live amongst each other and there was always a power struggle and the hopes of one of the groups leaving. It is with time, as more populations of different people began to colonize and populate Canada, that we have learned to live gracefully and peacefully with our neighbours divulging in foreign cultures.

      -Suman Lali

      • Tina Loo 11:04 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Suman, Nice job. I especially like your observation that the “idea of multiculturalism is relatively new to Canada, but the idea of different cultures and people living together in Canada is not.”

    • hartcamp 1:22 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The idea of Canada as a multicultural country has applied for several centuries, yet what it holds a different meaning today than it did when it first began to be colonized by Europeans. In the 17th and 18th century, European settlers began to colonize North America, and a huge draw towards Canada were the fur pelts that could be traded with the native people. Today, we know these native peoples as First Nation peoples. However, Canadian culture/society has expanded far beyond just European and First Nation people. Over the course of over 400 years, people have made their way to Canada from all over the world. With large population groups from Asia and the Middle East, the range of cultural diversity in Canada is seemingly endless. Back when Canada first had settlers come over from Europe, there wasn’t so much cultural diversity though, as much as there was segregation. The First Nations people interacted with the Europeans, but only for the sake of trade. Whereas today, especially in bigger cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, people from all walks of life come together and form multicultural communities. UBC is a prime example of people of many ethnic and cultural backgrounds interacting in the same communities and environments. Looking around a classroom, or walking down Main Mall, it’s not hard to see how far Canada has come in terms of acceptance and intermingling of cultures from around the globe. Where Canada stands today in terms of cultural diversity was not an easy place to get to, but it shows how much has changed since the early years of Canadian settlement.

      • hartcamp 1:22 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Campbell Hart

        • Tina Loo 11:06 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Thanks Campbell – I did eventually figure out who you were! Good answer. I especially like the observation about how diversity has characterized Canada since the start, but you imply that multiculturalism means something different – it means acceptance and intermingling. Was that the case in the 17th and 18th centuries?

    • Vincent Yam 7:34 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

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

      As mentioned by Suman Lali (above), the definition of a multicultural nation varies. The modern, most normally accepted definition, is that it is a nation of people of multiple cultures who cooperate with each other as one nation. Now… I do agree that the term given to the idea is relatively new, but from what I have learned in the lectures, perhaps aspects of the idea isn’t as new as I first thought. Although, I firmly believe that the idea of a multicultural nation is relatively new.

      As we’ve learned of the relations between French, Huron and Anishinaabeg, different cultures have cooperated with each other to fulfill business goals. The French traded European goods with the natives who gave the French valuable furs. All in all, a symbiotic relationship and a cooperation between two different cultures. Moreover, we have learned that within Canada, there were multiple native tribes who’ve cooperated with each other as part of large, interlinked alliances. The two most famous versions are the Iroquois Confederacy and Huronia and her allies. These multi-cultural tribes, in the Iroquois case, bonded by a single constitution. These confederacies and the European-Native alliance are similar to the ideals a multi-cultural nation personifies, which are cooperation, sharing of knowledge and willingness to aid one another.

      However, a multicultural nation is not just a ‘multicultural working/trading relationship’, the peoples have to band together under one national identity. Although the native confederacies such as Huronia, and the Iroquois Confederacy do follow the idea of a multicultural nation, banding together under one nation does qualify as these tribes of different cultures did band together. However, for the French-native relationship, neither cultural group banded together under one single national identity. They did work together, they did share knowledge, they did seem pretty close at one point, but they did not give up their loyalty to the French Crown and label themselves Canadian. Neither did the Natives. Moreover, members of the Iroquois Confederacy such as the Mohawks who obtained weapons for their own purposes to fight the French without the other nations support, show that even in the Native confederacies… the cultures within these ‘native nations’ remained separate, not intermingled. Although they were closely allied, they did not give up their individual tribal identities and still acted separately from the ‘nation’. They certainly were a multi-cultural alliance of native nations, but a single, multi-cultural national entity? Not really in my opinion.

      In conclusion, although many (and I emphasize, many) aspects of a multi-cultural nation were exemplified by First Nations and the French-Huronia alliance, these were all really focused on the idea of an alliance or cooperative agreement with a separate culture and were not truly a multicultural nation of a single entity to be considered a multicultural nation.

      Vincent Yam

      • Tina Loo 11:08 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Vincent, Good observations. There wasn’t a single nation or national entity in the 17th or 18th centuries. North America was a multinational, multicultural continent. Your observations raise the question of what conditions help facilitate the acceptance of diversity.

        • Vincent Yam 10:05 pm on September 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Hmmm… What conditions help facilitate diversity… I have no idea. 😛 well guess that’s why I’m taking this course 😀

    • rustyj 9:13 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I have always found the differences between us make Canada a multi-cultural nation; a thousand years ago the same differences among First Nations such as dress, languages, spiritual practices made them multi-cultural. Multiculturalism is not a new phenomena, where two or more societies live in proximately to each other, there are bound to be differences.

      Prior to European contact, Canada was a complex patchwork of individual First Nation territories each identified by distinct characteristics. Definitive boundaries marked by water ways, trade partners and allies made each First Nation distinct.

      The arrival of the French colonists only added to the already thousands of First Nation societies that existed across the Canadian landscape.

      The facets of multi culturalism such as trade and friendship during the earliest contact only added to Canada multicultural foundation.

      • Tina Loo 11:09 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Good job – but can you tell me who you are? Go back and edit your post to insert your name. You are right that we see the foundations of multiculturalism in the 17th and 18th centuries.

    • eself 10:13 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Based on the lectures and readings this week, it is evident that Canada has never been occupied by just one culture since the initial occupation of North America. the multiple nations of indigenous was in itself an example of multi-culturism in Canada. The contact between European cultures and North America was imminent as more and more groups of people emigrated across Europe, Asia and Africa to the Americas. The colonization of North America was an addition to its multi-culturism in the 17th and 18th centuries. The difference between when the French-Huronian treaty was struck and modern day Canada is the more diverse population across the nation. In conclusion, the idea of Canada as a multi-cultural nation is not new because of the diversity of people that have been occupying the land for many years, it has only recently become more noticeable because of the increase in amount of emigrants arriving in Canada in the last 300 years.

      -Elizabeth Self

      • Tina Loo 11:11 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Elizabeth, I agree: I like your observation that the place that became “Canada” was multi-NATIONAL (i.e. the home of many nations) and multi-cultural. This raises the question of how Canada the multicultural nation emerges; i.e. how do all these nations get forged into one?

    • jamesrm 11:15 am on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada is an extremely diverse nation today, but based on the lectures this past week, Canada has been a diverse nation from the very beginning. Whether it was British, Aboriginal or French, there have been multiple nationalities all vying for a new life in Canada. When the first European settlers arrived in Canada, they were met with the indigenous population of Canada so right from the start of settlement, Canada was diverse in a sense. Now adding French settlers, British settlers and eventually other European settlers, Canada was divided (and still is – Quebec) by multiple different nationalities.

      As the generations went by, more and more immigrants and settlers came to Canada, which gives us our multicultural nation we live in today. Today Canada boasts one of the highest rates of multiculturalism in the world, with a large population of European settlers, First Nations People, and South-Asian and Asian immigrants.

      James MacKenzie

      • Tina Loo 11:13 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Thanks James. I did figure out who you were after all. Good observation about diversity being characteristic of the place that became Canada from the start. The question will be how did all these various nations become a single nation-state….?

    • bedard 12:19 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In modern times, Canada is country viewed as a multicultural nation, with many different cultures and groups of people. However, being a country with many different nationalities and many different types of people is a relatively new concept. Canada is inhabited by many different First Nation groups all across Canada since before the European settlers arrived on Canadian soil. From what we have seen in the lectures so far, and read in the readings is that the European settlers did arrive and began to set up colonies, there was three main groups of people; the First Nation people, the English and the French. History shows that each of these nationalities fought for Canada to have a certain type of dominant culture, but it’s not until recent times that all cultures are accepted and encouraged.

      Owen Bedard

      • Tina Loo 11:15 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Owen, are you saying that the place that became Canada was culturally diverse from its beginnings, but that didn’t make it a multicultural nation in the 17th and 18th centuries? That’s a great observation!

    • Connor Munro 12:39 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The idea of Canada being a multicultural nation is considered a relatively new idea but based on the lectures the idea Canada can be considered to be multicultural further into the past. In today’s world Canada is multicultural because of the many cultures that are in Canada. However, because of the differing indigenous cultures that were in Canada when it was first discovered and as the English and French arrived, others followed after them. This could make an argument to say that Canada was a multicultural nation at this point. As the French tried to establish themselves a settlement near the St. Lawrence they continued to aid in the beginning of multiculturalism in Canada and continued further as they founded New France. At this point Canada has started to gather more cultures(while not having as large an array compared to the many we currently have). We know that a variety of settlers had come from Europe to Canada and where some tried and failed others succeeded at establishing settlements. Canada as a nation at the time did have many cultures from Europe arriving and it could have been called a somewhat smaller version of parts of Europe. Canada during this time was a nation that had a limit on some of the differing cultures but it was still multicultural. Later on when immigration to Canada increased the diversity of cultures changed but before that Canada has always seemed to have more than one culture within it adding to the fact that Canada was a multicultural nation longer ago than first thought.

      Connor Munro

      • Tina Loo 11:17 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Connor, would it make sense to draw a distinction between being a multicultural NATION, and a multi-NATIONAL place? It seems that the place that became Canada was diverse from the start, but it wasn’t a single nation. It housed many nations. The story of Canada might be how a diverse multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state.

    • tling 12:51 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      According to popular belief, most Canadians would consider their country as being a new multicultural nation. A multicultural nation is defined as a single place where many different cultures reside. However, Canada’s population has always been based on the amount of immigration from countries around the world. The 2006 census completed by Canada, it showed us that just less than 50% of Vancouver’s population now is of visible minority origin. This includes the Chinese, South Asians, Filipinos, and Koreans.

      Through the lectures, I have confirmed my knowledge that Canada is not a new multicultural nation. In the past, it has always been the British, French and the Aboriginal peoples looking to take control of the land. For example, in lectures, we have learned that the French attempted to make Canada a place to set up permanent residence in 1541, 1627, and finally in 1663 when the French crown declared the area “New France”. They originally wanted this place to be temporary, but when they realized the need for fur was so great, hunters focused their attention on catching the animals to sell their furs in Europe.

      Before I attended these lectures, I would have agreed with my fellow citizens. This is because everyone, especially in Vancouver, people see immigrants everywhere you look. I have realized now that Canada has always been a multicultural nation.

      -Tamara Ling

      • Tina Loo 11:20 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Tamara, If I understand you, you’re saying that you learned that the place that became Canada was always home to a number of different nations. It might have thus been multicultural from the start, but it’s worth noting, as I think you do, that it wasn’t a single nation-state. The story of Canada might be how numerous nations became a single nation-state.

    • brendanjf 2:44 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I would say that the idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is not necessesarily a new idea. If we look at the history of just the territory that Canada comprises, it is a long history of various indigenous cultural groups interacting with each other. There are several examples of these groups trying to coexist together, while still maintaining their own cultural identities, such as the constituent groups making up the Huron or Iroquois confederations. If we look at the earliest possible polity that could be considered a predecessor of the modern Canadian nation, which I would say is the French colonies of Acadia and Canada, we can also see some multiculturalism going on. The French colonies were making alliances and treaties with indigenous groups, and within the colonies there were individuals from a variety of locations and cultural backgrounds, what with them being major trading hubs in the region, as we saw in the account of the portuguese slave. However, the idea of ‘multiculturalism’ as we would think of it I think is not necessarily applicable to colonies during this time period. Multiculturalism requires a certain amount of tolerance between the various groups, and I don’t think that this was very prevalent. The French might have tolerated other Europeans in the colonies, because they were at least European, but the indigenous groups had it worse off. There was significant efforts to Christianize them, and missions were sent far inland, showing that they definitely wanted to assimilate the indigenous people (religiously, at least) rather than coexist. In practical terms as well, they were mostly interested in the indigenous groups from a business perspective, in terms of how they could most profit from trading with them. For this reason, while I think that certain elements of what constitutes ‘multiculturalism’ might have been present in early Canada, the tolerance that is needed beside that diversity was lacking, and thus it was not a truly multicultural society in the way that we think of it.

      • Tina Loo 11:22 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Excellent observations Brendan! I really like your argument about what multiculturalism is; that it implies a degree of tolerance – and that wasn’t necessarily prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries.

  • 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

     

    • hartcamp 1:29 pm on September 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Two years ago, in the summer of 2011, I traveled with 60 other teens my age to Israel on a structured trip. Thankfully, most people that live there spoke English, to some extent. However, there were some people that we met along our one month visit who spoke very little to no English at all. Often to get over the language barrier, speaking with your hands and using body language was key for communication. More often than not, the people we met who didn’t speak English were lower class street merchants/vendors and all we really needed to do to communicate with them was point to certain signs or objects to show them what it was that we wanted. And not surprisingly, the merchants were used to these types of interactions and it was very obvious that we were tourists so they knew how to accommodate such situations. It’s fascinating what globalization has done to our world in the past few hundred years, and especially in the last couple of decades with the rapid growth of technology. -Campbell Hart

      • Tina Loo 4:34 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Campbell, This is interesting – but how did you know what to do? i.e. what gestures to use? It seems that a middle ground gets made when there’s a mutual interest in doing so; in this case, buying and selling! 🙂

    • Vincent Yam 10:34 pm on September 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In September 2009 I took part in my high school’s Japan Exchange trip, where I home stayed at the home of a Japanese student. My host, Akiba and his family spoke VERY little English. It did help that as a fan of Japanese Anime and Manga I knew some things about Japanese culture. As mentioned by Campbell, there was a significant language barrier, but I have to say that not only that, there was a cultural customs barrier. There were quite a few customs in Japan i wasn’t aware of. One of them was bathing… I was expected to wash off before I bathed in the tub (which was only for soaking)…. I forgot and didn’t realize my mistake until I left Japan (trundles off whistling innocently)…

      Anyhow, Akiba and his family were very friendly and accommodating, we used both hand signs, body language and sometimes drew pictures to communicate. Not to mention, we found a middle ground in playing simple games and he even taught me a few steps of his Kendo.

      One thing I have realized, is that in entertainment and art, cultures tend to find a middle ground. Love of Japanese anime and manga is very prevalent among North Americans (UBC has its own anime club) and when communicating with Akiba, we found we had the most fun playing games and talking with each other over them. It seems that entertainment is a significant middle ground between cultures, for who doesn’t like playing games or having fun? Not to mention its an equal place and forum for people of different cultures because the rules of games don’t distinguish between race and culture.

      • Tina Loo 4:36 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Vincent, You’re on to one of the key ways and places middle grounds get made; namely through entertainment. In your case it was Anime, but it could also be games and just having fun!

    • squamptonmafia 11:21 am on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As a Canadian who has traveled a fair amount around the world, part of the enjoyment of going to other countries and experiencing other cultures is having to negotiate the cultural boundaries. This can commonly come in the form of different customs surrounding food and clothing or language barriers between people . When I was traveling in Africa, one cultural boundary that I noticed was the use of the gratuity or tipping system, which is commonplace in Kenya, Tanzania and Egypt, where I was. Sure, you tip your server in a restaurant after your meal in Canada, but the idea of having to tip for every little thing was foreign to me, and created some awkward moments of cultural clash, especially at the beginning of the trip. For example, a man at the airport in Nairobi grabbed our luggage trolley and started walking to the van with us, and wouldn’t leave until we gave him some money. This would never happen at, say, Pearson International Airport in Toronto and was a bit of surprise. Middle ground was worked out by giving the man only $5, as opposed to the $20 he was demanding. It is interesting to note, when traveling, the little things about different cultures that you probably weren’t notified about before going there.

      • slali 6:51 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        In my graduating year in high school, my French immersion class went on a humanitarian trip to Peru. We were accompanied by a tour guide whom conversed with our group in French, but who spoke Spanish to the residents of Peru, she was our translator as well. There was a large cultural barrier that divided our group of French students from the natives of Peru, this gap largely being language. We were not able to communicate more than a few simple terms we learnt with the people of Peru without the help of our tour guide. We developed a dependency for communication on our guide, so our middle ground was established through a translator and which made communication successful. We did not need to make much of an effort to negotiate a cultural boundary with the presence of our tour guide because we relied on her to do it for us. It was when we went a day or two without her that we were able to establish this “middle ground” one on one with the Peruvians. With using the little Spanish we knew and with the help of actions and speaking the universal language of body language, we were able to communicate with them. We also established a middle ground when we spent a few days in their villages, living under their routine, helping farm the fields, participating in cultural ceremonies and celebrations. They met our middle group by preparing a few westernized meals for us.

        -Suman Lali

        • Tina Loo 4:39 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          So Suman, the key to a middle ground is having a translator! 🙂 Someone who is expert at negotiating cross cultural boundaries!

      • Tina Loo 4:37 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Tyler, Good example. I have had the same experience in India. My question to you was why did you give the man anything at all? What made you do that? In other words what made you compromise to local culture?

    • maxgardiner 10:23 pm on September 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      One of the cultural boundaries I had trouble negotiating was in 2007 when my family went to France for Spring Break. There were two cultural boundary myself and my family had to negotiate. The first was the language barrier. I tried as much as I could to use my limited high school French to do things like ordering food or asking where the bathroom was. I was somewhat successful, able to get my order correct at a McDonald’s on the Champs-Elysees. However when in the more touristy areas of Paris when ever I would begin my order in French my horrid accent would be detected and my “Je voudrais” would get a response of “What would you like?” There was no middle ground reached here.

      The second boundary was experienced during one our dinners at a proper restaurant in a touristy area in Paris. When the server came near to us we managed to get into a conversations with her in English which she spoke very well. The conversation was curt until we mentioned that we were from Canada (more importantly not America). After that mention the conversation became much more lighthearted and friendly. We discussed many things about Paris and she gave us some good tips about things to see. We reached a middle ground where we were able to politely discuss various things we could do but only at the expense of not being something.

      • richardj 1:49 pm on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        My most teaching assignment in northern Manitoba turned out to be my most challenging experience to date. Not being able to speak the local Ojibwa-Cree language and not knowing the local cultural practices was formidable undertaking. My first order of classroom management was to rearrange the class seating to a semi circle and let the students ask questions about me. We spent the better part of the first couple days discussing my home Reserve, who my grandparent were, did I hunt?, did I have an Indian wife?, could I fish? etc. At the end of the first week, the class and I learned a lot about each other and the language challenges were would encounter over the next 8 months. In order to further build upon our common ground, we decided to enlisted the assistance of local Elders and family members who could assist in the translation of lessons. During some of the student presentations, they were encouraged to present in there local language, an Elder would translate for me. I did come to learn and appreciate that some of our best class discussions revolved around food, a very distinct northern custom. To enhance the learning environment, a lot of my lectures and discussions took place in the kitchen/dining room area. I have come to realize most boundaries can be overcome if you develop common goals and make a genuine effort to make it happen.

        • Tina Loo 4:42 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Richard, I think food is the perfect thing to create a middle ground – or more precisely the sharing of food!

          I note that you are not registered in a tutorial. These are required – please start attending one right away!

      • Tina Loo 4:41 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Max, maybe when the French servers answered you in English they thought they were being polite by accommodating themselves to your language? And as to your other story, I wonder if what we can conclude is that the possibility of reaching some sort of mutual understanding is shaped by our attitudes towards the group we thing we’re accommodating ourselves to?

    • bedard 1:24 pm on September 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Back in the summer of 2003 I moved from the small town village of Lax Kw’alaams, located just off the coast of Prince Rupert to the big city of Vancouver. It was a completely new experience for me, as I have never really lived a city life before, I had only travelled to the city for vacations. Being dropped into a fourth grade classroom in an elementary school out in Surrey, was the first time I had really come faced with so much multi-culturalism other than my own. Growing up in such a small village I was always surrounded by other First Nations children and family. Moving to the big city was the first time I had become a minority among other races and nationalities, and I felt so alienated being so different then everyone else. I guess you could say I was unsuccessful at communicating because I became so shy and quiet, I would keep to myself in the beginning. After a few weeks of attending my new school, I was the only First Nation student in my class and I thought I had no one to relate to because I thought everyone was so different from me. As I became more comfortable I started to branch out and realize that culturally I was so different from everybody else, I sounded different then everybody else, but they were just like me. I felt a lot more comfortable around everyone and I was proud to share about my culture, who I was and where I came from, as well I was fascinated to learn more about them.

      Owen Bedard

      • Tina Loo 4:45 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Owen, thanks for sharing the story: I think you’ve hit on a key aspect of creating a middle ground, which is overcoming one’s fear in doing so, in embracing the strange and unknown. It’s hard – and can you imagine how hard it might have been for the French and British or for the Indigenous nations who met in the 17th century?

    • eself 11:05 am on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the summer of 2006, I went toGermany for a soccer tour during the Fifa World Cup, which was being held in Germany that summer. While we were traveling we billeted with families while we stayed in the different cities throughout the trip. Coming into a strangers home with the intention of spending our nights with these families, so one cultural boundary was language, but by being integrated into their family lives, sitting down to dinner and, with some difficulty, having a conversation with those that spoke english well enough. The boundary of language was a constant battle for me, mainly because I would have a teammate with me who would start a conversation, so I would rarely have to communicate myself with the families or other fans. I believe that our middle ground in most cities was being fans of soccer and being able to train with and play against them in games. This middle ground was not only effective in situations with families, but also at the big screenings of the Fifa World Cup Games which we attended around Germany whenever possible. It is sad to confess, but even after I came home, and received a letter from one of the families who billeted us, I did not pluck up the courage to write them back.
      -Elizabeth Self

      • Tina Loo 4:46 pm on September 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Elizabeth, you can still write back! It would be a great (and welcome) surprise to them. I think you’ve hit on two key aspects of creating a middle ground; first that we have to overcome our fear to do so (both sides do) and second that sport or play is something that can bring people together.

    • jamesrm 11:39 am on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In the summer of 2012, my family and my then girlfriend travelled to Portugal for two weeks. We decided to take the less touristy route and rent a house in a small town on the West coast of Portugal, opposed to the more common destinations in the East and the South. When we ventured into the larger cities in Portugal, the English language was abundant; menus were multilingual and most people spoke enough English to communicate with us, as our Portuguese was non-existent. However, in the small town of Mucifal, English was not abundant and we had to communicate mostly by pointing and saying the name of the products we wanted. My girlfriend and I were sent down to get “an assortment of seafood” for the night’s dinner, so we wandered down to the fish market, identifiable by the large fish hanging from the awning. The initial barrier we ran into was that the shopkeeper did not speak a single word of English. Now this was not normally a problem, but we were staring at a large ice bucket full of unidentifiable, unlabelled fish and seafood with a jovial Portuguese women smiling at us inquisitively. We managed to overcome the language barrier using a mixture of our spotty high school French, my girlfriend’s grade 9 Spanish and obscure gesticulations to communicate which fish we wanted. We walked back to our house with a the most delicious tasting fish I’ve ever eaten (and still have no idea what it was), some sardines (which apparently don’t have to be canned and disgusting) and some delicious shrimp. I’m definitely glad we had the chance to live the typical Portuguese lifestyle, even if it had it’s difficulties, instead of staying in a posh hotel where we could speak English and be pampered the whole time.

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

      I have travelled outside of Canada many times mainly to the USA but also parts of the Caribbean. While in many of these places I did not really come across a cultural boundary that needed to be negotiated except for the first time I went to Mexico. I have gone mainly gone to places in the US but about 7 years ago I went to Puerta Vallarta Mexico. The first time my parents took my brother and I shopping we had to learn something completely new to us and that was bartering. While in Canada and the US a lot of places have set prices and the same is could be said about some places in Mexico. However, many of the shopping locations in Mexico required us to barter with the shop owners( and their limited english made it harder at times). We were successful in getting what we thought was a good deal at times and others we were unsuccessful and were completely ripped off(especially the first couple times). In attempting to negotiate with the shopkeepers we almost always tried to work out a middle ground with them by getting a price that both of us were okay with. Getting to a middle ground with them was often difficult and could be frustrating but after some unsuccessful attempts we were starting to become more successful and were able to start reach a middle ground more often than not. Now with that experience any time I go to a location that requires bartering (weather in Canada or anywhere else) I am able to better attempt and reach a middle ground with shopkeepers.

    • tling 3:48 pm on September 27, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Negotiating and communicating across cultural boundaries can be a fragile and complicated matter. It is important to understand each culture’s conventions in order to properly acknowledge each group.

      One experience that I had trouble negotiating past a cultural boundary was when I helped to put together a team project. My partner was a new immigrant to Canada from Russia. Throughout the time we were putting together the project, there were a lot of misunderstandings because of the language barrier. Even though the new immigrant could write English almost without errors, the person’s speaking skills was not completely smooth. For the most part, I could understand what the other person was saying, but every so often there would a part of the sentence that would not quite make sense. Over the few months that I spent with the new immigrant, I learned much about Russian culture and even learned some new words. We ended up finding a “middle ground” as we learned more about each other. For example, we both shared a love for different food cuisines, so what we did was whenever we had a meeting, we made sure it was at a new restaurant.

      In the end, we came to realize that although we came from different places, we were able to appreciate the other person’s culture and come together to come our team project to the best of our abilities. I learned that as long as people have common goals, cultural boundaries can be overcome, but with effort.

    • Tina Loo 4:51 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).

      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

     

    • maxgardiner 12:55 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The image works to create the image of Montcalm as a martyr. Given that Montcalm commanded the French forces at the Plains of Abraham the image could have been created to glorify the death of General Montcalm. By creating a martyr out of Montcalm the artist is trying to reinforce a particular idea of Quebec nationalism. Nothing works quite as well as a rallying point for a movement as a martyr. Besides showing Montcalm on his deathbed, he is shown as being surrounded my people who seem to be admiring him. This again characterizes Montcalm as someone who should be looked up to by the people of Quebec.

      The politics of representation are very important as it is possible to completely change how a person is viewed by the public depending on how they are represented in a piece of media. The media can add their own bias to a story or object and as such can greatly impact how a person or thing is viewed by people. This is especially possible when portraying someone after their death as that person is no longer around to answer questions. This can lead the public to just accept what is put in front of them as fact. This is why it is important to look at who is creating the piece of media in question.

    • Tyler Cole 4:57 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This image, portraying the death of French general Montcalm after being wounded in battle at the Plains of Abraham, would serve to depict Montcalm as a hero, dying a noble death for his country. The scene is solemn, but it also gives off a distinct air of heroism, reinforced by the amount of people around for his last minutes. Even though Montcalm’s death signifies the end of French rule in Quebec, it is still heroic in that he went down fighting for his country and his beliefs in French Canada. It also serves to show the importance of Montcalm to the French, as the man in red to the right of the chair appears to be dressed well and is carrying a sword on his hip, as a high-ranking officer would have done. This image is important to the idea of a strong French Canadian population, as it shows the dedication people had towards their generals.

    • Vincent Yam 5:27 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The painting is of General Montcalm dying after the Battle of Abraham. Its purpose is to portray General Montcalm as a heroic figure who died protecting France and the Catholic Church.

      The white skin that Montcalm is given suggests not only death, but purity of character, as do his simple white shirt. It is also important to note that there is more lighting around Montcalm than the others. This and the handsome, well-dressed (they do not look like they came out of a battle) loyal Frenchmen (note that there are no natives!) kneeling or with solemn faces around him indicate the tragedy of his death for France.

      The kneeling, mourning, Nuns and the despondent looking priest who has just blessed him also add to his purity of character and indicate the importance of the church, and how Montcalm’s death is important to the church.

      Hence, the picture does a very good job of portraying Montcalm as important to the French and the Church, while depicting him as a fallen hero.

      • slali 8:15 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        The image is a representation of the death of Montcalm, a French commander, after the French defeat at the Plains of Abraham. The painting portrays Montcalm as a significant figure to the French soldiers whom fought along side him. While lying in his deathbed, it is shown that Montcalm was not alone, but instead those who respected him and those who would morn his death surrounded him. The amount of people by his side gives Montcalm the status of a hero, someone who fought for the French and died trying. People are gathered around him, some with concern on their faces, others crying, and one kneeling at the foot of his bed, praise was what he seemed to be receiving. The artist glorifies his death by painting him almost as a silhouette and having him resemble an angel because his garments were white and so was the aura surrounding him. This reinforcing that he was a heroic figure and his death was not to be taken lightly. If you look at the people in the painting, you will see that the members of the church such as nuns and priests stand amongst the soldiers and pray for his well being. This is very important because the French were very connected to their church and it played an important role in their lives. In the painting, it is shown that the church came to him and knelt before him where as it is at church were we kneel before the lord.

        -Suman Lali

    • hartcamp 9:04 pm on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This painting of General Montcalm on his death bed after being wounded in battle represents feelings not only of Quebec nationalism in Canada at the time, but also that of a strong Catholic presence. Having Montcalm surrounded by many people both of martial importance and religious, he’s revered as a figure that died for his country, and that’s something seen as being supported by the Catholic church. The glowing aura and whiteness surrounding Montcalm’s body makes him appear to be holy and almost saint like. The way that he is being honored and mourned in the image reflects the strong French-Canadian presence in Quebec at the time (and that has been maintained since). Montcalm’s heroism in battle was something very highly revered admired, and perhaps the artist created this work with the intention of showing that off in hopes of inspiring future generations of soldiers to live with as much dedication to their nation as well as their church, or rather the Catholic church.
      -Campbell Hart

    • Connor Munro 1:05 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The political representation showing the death or dying Montcalm in the painting is to add meaning to a simple act. The purpose of the painting is to add drama to the death of the person. Surrounding the person with people and every single one of them is looking at him that he died surrounded by people who loved him. Making it look like a significant death that was a terrible tragedy. The ideological purpose is to show how anyone would like to die(especially in a position of power) rather than how he actually died. To show French nationalism in Quebec. Making his death seem graceful and meaningful and trying to honour the man(rather than his death meaning nothing) for serving France and the Catholic Church. The artist tried to add features to symbolize a great man that died serving his country and the Catholic Church while also showing nationalism that could be used as a form of propaganda. Also, showing the French-Canadian nationalism by the people surrounding him. The painting portrays the fallen hero that was Montcalm in a way for others to see his importance to the Church and French government but also as a possible way of honouring the man for his service.

    • eself 3:12 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This painting is a representation of the death of Montcalm and the influential role he had in Quebec during the battle at the Plains of Abraham. There is great symbolism in that he did not die on the battlefield, but is shown to have been taken to bed to die in peace and tranquility with his countrymen at his bedside. It is shown that he was instrumental both as his role as a General, but also in the Catholic church, by way of the priest and nuns praying at his bedside. The painting makes his death seem instrumental in the fall of the French in Quebec to the British. It shows that even to death, he fought for his people within Quebec. Also, noone is sitting down, they are either standing or kneeling as a showing of their respect for Montcalm during this time.
      -Elizabeth Self

    • bedard 3:17 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The image above represents the death of the French General Montcalm, after he was wounded and put to his death bed in the battle at the Plains of Abraham. The image depicts General Montcalm dying a heroic, noble death. Montcalm is being honoured on his death bed for fighting for his country and his beliefs in a French-Canada, which also made Montcalm an important person to the people of the church. In the image we see a very sombre mood, with Montcalm on his death bed, surrounded by other French solders, a priest, kneeling nuns, paying respect to a figure that they all view very noble and hold Montcalm as a very respected general. With the people who surround Montcalm on his bed, we get a sense of who was politically in power over French-Canada.

    • Tamara Ling 3:46 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This photo depicts the death of General Montcalm as a hero. Montcalm is famous for his part during the Seven Years’ War, where he commanded the French forces at the Plains of Abraham. In the end, he died in this battle. The artist is trying to prove the idea that Montcalm helped to reinforce the idea of Quebec’s nationalism and that all Quebec’s citizens should idolize Montcalm for what he did to help the province.

      During the past week, I have learned that a media piece, whether it be an art or other form, can completely change the perspective in which the public sees a historic event. This is because the artist can show bias within the art piece. Examples of this include depicting a certain person as a hero or the artist could place him or her in the background. If the person is in the background, a viewer will think of the person as being unimportant and not respected in the community. In this particular artwork, the artist has chosen to show their bias through showcasing Montcalm as a hero that should be revered by all Quebec citizens. People are surrounding Montcalm in a highly respectful manner – the artist is showing that everyone is very sad for his death.

    • brendanjf 4:10 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The image of Motcalm’s death here is supposed to serve as a sort of political rallying point. Montcalm is intended to be viewed as a hero and a martyr. He commanded the French forces at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and was struck during their retreat. The image of Montcalm at his deathbed surrounded by his peers is supposed to convey the idea that this man was one beloved by many, whose death shall be mourned by the nation he gave his life for. The mythification of important historical figures has an important place in establishing and reinforcing a national or cultural identity. By showing Montcalm as a martyr he is supposed to symbolize a ideal to live up to.
      The religious figures also present are there to reinforce the idea of Montcalm as a pious man of God, who will be welcomed into Heaven for his sacrifice. This is reinforced by the brighter colors surrounding him and the white shirt and bed, intended to symbolize putrity. These are all concepts meant to resonate with the nationalistic feeling of the Quebecois, whose Catholic identity is still a very important aspect of their cultural identity, which helped to set them apart from the predominantly Protestant British colonists and reinforced their feeling of a separate identity.

    • richardj 4:59 pm on October 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Montcalm, a glorified martyr ,a defeated hero or a solder shot while running away from the fight. The painting by Suzor-cote was the artist’s interpretation was likely based upon historical manuscript, other art forms and scholarly discussions of his day. During his lifetime and his military career, he was admired as a brilliant General and a devoted follower of the Roman Catholic faith. At the time the painting was completed, a Nationalist debate was raging throughout Quebec in regards to their new provincial flag. The last great battle won by the French over the British was the Battle of Carillon, the battle colors carried by the Canadian Volunteers were represented by the fleurdelyse. Montcalm led his troops to victory on that fateful day only to lose his life a year later in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The painting shows Montcalm as a defender of the faith, a solder to his last breath ready to give his life for the cause of French Nationalism. Upon hearing from his surgeons that he was going to die of his wounds, Montcalm was heard to utter “I’m glad of it”. I believe Suzor-Cote was a Nationalist and believed Montcalm deserved to be the father of the French Nationalist movement.

    • Tina Loo 11:41 am 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….

  • 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?

     

    • hartcamp 4:43 pm on October 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      If I’m understanding the question correctly, for the most part, especially in North America and Europe, people work towards earning money in hopes that they can purchase items that possess a material value for them. Not all people live their lives with this sort of demeanor, however, many people globally fall into consumerism. This is not surprising at all considering that billions of dollars are spent every year on advertising. A backward sloping supply curve brings up an interesting idea. If something becomes very popular, the demand will rise, and often, rather that produce a large amount of the product at a reasonable price, companies will sell very few of them at a very high price. This adds a level of prestige to limited products that aids in drawing in an audience. If everyone has one, (most the time) then it isn’t unique or special anymore and is’t as popular. For example, with what we are discussing in lecture right now in mind, once hunters and fur traders had killed of or caused a majority of the animals that were being hunted for their pelts to migrate and the furs became rare/more difficult to acquire they became even more popular and the demand for them rose. Seeing this happening in the 1800’s sheds a light on today’s marketing and shows that the same types of economic behavior has been going on for centuries.

    • Vincent Yam 6:57 pm on October 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      It’s difficult to say and really depends on what ‘economic’ model one is talking about. I do agree that people are self-interested, but depending on the situation, they may not pursue necessarily economic self-interest.

      The reason one works may not be purely for monetary reasons, but for personal prestige and social status. There is a HUGE demand for soft drinks, so why don’t Pepsi or Coke and any of those large soft drink companies try to market the drink as a luxury drink? I mean with the cheaper materials they already use to produce the drink, why don’t they? The decision boils down to whether the company can gain more out of promoting the item as an everyday drink or a prestige drink. Apparently Pepsi and coke find it easier and more advantageous to promote their product as an everyday drink, so in a sense its economically self-interested, but at the same time, their product, gains a SOCIAL weight. There is nobody who hasn’t heard of pepsi or soft drinks. So by sacrificing possible economic and social prestige, Pepsi and coke essentially gain advertising, or social significance to the point in which their product is part of everyday life, and that may be more valuable for the companies than any monetary gain.

      Now above is really a hypothesis or a hypothetical situation. Moreover, I am still agreeing that that humans are self interested. See the reading about Indigenous women and how they married sometimes threw themselves (quite literally) at white men. The social prestige and influence they gain (not just the economic benefits), despite the childbirth problems outweighs their possibly more constant, possibly more stable life for a more dangerous path. Of course thsi changed eventually, when white men began to treat indian women with less respect and they were more inclined to stay with their families, so yes, I say that human’s are self interested, but it depends on the economical and cultural spectrum of the time.

    • slali 4:32 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behaviour is universal and a large number of people pursue material self-interest frequently in their lives, but we cannot make this general statement for everyone. People work so that they can first provide the necessities for them and their families, but people strive for higher paying jobs so that they can spend this extra money on materialistic items. People want what’s “in”, and believe that materialistic things will bring them a quality of life, so people will continue to buy. This behaviour in fact is universal amongst many. The indigenous people did not show this universality, because as the Europeans would purchase their furs for more expensive prices, they would drop their production and sell less. Therefore they were collecting the same amount of trades as if they sold their furs for cheaper, but more of them. This is an example of the backwards-sloping supply curve. They raised the prices of their goods, and instead of keeping the production the same, and making more “money”, they reduced their production to stay consistent.

    • richardj 10:49 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Is economic behavior universal? Defining the causation and examining the context in which it applies will determine it’s universality. Each and everyone of us has a comfort zone, a plateau where our basic needs are met financially and our labours to sustain our comfort zone diminish. Are we materialistic species? well, that depends on economic circumstances that surround our daily lives. We strive for to better our existence by working towards financial goals to obtain material goods. If the local economy is strong and sustainable, we will work to maintain a standard of living which suits our lifestyle. A farmer will work long hours in the planting season in hopes that his crops will yield a large return by the harvest time arrives in the fall. If the crop is a bumper crop, his silos are full and his investment is time and labour paid off. Does he continue to work long hours, no, his basic financial needs have been met and he can work less and still maintain his own standard of living. Do we pursue our own self interest all the time? No, when our way of life and/or our standard of living is threatened, we will take advantage to maintain our own self interests.

    • maxgardiner 11:14 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Historically economic behavior is not universal, however in the modern context it is rapidly becoming universal as a result of the global spread of capitalism. Given that our society is oriented towards consumerism people will happily accrue as much money as the possible can to spend on objects that will make them happier or feel like they’re better than everyone else. This is why people will continue to line up to buy new phones even when they just bought the latest new model a few months ago. Obviously the first goal for people is subsistence, weather it be through farming, or working to the extent that you can buy food, clothes, and shelter. Technological advancements have made it possible for people to easily produce enough so that they can live beyond their means. part of this is that a subsistence based living is horribly boring and would probably drive most people insane if they do not have any money for entertainment. One example where I have used the “backwards sloping supply curve” is when I was in high school working a part time job I would sometimes turn down extra shifts as I did not need the extra money and would value the hours I would gain for personal enjoyment more than the amount of money i would have made by working for that amount of time.

    • Connor Munro 11:52 am on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Not all economic behaviour is universal and people don’t always put their material self-interest first all the time but they do pursue it most of the time. An argument can be made to say that there is a general rule or guideline in the way economic behaviour is done. Most of the time people sell something for money to gain more money and is better for ones own material self interest. Currently at my place of work a backward sloping supply curve could be used to describe my effort/energy used in relation to the amount of hours I work. The more hours I work the less effort/energy I use so that I can conserve my energy to work more hours. However, this does not represent my effort all the time but it is a comparison that I made. Previously, at my old place of occupation(just like the example given in the definition of a “backward sloping supply curve”) as my wage increased I worked less hours to have more relaxing time. However, this example also reflected the way my chores were conducted when I was younger because as I started to get paid more for my allowance I started to do less work until I started to do the very minimal at home These examples are not all representative of my work and they do represent a kind of curve that could be used to explain my behaviour.

    • cammejil 12:34 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      According to my economics professer, Gateman, economic behaviour is universal and all people act out of self-intersest. That aside, i think in general and most of the time (qualifiers), people do act in self-interest – and this is how we are able to predict economics and come up with economic and political theory. De Toqueville, for example, had a principle he called “enlightened self-interest” in that people will act for the common good if it is also in their own self-interest (for example, building a new road near their home- which helps community and them), so it is often found in political theory. In regards to economics, we genreally assume fundamentaly that individuals try to maximize their utility [happiness] and that companies or firms try to maximize their profits. There are exceptions, for example, a firm may decide to protect the environment instead of a higher profit alternative with more pollution, but as general economc theory stands, the majority act in self-interest and thus the behaviour can then be predicted and categorized. I can find many exceptions to this gernerealization however, for the sake of a “backwards sloping supply curve” such as feeding the homeless (although an argument still might be made on that self-interest in helping others increases utility), or for example, if i was to give up sitting in the front of a rollercoaster, allowing my sister the opportunity instead, in which i am giving up both the object of my desire and losing utility from the enjoyment of sitting in the front and so am therefore acting not out of self-interest but in the interest of another. To conclude, yes, i think economic behaviour is universal and that self-interest is pursued most of the time.

    • jamesrm 12:45 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Economic behaviour has gone through many changes over time, proving that it is not universal. If you look back through history, different societies have had completely different ideas of economy, ranging from communist societies to capitalism. In general, I would argue that, especially in more Western countries such as the United States, Canada, the UK etc… do pursue material self-interest. Obviously, this is a generalization and not every individual in these countries is materialistic, but trends suggest that the majority of people are. As Max suggests above, people are constantly vying to make the most amount of money possible, and to use that money to buy the next greatest material item. An example of a backwards sloping supply curve actually happened to me this past summer. I was working at my job and was working quite a lot of overtime (which paid time and a half) so when given the opportunity to take extra shifts, I declined quite often as I valued (out of self interest) my own free time more then the money that I probably should have been making.

    • bedard 12:46 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Is economic behaviour universal? I say it depends on what perspective you are looking at. For instance, with the HBC and the NWC trading parties, they were looking to gain furs from the First Nations strictly for the value of the fur and to boost their economic gain. However when you look at the First Nation perspective, they were trading not to gain value, but to gain every day essentials that would be put to good use and that would help them live day to day. Not all people are pursuing material for self interest, you have groups of people working to gain the necessities, you have people in the middle with the necessities and a little bit of indulgence, then their is the group out their to gain wealth and status and always working to better themselves in the economic market. One example of a situation where we see a “backward sloping supply curve” would be seen through fishing season. A fisherman will go out during the summer/fall season to try and catch fish to feed him and his family through the winter season. During fishing season, long hours are required for the fisherman to be out trying to meet his quota and beyond as much as he can. Once the fish are caught, the next step is to process and clean all the fish. If there is a surplus of fish caught, the fisherman has more leisure time throughout the winter months as he has already worked long hours to supply his family with food.

      Owen Bedard

    • FribaRezayee235 12:48 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Blog Week 5 “Economic Behavior Universal?”

      The neoclassical economic principles are universal; people motivated by self-interest and a desire to maximize utility/profit; the laws of supply and demand govern them. Economic behavior is influenced by culture. The gift trade and administered/treaty trade are examples of non-market behavior. There is no universal economic behavior. I believe that the economical behavior is strongly connected with culture. For example, big weddings in India cost the parents of bride a great deal of money. Basically, the parents of bride provide everything that a new wedded couple need to their new house (furniture, home appliances, attire, expensive jewelry to display the wealth of bride and so on) along with the wedding ceremony expenses itself. This clearly illustrates that there is a huge deal of economy outside of the markets. This is the culture, however, it is use for benefit of the groom’s family. By using culture as excuse, the groom’s family doesn’t need to spend any money. A western society is a consumer society and wealth gives you a higher social status therefore, I think that one can even say that people tend to develop greed in some extent in western societies as well. It is indeed very much focus on material things, but also economic behavior has been changing from the past few decades in western world. People instead of big fat wedding, focus on spending that money on quality time with their love ones. Most of that money is spend for the future kids of newly wedded couple.

    • Tamara Ling 3:06 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      For the most part, I would say that economic behaviour is universal and that people do tend to pursue their own self-interest most of the time. Especially in modern culture, we all tend to want the newest and trendiest item that is on the market. Throughout our lives, we are constantly being hounded by our peers and the media to purchase the newest item, even if you just bought something similar a few months ago. Of course, before we buy those materialistic items, we will use the money we earn to cover our living expenses, which can include food, shelter, and clothing. However, after we realize that there is leftover money for us to spend, we are inclined to purchase items that are not really necessary in order to survive. This includes the newest phone, or other items we can use for enjoyment.

      A backward sloping supply curve shows the relationship between the quantity and price of a good or service offered to the public. It explains that as the quantity offered decreases, the price will be forced to increase to keep up the “equilibrium”. For example, whenever a new iPhone is released for the public, Apple will first decrease the amount of phone that can be offered to the public, causing the demand for the item to increase. Hence, Apple can increase their price so that they can make more profit off of the iPhones.

    • eself 3:09 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I define economic behaviour as consumerism, a daily fight because of the need for resources around the world. I believed this is universal because of the business of trade between people from all around the world wanting resources only found or made in certain areas. I do not believe that all people express the same economic behaviour because there are many factors to explain economic behaviours. Also, I do not believe all people pursue their material self-interest all the time, but I do believe many indulge in their material interests on occasion for reasons they feel are legitimate. More specifically, what they believe will make them happy at that time in their life.

      A situation where a backward sloping supply curve would explain my behaviour would be the want to buy multitudes of resources when on sale, or when a recession is predicted to happen so that I could pay a more reasonable price for the items before the price rose.

      Elizabeth Self

    • brendanjf 4:50 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I would argue that economic behavior is not necessarily universal, at least not the ones we are specifically referring to.
      Not everyone always pursues their own material self-interest. There is a large portion of people who when faced with the opportunity, will forgo the opportunity to gain further wealth or material possessions. If they have the ability to work to a point where they feel comfortable, and do not feel pressured by monetary issues, they will not work any harder, even if they would still gain more money by doing so. If their wages increase, they might scale back their work so that they are still earning as much as they did before, or perhaps more, but they have more leisure time as well. Or, if they realize that they only need to do a certain amount of actual work while at the office in order to earn their wage, they might decide to perform only that which is required, rather than going beyond, despite the fact that superiors recognizing a stronger work ethic or larger contributions might give them a bonus or raise.
      However, there is also a large number of people who act in the opposite manner. When faced with an opportunity, they will take advantage of it to gain more wealth despite the fact that they might not need it in sense of comfort or emergency. There are those who, even though they know that they only need to do a certain amount of work to earn their wage, will still put in overtime, or work harder than their colleagues, in order to try and gain a material advantage. This can be seen even in some people who earn high wages and live comfortable lives.
      I think some of this can be attributed to a cultural influence, and I think this dichotomy can be summed best up by the phrase “Work to live, or live to work”.

    • Tyler Cole 5:34 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe that no, economic activity is not a natural pursuit, it is a learned behaviour. To my knowledge, early modern humans did not practice trade between groups, meaning that at some point in our development since then, we have learned to be economic actors. When Europeans arrived in North America, the First Nations populations that were living there had no idea what the fur trade was, or how they would fit into this complex system. The idea of trading furs for economic gains was a new idea to First Nations people. Yes, they had practiced trade, mainly with people, but trading for goods was a new idea. Prior to European contact, First Nations peoples had produced goods mainly for internal use, the idea of those goods having a value to other people would have been new. That said, even though the economic ideas presented by the Europeans were foreign, they were picked up quickly, as the First Nations people saw the value in the goods that the European traders were offering to them.

    • Tina Loo 12:44 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?

← 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