Week 2 Wall
Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
Vincent Yam, 
rustyj, 
squamptonmafia 6:07 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As we’ve learned in lectures and readings thus far, in the past 1000 years, 3 separate European countries have established settlements in Canada, two of which lived alongside each other for hundreds of years, not to mention the First Nations populations that were living across the country. So yes, Canada has been a multicultural country since the very beginning. However, the term multicultural tends to suggest that there is some degree of harmony or inclusion between the different cultures. This is most certainly not the case throughout Canada’s history, until relatively recently. The numerous wars between France and England over Canadian soil showcase just how well they got along.
squamptonmafia 6:09 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
^ Tyler Cole
Tina Loo 11:01 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Excellent – glad to see I’m keeping you awake in lecture 🙂 And thanks for inserting your name.
FribaRezayee235 1:19 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
It is a pressure to write about a great nation, and multicultural country. Multiculturalism in Canada is the sense of an equal celebration of racial, religious and cultural backgrounds. The government of Canada officially adopted the history of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and 1980s. Based on the lectures and readings this week, it illustrates that Canada has never been occupied by just one culture since the initial occupation of North America. The multiple nations of indigenous were in itself an example of multi-culture in Canada.
An example from history of First Nation suggests that over the past five hundred years of history, and in more modern history colonization has impacted Indigenous people in British Columbia, Canada. The Musqueam, for instance, Indian Band argues, that they declare and affirm that they hold aboriginal title to their land, and aboriginal rights to practice use of their land, sea, fresh water and all their natural resources within those territories where aboriginal ancestors used them since before written history or contact with Europeans. In addition to that an important part of history of Canada is the fur trade. The fur trade is a worldwide industry dealing in the acquisition and sale of animal fur. Since the establishment of a world fur market in the early modern period, furs of boreal polar and cold temperate mammalian animals have been the most valued. Historically the trade had a large impact on the exploration and colonization of First Nation. Canada’s Aboriginal peoples exchanged furs for guns, gunpowder, liquor, tobacco, pots and pans, wool blankets and tools. They were also keen consumers of various European products such as clothes, and sewing needles. The most highly prized fur was that of the beaver, used to make felt for hats, but the range of animal skins traded was wide. Each skin had a clearly established value measured in plues or made beaver. They almost got the beaver species into instinct.
Furthermore what we have learned from our latest lecture are; New France, politics, law, and judiciary system in 1600s. The territory of New France changed over time, but the colony was initially established in the St. Lawrence River valley. New France was at its largest in the early eighteenth century when it also included Hudson Bay, Labrador, Newfoundland, Acadia, the Great Lakes region and Louisiana. A case of an African maid (in that period) shows the judiciary system in the Estates of the Realm. For instance, when there was a fire in the city of Montreal. The fire destroyed about forty houses/buildings. The rulers thought that African maid/slave sat the fire to create chaotic event in order to escape with the man whom she loved. But there was no evidence against her, still she was charged and later, was executed publicly. There was no police, no detective. The best way to prove was by confession. She later confessed after being tortured. Her confession represented the king’s power on individuals. This brutal law was practices because Louis the XIV (1638-1715) had the divine right. The idea was that the king derived his rules direct from God. Thus, the New France’s political power increased. Not only in New France but also in other provinces including over sea colonies. The king appointed the governor general in St. Lawrence in order to set a law. There was no democracy. People were not considered to govern. Only the higher state ruled, and had the power meaning: hierarchies had the responsibly to rule only.
Friba Rezayee
Tina Loo 11:02 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Friba, You didn’t really answer the question. I’m not looking for you to repeat what I said in lecture, but to answer the question using the information you learned in lecture. See Tyler Cole’s answer above yours for a good example. It means you have to write less, not more.
slali 9:15 pm on September 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The concept of a multicultural nation has many other meanings attached to it. Not only does it mean a nation is made up of many different cultures, but along with this definition, it signifies that there is peace amongst the cultures. It suggests that people can live with each other while embracing the different cultures that surround them on a daily basis. The mixing of cultures is encouraged in the present day, where as people were hesitant to do so in the past. This idea of multiculturalism is relatively new to Canada, but the idea of different cultures and people living together in Canada is not. In history, many different Europeans lived with many different tribes of Aboriginal people here in Canada. When the European settlers came to Canada, there were already indigenous peoples living on these lands. Relations between the Aboriginals and the French were established, mostly due to the fur trade, but the relationship and alliances made were strictly political. Throughout the whole process, both groups wanted power, in fact the Europeans went as far as trying to convert the Indigenous population to christianity. There was no mixing of cultures, but the opposite was occurring, the slow eradication of a culture. This is not multiculturalism. The groups of people were not pleased to live amongst each other and there was always a power struggle and the hopes of one of the groups leaving. It is with time, as more populations of different people began to colonize and populate Canada, that we have learned to live gracefully and peacefully with our neighbours divulging in foreign cultures.
-Suman Lali
Tina Loo 11:04 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Suman, Nice job. I especially like your observation that the “idea of multiculturalism is relatively new to Canada, but the idea of different cultures and people living together in Canada is not.”
hartcamp 1:22 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The idea of Canada as a multicultural country has applied for several centuries, yet what it holds a different meaning today than it did when it first began to be colonized by Europeans. In the 17th and 18th century, European settlers began to colonize North America, and a huge draw towards Canada were the fur pelts that could be traded with the native people. Today, we know these native peoples as First Nation peoples. However, Canadian culture/society has expanded far beyond just European and First Nation people. Over the course of over 400 years, people have made their way to Canada from all over the world. With large population groups from Asia and the Middle East, the range of cultural diversity in Canada is seemingly endless. Back when Canada first had settlers come over from Europe, there wasn’t so much cultural diversity though, as much as there was segregation. The First Nations people interacted with the Europeans, but only for the sake of trade. Whereas today, especially in bigger cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, people from all walks of life come together and form multicultural communities. UBC is a prime example of people of many ethnic and cultural backgrounds interacting in the same communities and environments. Looking around a classroom, or walking down Main Mall, it’s not hard to see how far Canada has come in terms of acceptance and intermingling of cultures from around the globe. Where Canada stands today in terms of cultural diversity was not an easy place to get to, but it shows how much has changed since the early years of Canadian settlement.
hartcamp 1:22 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Campbell Hart
Tina Loo 11:06 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks Campbell – I did eventually figure out who you were! Good answer. I especially like the observation about how diversity has characterized Canada since the start, but you imply that multiculturalism means something different – it means acceptance and intermingling. Was that the case in the 17th and 18th centuries?
Vincent Yam 7:34 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
As mentioned by Suman Lali (above), the definition of a multicultural nation varies. The modern, most normally accepted definition, is that it is a nation of people of multiple cultures who cooperate with each other as one nation. Now… I do agree that the term given to the idea is relatively new, but from what I have learned in the lectures, perhaps aspects of the idea isn’t as new as I first thought. Although, I firmly believe that the idea of a multicultural nation is relatively new.
As we’ve learned of the relations between French, Huron and Anishinaabeg, different cultures have cooperated with each other to fulfill business goals. The French traded European goods with the natives who gave the French valuable furs. All in all, a symbiotic relationship and a cooperation between two different cultures. Moreover, we have learned that within Canada, there were multiple native tribes who’ve cooperated with each other as part of large, interlinked alliances. The two most famous versions are the Iroquois Confederacy and Huronia and her allies. These multi-cultural tribes, in the Iroquois case, bonded by a single constitution. These confederacies and the European-Native alliance are similar to the ideals a multi-cultural nation personifies, which are cooperation, sharing of knowledge and willingness to aid one another.
However, a multicultural nation is not just a ‘multicultural working/trading relationship’, the peoples have to band together under one national identity. Although the native confederacies such as Huronia, and the Iroquois Confederacy do follow the idea of a multicultural nation, banding together under one nation does qualify as these tribes of different cultures did band together. However, for the French-native relationship, neither cultural group banded together under one single national identity. They did work together, they did share knowledge, they did seem pretty close at one point, but they did not give up their loyalty to the French Crown and label themselves Canadian. Neither did the Natives. Moreover, members of the Iroquois Confederacy such as the Mohawks who obtained weapons for their own purposes to fight the French without the other nations support, show that even in the Native confederacies… the cultures within these ‘native nations’ remained separate, not intermingled. Although they were closely allied, they did not give up their individual tribal identities and still acted separately from the ‘nation’. They certainly were a multi-cultural alliance of native nations, but a single, multi-cultural national entity? Not really in my opinion.
In conclusion, although many (and I emphasize, many) aspects of a multi-cultural nation were exemplified by First Nations and the French-Huronia alliance, these were all really focused on the idea of an alliance or cooperative agreement with a separate culture and were not truly a multicultural nation of a single entity to be considered a multicultural nation.
Vincent Yam
Tina Loo 11:08 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Vincent, Good observations. There wasn’t a single nation or national entity in the 17th or 18th centuries. North America was a multinational, multicultural continent. Your observations raise the question of what conditions help facilitate the acceptance of diversity.
Vincent Yam 10:05 pm on September 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hmmm… What conditions help facilitate diversity… I have no idea. 😛 well guess that’s why I’m taking this course 😀
rustyj 9:13 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I have always found the differences between us make Canada a multi-cultural nation; a thousand years ago the same differences among First Nations such as dress, languages, spiritual practices made them multi-cultural. Multiculturalism is not a new phenomena, where two or more societies live in proximately to each other, there are bound to be differences.
Prior to European contact, Canada was a complex patchwork of individual First Nation territories each identified by distinct characteristics. Definitive boundaries marked by water ways, trade partners and allies made each First Nation distinct.
The arrival of the French colonists only added to the already thousands of First Nation societies that existed across the Canadian landscape.
The facets of multi culturalism such as trade and friendship during the earliest contact only added to Canada multicultural foundation.
Tina Loo 11:09 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Good job – but can you tell me who you are? Go back and edit your post to insert your name. You are right that we see the foundations of multiculturalism in the 17th and 18th centuries.
rustyj 8:55 pm on September 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Richard Jaques
eself 10:13 pm on September 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Based on the lectures and readings this week, it is evident that Canada has never been occupied by just one culture since the initial occupation of North America. the multiple nations of indigenous was in itself an example of multi-culturism in Canada. The contact between European cultures and North America was imminent as more and more groups of people emigrated across Europe, Asia and Africa to the Americas. The colonization of North America was an addition to its multi-culturism in the 17th and 18th centuries. The difference between when the French-Huronian treaty was struck and modern day Canada is the more diverse population across the nation. In conclusion, the idea of Canada as a multi-cultural nation is not new because of the diversity of people that have been occupying the land for many years, it has only recently become more noticeable because of the increase in amount of emigrants arriving in Canada in the last 300 years.
-Elizabeth Self
Tina Loo 11:11 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Elizabeth, I agree: I like your observation that the place that became “Canada” was multi-NATIONAL (i.e. the home of many nations) and multi-cultural. This raises the question of how Canada the multicultural nation emerges; i.e. how do all these nations get forged into one?
jamesrm 11:15 am on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is an extremely diverse nation today, but based on the lectures this past week, Canada has been a diverse nation from the very beginning. Whether it was British, Aboriginal or French, there have been multiple nationalities all vying for a new life in Canada. When the first European settlers arrived in Canada, they were met with the indigenous population of Canada so right from the start of settlement, Canada was diverse in a sense. Now adding French settlers, British settlers and eventually other European settlers, Canada was divided (and still is – Quebec) by multiple different nationalities.
As the generations went by, more and more immigrants and settlers came to Canada, which gives us our multicultural nation we live in today. Today Canada boasts one of the highest rates of multiculturalism in the world, with a large population of European settlers, First Nations People, and South-Asian and Asian immigrants.
James MacKenzie
Tina Loo 11:13 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks James. I did figure out who you were after all. Good observation about diversity being characteristic of the place that became Canada from the start. The question will be how did all these various nations become a single nation-state….?
bedard 12:19 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In modern times, Canada is country viewed as a multicultural nation, with many different cultures and groups of people. However, being a country with many different nationalities and many different types of people is a relatively new concept. Canada is inhabited by many different First Nation groups all across Canada since before the European settlers arrived on Canadian soil. From what we have seen in the lectures so far, and read in the readings is that the European settlers did arrive and began to set up colonies, there was three main groups of people; the First Nation people, the English and the French. History shows that each of these nationalities fought for Canada to have a certain type of dominant culture, but it’s not until recent times that all cultures are accepted and encouraged.
Owen Bedard
Tina Loo 11:15 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Owen, are you saying that the place that became Canada was culturally diverse from its beginnings, but that didn’t make it a multicultural nation in the 17th and 18th centuries? That’s a great observation!
Connor Munro 12:39 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The idea of Canada being a multicultural nation is considered a relatively new idea but based on the lectures the idea Canada can be considered to be multicultural further into the past. In today’s world Canada is multicultural because of the many cultures that are in Canada. However, because of the differing indigenous cultures that were in Canada when it was first discovered and as the English and French arrived, others followed after them. This could make an argument to say that Canada was a multicultural nation at this point. As the French tried to establish themselves a settlement near the St. Lawrence they continued to aid in the beginning of multiculturalism in Canada and continued further as they founded New France. At this point Canada has started to gather more cultures(while not having as large an array compared to the many we currently have). We know that a variety of settlers had come from Europe to Canada and where some tried and failed others succeeded at establishing settlements. Canada as a nation at the time did have many cultures from Europe arriving and it could have been called a somewhat smaller version of parts of Europe. Canada during this time was a nation that had a limit on some of the differing cultures but it was still multicultural. Later on when immigration to Canada increased the diversity of cultures changed but before that Canada has always seemed to have more than one culture within it adding to the fact that Canada was a multicultural nation longer ago than first thought.
Connor Munro
Tina Loo 11:17 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Connor, would it make sense to draw a distinction between being a multicultural NATION, and a multi-NATIONAL place? It seems that the place that became Canada was diverse from the start, but it wasn’t a single nation. It housed many nations. The story of Canada might be how a diverse multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state.
tling 12:51 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
According to popular belief, most Canadians would consider their country as being a new multicultural nation. A multicultural nation is defined as a single place where many different cultures reside. However, Canada’s population has always been based on the amount of immigration from countries around the world. The 2006 census completed by Canada, it showed us that just less than 50% of Vancouver’s population now is of visible minority origin. This includes the Chinese, South Asians, Filipinos, and Koreans.
Through the lectures, I have confirmed my knowledge that Canada is not a new multicultural nation. In the past, it has always been the British, French and the Aboriginal peoples looking to take control of the land. For example, in lectures, we have learned that the French attempted to make Canada a place to set up permanent residence in 1541, 1627, and finally in 1663 when the French crown declared the area “New France”. They originally wanted this place to be temporary, but when they realized the need for fur was so great, hunters focused their attention on catching the animals to sell their furs in Europe.
Before I attended these lectures, I would have agreed with my fellow citizens. This is because everyone, especially in Vancouver, people see immigrants everywhere you look. I have realized now that Canada has always been a multicultural nation.
-Tamara Ling
Tina Loo 11:20 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Tamara, If I understand you, you’re saying that you learned that the place that became Canada was always home to a number of different nations. It might have thus been multicultural from the start, but it’s worth noting, as I think you do, that it wasn’t a single nation-state. The story of Canada might be how numerous nations became a single nation-state.
brendanjf 2:44 pm on September 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would say that the idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is not necessesarily a new idea. If we look at the history of just the territory that Canada comprises, it is a long history of various indigenous cultural groups interacting with each other. There are several examples of these groups trying to coexist together, while still maintaining their own cultural identities, such as the constituent groups making up the Huron or Iroquois confederations. If we look at the earliest possible polity that could be considered a predecessor of the modern Canadian nation, which I would say is the French colonies of Acadia and Canada, we can also see some multiculturalism going on. The French colonies were making alliances and treaties with indigenous groups, and within the colonies there were individuals from a variety of locations and cultural backgrounds, what with them being major trading hubs in the region, as we saw in the account of the portuguese slave. However, the idea of ‘multiculturalism’ as we would think of it I think is not necessarily applicable to colonies during this time period. Multiculturalism requires a certain amount of tolerance between the various groups, and I don’t think that this was very prevalent. The French might have tolerated other Europeans in the colonies, because they were at least European, but the indigenous groups had it worse off. There was significant efforts to Christianize them, and missions were sent far inland, showing that they definitely wanted to assimilate the indigenous people (religiously, at least) rather than coexist. In practical terms as well, they were mostly interested in the indigenous groups from a business perspective, in terms of how they could most profit from trading with them. For this reason, while I think that certain elements of what constitutes ‘multiculturalism’ might have been present in early Canada, the tolerance that is needed beside that diversity was lacking, and thus it was not a truly multicultural society in the way that we think of it.
Tina Loo 11:22 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Excellent observations Brendan! I really like your argument about what multiculturalism is; that it implies a degree of tolerance – and that wasn’t necessarily prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries.