Updates from tamyers Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

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

    Week 8 blog – Women and WW2 

    comment on these two primary sources by women during WW2

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      How was WWII a watershed moment in Canadian history?

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

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

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

  • tamyers 5:59 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 6 T2 Wall 

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

        Email question:

        The argument being made in the graphic novel is that many of the things now considered common place in the workplace are in fact things that were hard won by workers of the past through things like strikes, protests, and other direct actions. Things like the 8-hour work day and the 5-day work week were won at the cost of lives. The graphic novel encourages us to remember those who fought and died for workplace rights that all of us expect to have today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Tamara Ling 6:58 pm on February 11, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Please blog about your response to the novel – What is the argument? How effective is the graphic format and why?

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

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

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

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

      Regarding the May Day graphic novel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • tamyers 5:58 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 4 T2 Wall 

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Sorry, sent that too early. Part 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • tamyers 5:56 pm on January 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    Week 1 T2 Wall 

    I am Canadian

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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