Updates from admin Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • 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?

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

    Week 7 Wall 

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

     

    • maxgardiner 5:35 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      While the British were somewhat accommodating to the demands of the various groups that lived in Canada, they did not give way completely leading to continued tensions in the colony. While things had been done like creating the loyalty oaths that allowed French Catholics to hold public office and to bring in the recommendations of the Durham report and establish a responsible government. They as well made accommodations to groups such as American loyalists by giving them preferential land grants in an attempt to establish a model colony in Upper Canada. However dissent was still not allowed to be rise much as people would be dismissed from government if they started to criticize the policies that were being put into place. The British were willing to accommodate these groups so long as the colonial power remained as the primary force in Canada.

    • Vincent Yam 6:32 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Factors that shaped the limits of British accommodation in BNA in the early 1800s boiled down to essentially changing demographics and the issues of political and cultural loyalties.

      The influx of American Loyalists, concentrated in the new colony of Upper Canada, increased tensions between French, and English colonists, which put pressure onto the British government to accomodate to their separate needs. The French, needing the Catholic church and seigneurial system, forced the British to adapt their government to compensate, but at the same time, annoyed the English settlers.

      Additionally, the new ideologies brought in by the Loyalists, forced the British government to become less accomodating to the natives. This was due to a shift in priorities. Now that there were English settlers and Loyalists that needed to be set up, native fur trade took a back seat.

    • Tyler Cole 11:44 am on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Accommodations in British North America are an interesting part of the story leading up to Confederation. The British colonial government allowed certain things to take place that would change the demographics of the colony. One of the major things that they did was allow for the immigration of Americans, mainly British loyalists and Americans looking for land as the Ohio Valley and New England began to get more crowded. The governor of Upper Canada, where most of these settlers were ending up, was trying to encourage immigration in order to bolster his population, due to fears of American invasion during the Manifest Destiny years.

      As well, Francophone peoples who were living in Upper Canada began to gain more rights, such as the ability to run for political office and to freely practice their religion. However, these accommodations were limited, and not everybody enjoyed them. Primarily, First Nations peoples were left out of these policies, and continued to undergo hardships brought on by disease and the unravelling of their culture.

      The British colonial government used these tactics of accommodation in order to garner a more unified colony; one that could better stand up to attack or invasion. British North America was vulnerable, it was a resource rich area that was vastly underpopulated, meaning that a military invasion would be bad news for the British. Through these policies of accommodation for Americans and canadiens, both Upper and Lower Canada became stronger territories.

    • Connor Munro 12:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s were shaped by a couple factors; the loyalty of the people in British North America to the British government, the possibility of an American(as well as others especially because of the blockade Napoleon had on North America ) attack and the identity of the people in British North America(as a group who were they, what was their identity going to be and how was their identity going to be shaped). The British governed in a way that they hoped would gain the loyalty of the people while also getting some of the already loyal British settlers mad. They tried to get them to be identified and identify themselves as British. While having a British criminal law they had a French civil law to accommodate the Francophones as well as allowing Catholics to participate in politics. They also tried to help the settlers identify as being part British so that they would not go against the British and not assist the Americans if and when they did attack(after many American settlers settled in Upper Canada to increase the population size). Loyalty and identity towards the British and their government truly were the biggest factors for why the British accommodated in the way that they did. It was those 2 factors that limited the British to govern in such an accommodating way to unify and strengthen the colony by getting as many residents of the colony “on their side.”

    • Tamara Ling 12:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      There was one main factor that helped shape the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s – the changes in demographics, which led to the loyalty of the new settlers.

      For example, in Upper Canada, there was an increase in the number of American Loyalists. The government enticed Loyalists to come to Canada with large land grants and positions in government in order to further populate Upper Canada. However, it enraged the settlers already present, as they were not given that opportunity. In Lower Canada, the Francophone settlers overwhelmed the amount of Anglophones in the area. This caused them to pressure the British government to accommodate their needs, which included the Catholic Church and the seigniorial system. In addition, they gained more rights such as running for political office and the right to vote.

      Using the strategy of accommodation, the British government was able to create a more unified nation in order to protect itself potential invasion from the US.

    • jonathangeorge 1:32 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Many factors in the newly British controlled colony were as such the loyalty of the French settlers who all were a majority of the populatation, and also the migration of the Americans from the south who were in search of new lands for further expansion and growth. When the government where in talks with luring new settlers with land it was assumed that they were to be loyal to the crown but it was not how they planned it, that in turn the accomodations for the new and old settlers were unsatisfied against the British crown and the elite Chateau clique who were in main control of the government and its laws over the people. They in turn made it madatory that everyone in the colony were to swear an oath of loalty to the British crown, they even made the Americans do so and when just an oath was not a enough they allowed the catholics and fracophones take part in all government and political aspects which was not in favor for the british settlers. When other settler who were not of the elite soceity started to bring an uproar they were quick to question the govrenment and their policies, with that in mind that was how the British were more accomodating then they really wanted to be but they did ended up having a more unified and a solid foundation for creating a govrenment what worked for all the people except the natives.

      • Tina Loo 1:11 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Jonathan, why were the British accommodating to certain groups at certain times? That’s the key….

    • hartcamp 2:31 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The level of accommodations that the British made for colonized Canada was heavily dependent upon how the colonists interacted with the British government. Loyalty seen among the French settlers, as well as the British nationalists that fled from America was a benifting factor to those who showed it. That being said however, the British were not fair with the inhabitants on all levels. It was very difficult for French Catholics to hold positions in office, as well as the right to vote. Yet, over time, these restrictions were reversed giving the French Canadains more freedom in the British colonies. The main concern of the British was making sure that the political power in Canada remained in the hands of the British, which they proved to be able to maintain. It worked out better for the British to be as accommodating as possible to the settlers than not. -Campbell Hart

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

      The factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s came down to loyalty. When these loyalists began migrating to Upper Canada, the British wanted to offer them land to live on. So, the British accommodated them by providing them with this land. Because of this, the indigenous lost their territory; the settling loyalists were displacing them. The indigenous population were beginning to feel left out and forgotten by the British. The black loyalists also migrated to British North America, and they were offered land if they settled. But, this land was not as good as the land they offered to the whites. The British also changed their laws so that they could allow the French to hold a position in office. But, after the war of 1812 with the Americans, they felt like they had to question the loyalty of the American settlers in Upper Canada. They felt like they were no longer able to trust them so those who were not trustworthy were tried and hung, there were 50. The British continued to accommodate all groups as long as they remained loyal to the British government.
      -Suman Lali

    • bedard 2:43 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The limits of accommodation in British North America was shaped by a few different factors in the early 1800’s. One factor was the change of the demographics, which brought in loyalty from new settlers to the British government. The government brought in these American settlers to Upper Canada offering them large pieces of land, power within the government. The British also created loyalty oaths for the French-Catholics, allowing them to have positions in office if they swore to the oaths. These accommodations were beginning to work in everyones favour except the Native people. They had become less important to the British people.

      Owen Bedard

    • eself 2:59 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The limits of accomodation in BNA in the early 1800s were shaped by factors like the loyalty oaths for the French in Lower Canada. These allowed the French to organize Catholic churches in their areas, and a seigneurial system. It also allowed the French to run for political office and have the right to vote. Another factor was the American loyalists moving north, especially into Upper Canada, but in Lower Canada, the francophones were overwhelmed by the increasing anglophone population. In Upper Canada, the American loyalists were given preferential land grants, but this was also taking away from the Aboriginals who had been living there for over 100 years, and had established a fur trade which was now not a priority to the British. The British were willing to accomodate to any group that was willing to remain loyal or become loyal to British Government. – Elizabeth Self

    • jamesrm 4:41 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The level of accommodation that shaped in British North America was shaped by a few different factors, including loyalty and appeasement to the French in Lower Canada. The British were willing to accommodate the French but only if they swore an oath of loyalty to the British. For the French that swore this oath, they were grated opportunities in government or given large plots of land. Unfortunately, these acts of accommodation to the French left the Aboriginals in the dust. The Natives lost large plots of land and the fur trade that they had was not as important to the British. The British were only concerned with themselves and other groups that could be of aid to the British government.

    • Tina Loo 1:15 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General comments on Week 7:
      Most of you did a good job answering the question about what factors shaped the willingness of the British to be accommodating. I was especially pleased that many of you picked up on demography being an important factor/context.

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

      But, as most of you realized, the question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?

      In addition to demography, in some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers.

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

  • admin 5:30 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 8 Wall 

    In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?

     

    • maxgardiner 6:51 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in the Canadas were similar to the ones in the Atlantic region for several reasons. One of the reasons was the issue of land ownership. In Upper Canada it was an issue about if American immigrants actually owned the land that they were living on. This caused tensions between the two groups. In Lower Canada the American immigrants were not used to the seigniorial system causing tension. As well, Lower Canada was beginning to run out of new land challenging the existing system. In the Maritimes land issues revolved around giving falling rights for timber. On PEI the issues with land was one of absentee landlords.

      The biggest issues behind the rebellions was the idea of instituting responsible government, that is an executive that was accountable to an elected assembly. Despite the existence of an elected assembly in the Canadas thanks to the Durham Report, the executive of the government did not match the political makeup of the assembly. In Lower Canada after the Act of Union was passed Papineau radicalized his political party. After the arrival of a new governor Papineau pushed for responsible government with his 92 resolutions. In Maritime colonies like Newfoundland there had never been a responsible government due to the seasonal population of the colony. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia wanted reforms due to controversy over how logging rights to land had been passed out. However seeing the issues that were taking place in the Canadas, the colonial office was quick to grant reforms to the Maritime colonies fearing more revolts.

      The 1830s can be seen as an age of revolution as many of the colonies began to make real, and in some cases violent pushes for change. The colonies wanted more ability to make their own laws and to govern themselves not having to rely on appointed officials that were not accountable to the people in the colonies. This was a time of major reform in the colonies.

    • Connor Munro 2:59 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in the Canadas and those in the Atlantic region where both centered are politics and change. In particular, political change that would make the appointed members of government more responsible to the voters and the elected assembly. The rebellions were for a responsible government that would more accurately represent and govern for the people of the colony and not for their own personal gain and profit. The 1830s could be seen as an age of revolution for the British North America because the rebellions inspired and helped to assist in the change of the way in which the government ruled. The rebellions can be seen, to a smaller a extent what could have been the beginning of a revolution if the people wanted multiple changes and more radical changes. Because they were only looking for a few changes to happen and the biggest being a more responsible government. They did get what they wanted later on but because the changes occurred gradually after the rebellions occur, a couple of years later in some places. Overall, I would say that the rebellions and the 1830s were more of a small period in which changes would occur that the people believer were better for the development of the colony. The 1830s in British North America was an age of revolution but one that was completely based on political reasons changed the way the government in the colony acted so that they would be more responsible.

      • Tina Loo 2:05 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Connor, can you be more specific? Yes, the issues were political in both the Canadas and the Atlantic region, but what were the specific things that were being contested?

    • eself 3:03 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada had similar motives to the Atlantic region with the problem of land ownership and the effect and dissatisfaction of British rule. Within the Atlantic region, the elites had been elected, but were not ruling with the public in mind. The timber trade had increased sales, especially in New Brunswick, but the fisheries had declined, significantly in Newfoundland. Another way these rebellions were similar is that both areas wanted responsible government. This would come to be in the 1830s when elected assemblies and councils giving equal rights to all citizens of Canada for it to become more independent from British rule. BNA was in the age of revolution within the 1830s, but not for the main reasons citizens wanted, but for more political reasons which happened to pertain to some of the issues citizens were fighting with the government.

    • Tamara Ling 3:37 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      There are a couple of similarities between the rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic region. First of all, there is the topic of the ownership of land. In both Upper and Lower Canada, there was tension regarding who actually owned the land. In Upper Canada, people were concerned about if the Americans actually owned the land if they lived and worked on it everyday. In Newfoundland, there was the issue of the right to cut down trees for limber whenever and wherever they wish, while in Prince Edward Island, they had issues around people who owned land but lived elsewhere year around. My second similarity is that of implementing the ideas of a responsible government and which part should be elected or if all of it should be elected rather than appointed. In Upper Canada, they looked at the spectrum of reformers in politics – the moderate and radical reformers. In Lower Canada, they looked at how the Patriote-controlled Assembly passes the 92 Resolutions, which demands a fully elected government. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, responsible government was wanted because they wanted changes in the logging rights to the forested lands.

    • jamesrm 4:51 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The similarities between the rebellions in Canada and the Atlantic region mostly deal with land ownership. Citizens in Upper Canada were concerned if the land they worked and lived on was actually owned by Americans and in Lower Canada, good, fertile land was not as abundant and the new American immigrants were not used to certain systems in Canada. As well, issues ranged from absentee landlords in PEI to disputes about logging rights in Newfoundland. The rebellions helped spark an age of revolution in British North America by demanding change and by actually ushering in that change. The new colonies under British North America wanted more independence and the ability to make their own laws. The rebellions made way for a more responsible government in young Canada.

      • Tina Loo 2:08 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Yes, land was certainly the key, as was responsible government and a few other things (see below).

    • richardj 2:16 pm on October 26, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The Rebellions of the Canada’s and the Atlantic were a based upon the Republican ideology that revolved around responsible government policy and the overthrow of the appointed Aristocracy.The age of Enlightenment had begun in the late18th century, its foundation was built upon the idea of equality for all men and equal justice for all under the law. The Euro-Canadian Aristocracy were firmly in control of British North America, they resisted any attempts for an representative order to replace their ebbed ideological benefits of land ownership and political control. The influx of permanent settlers into the Canada’s and the Atlantic region sparked the reformation movement towards individual landownership and the shared benefits of same. Most commoners were tenant farmers beholden to absentee landlords who took little interest in representing their interests in government. The irresponsible management and excessive extraction of resources such as the cod fishery and timber industries were the catalyst for impending change throughout the Atlantic region. The British Government along with its Euro-Canadian appointed Governors decided to avoid the inevitable conflict and the likelihood American style revolt by promoting land ownership reforms.

    • slali 9:42 am on October 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic regions were similar in that they were focused around land and economic tensions. In Upper Canada, it was an issue that the Family Compact was giving away land to only their friends which was seen as unfair in the eyes of all other citizens. In Lower Canada, the seigneurial system remained in place and the Americans used the system to free hold land. In New Brunswick, there was the issue that the commissioner of crown land was ready to give out timber land to his friends and the government and in PEI, when the lands were confiscated from its proprietors , there was uncertainty with whom actually owned the land. Another similarity is the implementation of responsible government. In Upper canada, responsible government was not agreed upon because the Family compact believed the government was responsible enough. In Lower Canada, the idea of responsible government was brought forth by Papineau whom strived for its implementation. In the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, a responsible government was no argument, it was wanted. The 1830s can be seen as the age of revolution in British North America because it was when the people really started to fight for themselves and were no longer sacred of being accused of treason. Change was wanted amongst the citizens so they tried hard to make it happen.

    • Vincent Yam 8:27 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada and the Atlantic region tended to share similar issues in both land and political reform. This often expressed itself in dissent, although the intensity of the resent in Upper and Lower Canada was arguably greater than that of the Atlantic Colonies.

      Both Canadas and the Atlantic colonies had land issues that were brought up in the rebellions. They did boil down to unfair division of land. However, for Upper Canada, the land issues were a result of unfair division of land by the Family Compact. For Lower Canada, it was the seigneurial system and the Chateau Clique who unfairly divided the land. New Brunswick had a similar issue to Upper and Lower Canada, but for PEI, it was the debate over absentee landowners. Still these

      Another major similarity is the lack of representative government. Upper and Lower Canada shared remarkably similar issues in representative government as they generally had quite a parallel structure, with both Legislative Assemblies deadlocked due to the appointed assembly. It seems that in the Atlantic colonies though, only Nova Scotia paralleled Upper and Lower Canada in this representation issue.

      Given the widespread unrest and the changes that followed after the rebellions, it can be argued that the rebellions in the 1830s were revolutions. Even if the rebellions themselves were not successful, the widespread dissent and the changes that followed in light of the rebellion can be argued as evidence of a political revolution.

      • Tina Loo 2:10 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Good job Vincent, but can you be a bit more specific as to what reformers in both regions wanted?

    • Tina Loo 2:16 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on this week’s question:
      Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.

      The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.

      The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).

  • admin 5:20 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 9 Wall 

    Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?

     

    • brendanjf 12:51 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I would say that Canada is indeed a “Metis civilization”. From the very beginning of European settlement in Canada, the colonists learned they had to adapt to the existing political structures in the area. They adopted the aboriginal methods of diplomacy when dealing with native tribes, they intermarried with aboriginal tribes and had to navigate through the aboriginal cultural practices as they did business with them. Rather than imposing their will and culture onto the area, they adapted the culture to fit their new environment, keeping much of the same trappings, but altering others to suit the reality of their new surroundings. The negotiation, compromise and tolerance the colonist gained from dealing with aboriginal tribes was a legacy that they carried forward with them, as they tried to negotiate a peaceful coexistence between the French and English colonists in the newly united Canadian colonies, and then later as they tried to demand fair government from their English masters overseas, a situation that was in part created by the cultural differences that had been created between the colonists and their European counterparts due to their acclimatization to their North American environment, and the aboriginal tribes they lived alongside and did business with regularly.

    • Tyler Cole 2:07 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think that Saul’s idea of a Metis civilization is a valid observation of Canadian society. Canada today is very much about taking from different cultures to better our own. For example, who could argue that the amalgamation of cultures in Canada in the 21st century hasn’t improved the food selection on Main Street in virtually every town in the country? Even in the most ethnically homogeneous places, there is still likely to be an Indian or Chinese food place. So it is not really a stretch to argue that Canada has been this way all along. Canada is a harsh place, especially in the clothing of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Without guidance from the local peoples, every settler surely would have perished in the long and bitter winters of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. In terms of values, the Europeans also would have learned a great deal from the First Nations populations. Self-interested Europeans would have learned community values from the First Nations people, as well as how to peacefully co-exist. Canada wouldn’t be how it is today without the the tools and tricks taught to early Europeans by the First Nations populations.

    • hartcamp 3:47 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canadian culture and politics as well as others, all have a strong Aboriginal presence, as well as European. It is completely valid to consider Canada to be a Metis civilization. From early interactions that the British and French had with the Aboriginal cultures in Canada as a result of the fur trade, the Europeans adapted their social habits and rules of trading in order to have better cooperation with the natives while training. It took a lot of patience for the Europeans and Aboriginal’s to adequately trade on grounds familiar to both parties. The negotiations and inter networking done by these two groups of people can still be seen and are relevant today, and Canada would be a much different place than it is if it weren’t for what happened in those times.

    • maxgardiner 3:58 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      From the time when Europeans first started to arrive Canada has been a “Metis civilization”. The New World was a brutal and difficult land for the colonists who wanted to make it their home. Without the help of Aboriginals it is highly unlikely that European settlers would have survived for any real length of time. This can be seen in the ways early settlers adopted Aboriginal methods of diplomacy and even formed alliances and bonds with Aboriginal groups. Without Aboriginal help in things like the fur trade it would have been either incredibly difficult or impossible for Canada to have developed or been explored to the extent that it was. Canada owes incredible amounts of respect to Aboriginals who helped to build this country. We can see that attempts to negate the Metis Civilization such as the Residential Schools have ended disastrously, this is the case against assimilation and rather we should seek to embrace different cultures. This ditches the “melting pot” argument used in the US for the “mosaic” argument used in Canada. English, French, Aboriginal, American, Asian, European and many more; these are all ethnicities that can be found all across Canada. This is the idea of multiculturalism that our country embraced years ago. The entire country benefits from this as we all get different perspectives based on our origins that allow us to seek new answers to questions or to realize that there may not be one definitive “right” way to do something. As a Metis Civilization we have the benefit of having the entire world at our doorstep, this can only help to make our country stronger.

    • Tamara Ling 4:23 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Based on the course so far, we can consider Canada to be a “Metis civilization” because of the culture and traditions that we have adopted from the Aboriginal peoples. First of all, the Metis are the children of the North West Company fur traders and Aboriginal women, which means that the men had to understand and gain the trust of the tribes to marry into their family. Therefore, Metis’ are a blend of two different cultures: Europeans and Aboriginal peoples, which is how Canada is represented now – as a multicultural society. In politics, the Aboriginal population ‘inspired’ Europeans during the times of the fur trade. For example, they adopted diplomacy techniques from the Aboriginals in order to further do business with them. This method was easier to follow, rather than to change their traditions to European ones. Through their method, negotiation was easier with the other tribes and the Aboriginals were more tolerant of the newcomers.

    • slali 4:30 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      There is no doubt that Canada is a Metis Civilization. The European interactions with the aboriginal people, gave rise to this civilization. The intertwining of two very different cultures, customs and political ideologies came the birth of the Metis. If the relationship amongst the French and the Aboriginals did not occur so peacefully and things were more hostile between them, Canada would not be the diverse and accepting nation they are today. This idea of a Metis Civilization represents a civilization where different cultures can live amongst others and participate in the celebration of other cultures. Multiculturalism is so strong in our society today because of the Metis. The fact that the French and Aboriginal peoples embraced each other’s differences instead of rejecting them really took down barriers that would otherwise still be up between cultures.

    • eself 4:52 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I agree with Saul that Canada is a “Metis Civilization”. Canada is a multicultural society because of the relationships between Europeans and Aboriginals that became the Metis civilization. The acceptance of cultures between different areas to form a union between themselves was the start of the nation we know now as Canada. The experience of compromising and composing agreements between the Europeans and Aboriginal tribes about the fur trade, allowed for an more composed negotiation between the French and English in the 18th and 19th centuries. Eventually, as well with the British. The influence of Aboriginal culture on European immigrants coming to live in Canada has influenced the future negotiations between multiple nations in the formation of Canada.

    • Connor Munro 9:14 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Canada can be considered a Metis civilization is many ways. The biggest being that all of British North America/”Canada” was made up of French, British and Aboriginal traditions and policies. Politically, Canada as a Metis civilization extended to civil life and government. As discussed in class, the Aboriginals were involved at the throughout Canada’s history and have almost always interacted and have played a part in the goings on of Canada. The British and French also did the same as they have been involved in British North America for most of the time that we have discussed in the course. Canada can be considered a Metis civilization because of the many accommodations that were made for everyone. This resulted in many traditions being kept and they were built upon together. Building on these traditions as a triangle allowed Canada to maintain them and have a variety of traditions that appealed to three of the major cultures in Canada and doing this kept all of them at some sort of happiness. Canada being a Metis civilization goes to differing parts of Canada from the politics and government to the civil life, the French, English and Aboriginals all have traditions that are rooted into Canadian history. Canada at the time and before was based on the traditions of all 3 of these cultures and Canada as a whole was built on top of those traditions.

      -Helping my parents move. Sorry for the late submission.

    • richardj 1:32 am on November 3, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I don’t agree with Saul’s analogy that Canada’s is a Metis Civilization, we were a diverse Nation long before labels such as Metis were scripted. Country marriages were common place but there are very distinct differences between how the Francophone and Anglophones contributed to the Canadian Identity.
      The blend of early Canadian cultures were often clouded by Company ambitions to further economic progress by taking country wives. The blend of Aboriginal cultures, language and knowledge along with the English and French ambition created the intertwined Nation we see today. Adaption verses extinction is what drove the English and French to assimilate into Aboriginal culture; sacrifice and accommodation were the common ground that guaranteed survival in the Canadian wilderness. The Aboriginal ideology of mediation, compromise and cooperation in our blended culture are very much the admired by other Nations.

    • Tina Loo 2:47 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      General Comments on this week’s blog.
      This week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. With a few exceptions, all of you bought Saul’s idea. I wonder if you would like to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.

    • Vincent Yam 10:54 pm on November 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think Saul’s comparison to Canada as a Metis Civilization isn’t incorrect, but I have issues with the terms he uses to label Canada as a Metis Civilization.

      Canada has a history of negotiating within its political culture. It has been present since the beginning of our colonial history, as we have learned when the British had to make concessions and adapt in order to accommodate both French and British settlers. Moreover, on an international stage, Canada is more prone to using negotiation and diplomacy in order to solve problems. Add the fact we are a nation with more than two cultures that have been combined to create a national identity (not so dissimilar to the Metis) then I think Saul has a good point.

      However, why does Saul feel that Canada is a Metis Civilization? Metis is not so far fetched a term to label Canada as it provides a good example as to the integration of multiple cultures into one national identity. However, I do find it quite odd when he calls Canada a Civilization, because while we are a nation… I don’t think we can call ourselves a Civilization, given that we were a colony as part of the British Empire… Hence, I agree with richardj in that he did romanticize his argument quite a bit.

  • admin 5:10 am on July 29, 2013 Permalink |  

    Week 10 Wall 

    Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?

    Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011

     

    • Vincent Yam 11:05 pm on November 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Arguably, a sports team can be considered as an example, if not a part of governmentality.

      As an example, a sports team can demonstrate how coaches, and sports agencies, train/turn out the best athletes. To do this, they use training and conditioning programs, regulating food, possibly entertainment, daily schedules and instilling values into the players themselves so they behave as the model athletes they do. Some athletes even get certain public relations training to deal with the press and to present themselves as model athletes, hence this is a good example or analogy of governmentality.

      As a part of governmentality, a sports team can help instill positive or desirable values in citizens. They encourage citizens to not only participate in healthy sports, but encourage competition and community between various geographic sections of a nation. So yes, a sports team is a part of governmentality as it helps the government to create values beneficial to the government and educate its citizens.

    • maxgardiner 12:48 am on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      A sports team could be considered part of governmentality. Sports reflect many of the things that governments want their citizens to be good at. Sports are usually regulated by an unquestionable set of rules that everyone must follow or else face punishment. These rules are enforced by a group of people or a person who’s sole job is to ensure that the rules are being followed. This is like laws in society and the police who’s job it is to enforce them. If you do not follow the laws you will face punishment. Sports also enforce ideas of the state as the games are usually highly regulated by time, just as a workplace is. Sports also emphasize the idea of sticking together as a team and not letting you team down with your actions. This promotes a society where everyone looks out for everyone else and doesn’t try to stray from the pack by doing something like revolting or questioning authority too much. Most importantly, sports reinforces the idea of obeying a higher power. In sports you have to listen to your coaches and do what they say or else you will not get to play or get kicked off the team. Sports is part of governmentality as it helps to instill values that a government likes to see in its citizens.

    • Tyler Cole 11:41 am on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Team sports could be considered governmentality because both are a means to an end. Just as the government hopes that the citizens will respond to the policies that they have laid out, sports teams hope that players will respond to the challenges that they raise. As well, organization is a big part of successful governance and therefore governmentality. If a government is unorganized and not set in their vision, then they will have a difficult time achieving the goals they have set out. This is the same in team sports; if a coach does not tell his players what way to play or what the strategy for the game is, then the team will have a tougher time pulling out the win. Let’s take an example, of a government with an agenda of garnering allegiance to a new flag with schoolchildren and a football team trying to win a BCS National Championship. Both goals will require a plan, leadership and above all execution of the plan. If the Prime Minister decides to change the flag that the students are supposed to be learning to respect or the football coach decides to change his defensive system mid-system, then the subjects trying to follow this new agenda will be confused and won’t achieve the goal. Organization and consistency in the system are key pillars to governmentality.

    • Connor Munro 1:08 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes, sports can be considered part of governmentality in the way in which sports teams are an example of governmentality while also influencing people(sometimes in the way the government wants them to). Sporting events have become a part of the world and some of its affairs which involve the government. Many sports are made into global events and spectacles and most of the time they tend to involve countries playing against each other. Events like the Olympics and many others are made as involving the world. Governmentality has affected the ruling of schools and in most sports the kids learn from the schools teams. It is through teams that the government affects how things are ruled. The way in which players are expected to behave themselves is like governmentality. In some teams players are expected to act in accordance with whatever the coach, manager or owner decides and act in a certain way. This is similar to how the government tends to act and rule. Most sports athletes are expected and tend to respect each other and act in ways that the government would like. However, now because of rivalries and other things like that many players act outside of what some governments want to see and it is at this point that they can be considered to no longer be an example of governmentality. The government tries to oversee sports in minors and not so much in the pros(because there are usually a Board of Governors each sport and league) and it is in this sense that the government usually tries to use governmentality when influencing minors in sports.

    • bedard 2:44 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes, we can consider sports teams’ part of governemntality, because the similarities in structure between the government and sports teams. Govermentality is defined as the way governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill the governments’ policies, and the organized practices through which subjects are governed. That strongly resembles the structure of a sports team, the coaching staff set out guidelines for the players in hopes they will reach and surpass to find success. Both organizations have authorities which administer these rules, police officers and coaches. If the rules are broken in society, punishment can be dished out such as fines, jail time or community service. While if the rules are broken in a sports organization, the coach can dish out punishment by cutting their playing time, not letting them play in games or adding additional, harder team practices. To sum up, sports teams can be considered to be a part of governmentality, because both organizations have the same goal, to produce the best citizen/player by following certain rules and policies.

    • Tamara Ling 3:14 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes, we can consider sports teams to be a part of governmentality. Governmentality is when the government tries to “produce” citizens that completely follow their rules and policies to make the perfect person. In a sports team, there are certain rules that everyone must follow in order to have a “civilized” game. These rules are usually enforced by a group of people, not unlike the government or police. If you do not follow the rules, then people will face some sort of punishment. Team sports highlight the fact that we should be supportive and encouraging to one another rather than trying to bring them down. In society, people do look out for the rest of the population to make sure no one does anything “wrong” or hurt others. Like my classmates have stated before, the sports team show that you must obey the higher powers or else there will be consequences. In society, this might be the government while for the sports teams, you are looking up to your coach for direction.

    • jamesrm 3:59 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I believe sports teams can be considered a part of governmentality. Both the government and sports are regulated by senior officials (coaching staff and trainers for sports teams, government officials and head of state for government) and lay down a set of rules their people (athletes or citizens) must follow. The coaching staff for a sports team wants their team’s players to succeed, while a government wants their citizens to be happy (in Western worlds) and to stick to the rules. Sports teams provide a good example for many people of a young age of how to follow rules and regulations, much like laws in real life.

    • slali 4:55 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes, sports teams can be considered a part of governmentality. Governmentality is the way in which governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill government policies. This is very similar to sports. Coaches, who can be seen as the leader in government, will try to produce the best player, and this is done by skills training and by implementing rules within practice that must be followed during the game. The rules and regulations within the game itself are put in place so the players play fairly and play way it is meant to be played, civilly. This is like government because there are policies in which politicians must follow so that government remains civil. The referee within the game can be seen as the speaker, who gives speaking rights between the government and opposition while remaining neutral. Then there are caches that can be seen as the party whip, because they ensure that all players have a common goal and that they play to achieve that goal or otherwise they will be benched.

    • eself 5:01 pm on November 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yes we can consider sports team to be a part of governmentality because the overall goal of the organizations is the same: follow the rules and work as one to benefit the whole. Participating in sports teams allows children to learn the life skills of listening to those in power, coach, and following the rules set out with officials regulating the efficiency of the rules. An example in Canadian government would be the Speaker of the Senate who’s role it is to regulate and inform senators of the rules, and to officiate the proceedings according to the rules, to make sure all are following the rules. The coach in sports teams is like the Prime Minister in Government who is in charge of choosing people to fill roles on the team, or in government that would best fit them and the team or country.

    • richardj 4:37 pm on November 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Organized sports teams are an extension of our government loyalties, value and beliefs. Each team represents a particular geographic area or country for that matter. Our teams represent us much like our Provincial Government represents us in the Federal system. We’ll often stand behind our team during good times and bad and support them with un bias devotion. Our leaders (coaches) pick the best from our ranks to best represent our values moving forward into a competition (election). We trust our leaders organise our team that best represents out way of thinking. Each team has an agenda (policy) that governs how it operates with a league of teams (parties).

    • Tina Loo 3:31 pm on November 22, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      GENERAL COMMENTS: Great job everyone. Most of you made very insightful links between team sports and governmentality. The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.

← 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