Week 8 T2 Women and WW2
comment on the primary sources by women during ww2
Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
tamyers
-
tamyers
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?
-
enorthwood
The argument that I’ve gotten out of the graphic novel Mayday is our importance to celebrate our history by never forgetting. This book reminded me strongly of another book I read for ASTU last year called Persepolis. In Persepolis she discusses the importance of commemorating a countries history and carrying on that memory. The main argument for me would be that the authors are trying to draw attention to an important part of our history. Without the efforts of these people, hundreds of thousands of people, we wouldn’t have what we do today. From their struggle we have truly gained an important part of our everyday work lives. The graphic format is really effective because it isn’t just like a textbook where you just read it through and it doesn’t overly sink in. The graphic art draws attention to detail; it makes certain parts stand out in your memory. The most effective image in my mind is on page 12 when it shows the art of the men being hanged, and the crows surrounding the quote. This image is literally etched into my mind because all I could do was stare at it. I was literally absorbed by this image, and won’t forget it. The graphic format really does serve as a way to make the message stand out. I also really like that most of the political comics are done in black and white. The panels reflect the kind of feeling that should be put with that picture. Pictures with a black thick lined or back ground heavy feeling set the mood for the whole picture, and you get the vibe from the picture that you should feel a certain way in response to that information being put in front of you. It really is a unique way to reach out to the readership.
I think in regards to what could unify the public today I really think that the war on poverty is something that seems to unite people. The reason I chose this specific thing is because of social media, and because of the ability to be able to spread information across a huge amount of distance in a very small time the world is starting to look towards impoverished states and realizing how big of an issue this is. Social media is definitely the means for unification. No matter what the cause, it seems that people are posting about it on facebook and discussing it. That was very much the issue for the KONY 2012 movement, where tons of people posted, donated and went out and “painted the night” with awareness. Poverty effects people even close to our homes in Vancouver, and I think that people start to realize more and more that it’s an issue. There is big donation organizations going around such as trick or eat, which is the Halloween event where people raised canned goods and food for the homeless down at East Hastings. I think the next big global crisis coming up will be the radiation effects from Fukashima, and how that effects the west coast and their ability to produce healthy food. With that in mind, I think that a lot more attention will be paid to food and the importance of distribution to those who need it. While this is optimistic of course, I truly believe that the next domestic and international concern will be to attempt to draw back on the repercussions of capitalism and try to distribute food so that those in poverty who are in need of the essentials will be able to break out of the vicious cycle.
-
nkular93
The harsh and dangerous working living conditions united social classes to come together to protest against the state in order to get shorter work days, better wages and better working and living conditions. The working conditions compelled people of various social classes to come together and protest. It did not matter who they were in terms of race or what their profession was. I think one thing that would unify Canadians to come together and create change is for poverty. The rate of poverty is increasing all over Canada due to high costs of living and I think that it would be one thing that most Canadians would stand up for. People experience rising costs every day, whether it be tax raises, rising costs of food, oil, homes, cars, etc. and it becomes a burden on those who don’t make the kind of income that would sustain these costs. For many people that come to Canada as immigrants, living in the face of such high costs of living becomes difficult. You also start to realize that many other issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as increased rates of crime, also can become a product of poverty. And it doesn’t matter who you are, whether you’re an immigrant or a born Canadian, high costs of living can affect anyone and everyone. It doesn’t discriminate. So I do believe that poverty has the ability to unite all Canadians regardless of social class, as did poor working conditions in the 20th century. I believe that poverty can rouse Canadians to take a stand and fight for a decrease in economic disparities.
-
alexwickett
Addressing the question that was emailed to us, “What is the argument? How effective is the graphic format and why?”
The argument made in the graphic novel, “May Day” is how groups of politically, and economically unimportant people can change the way society is governed by banding together for a common cause. The graphic novel discusses the history of May Day, and how it not only is a day of spring awakening and rebirth of nature, but it is a day of celebrating the working people, and it is a chance to achieve something great. In Canada, May 1 was the day that the wages for the new year would be discussed and contracts would be signed and renewed. This day was used as a chance to demand higher wages, shorter working days, and compensation, among other things. People of all genders, races, and religions united for the common cause of benefiting the laborers, who really fuelled the Canadian economy. May Day is a representation of hope, starting anew, and the chance to have a better future. The graphic novel format is effective in portraying the author’s message. The bold images and unique formatting keep readers engaged with the text, which is sometimes hard to do with university textbooks. The novel was easy to read, and there was no useless information; everything was directly to the point. Further, the images contributed to the message as a whole because more senses are used, which always helps information be retained. To read that the workers were unhappy and have that sentence accompanied by a big picture of unhappy workers, engraves the message in your mind not only through words, but with an image. Though the graphic novel would not be a useful mean to get some information across, it was effective in this particular case.
-
millyzhu
The argument is to continue to recognize and celebrate May Day as a commemoration of workers’ struggle to improve working conditions, as well as to continue to inspire and empower the future to collectively take actions for their rights. The graphic novel explains the history of May Day and the events that occurred throughout history on May 1st. It reveals the importance of May Day, both as “a symbolic reminder of labour’s potential and the need to struggle” (p. 17), as well as how it is still relevant today. The novel not only shows the roots of May Day, but how much it has branched out from our nation’s cities to the whole world.
The graphic format of explaining May Day, its origins, history, and purposes gives a general understanding, but it is through the drawings that are able to show the context of the time. Instead of writing long paragraphs to describe one idea or to show certain circumstances, it was done very well simply through illustration. For example, to show the change of time, different trees in different seasons were drawn next to each other (p. 8). Also, instead of writing extra details in the text, such as what cities participated in the 9 Hour Movement to legalize unions, it was listed within the drawings. By doing so, it also gave a sense of unity as the cities were intertwined with each other and the crowd (p. 9). Expressions on the faces of the people also gave a sense of the emotions at that time. Although it is a graphic novel, the history of May Day was still depicted informatively and contributed to my understanding of the origins of the historic day. Despite it being a history graphic novel however, I found that it felt more personal because of the hand drawn pictures and writings, which gave it a “close to home” feeling. -
mosachoff
Canadians and people around the world fought against injustices in the workplace in the early 20th century, a history that is described in the graphic novel “May Day: A Graphic History of Protest”. The work seeks to outline the history of protest as it applies to the plight of the working class and encourage readers to not forget the hardships faced by workers in past generations. Furthermore, the novel hopes to inspire readers to stand up to all kinds of injustices, reminding us that “we have to be active in the streets as well as at the ballot,” (p.28) using the power individuals have in a democracy to prevent further wrongdoings. The novel’s graphic format is effective, combining powerful images with textual explanations of the history portrayed in the pictures. This makes the novel more accessible not only to younger readers who benefit from the graphic-textual combination, but also foreign workers who may not speak English very well and are also many times members of the working class. This is especially important because these people should know their rights as workers so as not to be taken advantage of because of language, nationality, or race.
Class united based on hardships and injustices workers faced in the workplace. Initially, protests were localized to individual factories or companies. However later, between 1918 and 1920, general strikes were used on larger scales such as citywide or industry-wide protests. Class united the population as the majority of the population faced problems and hardships in the workplace. In terms of the limitations of social class as an identity around which to unite, many of the workers who are protesting were largely uneducated and perhaps not suited or without knowledge of how to amend laws and fight the system on a legal level. This requires people with skilled knowledge to undertake the cause and represent the large number of people who are facing hardships. Generally though, using a united social class to protest was and still can be effective because of numbers. The more people willing to protest and take a stand, the more power the group has.
-
cprimus
My interpretation of this book’s argument is that we need to fight for our rights for better conditions, and that when enough people join in, the government will be forced to make changes. The onus lies on us, the people, and if nothing changes, nothing changes. Manpower – the defining characteristic of the working class – can influence the government in ways that the ballot box can’t. The government isn’t going to make exceptions or spend money on the people unless they’re at our mercy. This book honours the working class struggle and the working class victory. We absolutely should celebrate this and continue to fight for better conditions.
I like graphic novels a lot – I’m the type of person who can only learn visually, and I learn more from pictures than from text. I think that the graphic format is a great method to convey the story of the power of the people. Faces lining the street – in history and here in illustration – made them literally visible to the government in a way that their Members of Parliament can’t.
If this story is meant to appeal to the working class to continue the legacy of protest, what better way to reach the average working class man or woman than through a comic book? How many working class people search for scholarly articles to be informed and inspired? The accessible format is a smart choice. I’m a student and I still don’t like scholarly articles! I thought that this was a cool book and I’m going to keep this book, and I’m going to keep talking about it with my friends.
-
kenthen
With the industrial boom and urbanization came a need for a different kind of society one that strayed away from the rural system within 25 miles of ones home was no longer a true call anymore. In the late 19th and early 20th century we see the steel age that brings forth trains, faster ships and eventually automobiles making our world much smaller. With the steel age we see technological advances that bring forth systematic management and ford’s manufacturing line making the desire for unskilled or deskilling workers the most desired worker due to cheaper wages and that ability to train such a worker as more of a machine than as a human. For captains of industry during this time it brought forth the most productivity for the least amount of expenditure and somewhere along the line someone would be made to suffer the consequences of this new age. The worker.
With the need for less skilled laborer’s industries didn’t need to pay as much and could dictate who worked where and for how long with the only real benefit to the working class being that they might get to keep their job. But as in the stories of long suffering and trials of man we can always see a change or a revolution come about in where the meek and mild overcome the difficulties of the strong and few. This instills the righteousness of the many as is the case of mayday. Mayday tells a graphic story of how the working class have fought and lost and sometimes won over the captains of industry in not only gaining rights but respect as well. That although the power of the few may seem impenetrable at times persistence and holding fast to the reins of righteousness also work too, it just takes longer to see and notice the results.
So this leads to the question: what Identity today would unify Canadians for a change?? I think it would be the same identity that most humans hold dear and true and that’s the desire to live in a good and kind way as honestly and openly as possible. Its when those in power hide some form of truth or resort to tactics that make us a society feel squeamish and powerlessness. It would be the same identity that made the mayday pioneers embark on a 100 plus year journey to make life just a little better for the masses than have a few swim in their own success. Its the same identity that draws us together as a nation, as Canadians to celebrate small victories together in say the Olympics. I think for the most part most humans want to be identified as good, moral, compassionate humans who will try to do the right thing at the right time and this is what will unify us in the end.
-
-
tamyers
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?
-
kenthen
During this time Canada had just finished fighting in the “war to end all wars” or the first world war, the RCMP’s future was not completely secure as the police force of Canada, William King had written a paper calling for a need to suppress opium traffic in Canada in 1908 after the Chinatown riots of 1907. These factors would lead to a “war on drugs”, which in reality was propaganda that would attempt to create large-scale fear and panic, as well as create an enemy, which would be the Asian population.
Coming out of the 1st world war Canada had developed a need for moral rectitude and social purity and the drug use of the Asians was a good place to purify Canada. So utilizing the Opium Act of 1908 that was amended in 1911 to include smoking of opium. The RCMP coming out of the 1st World War were unsure of their status as those to “serve and protect” the communities they once did, they now needed a reason to basically keep their jobs. What better way to prove your importance by finding and making a war that may or may have not been really essential. Thus began the War on drugs and the polarization of the Asian populations of Canada.
Essential to having a war is having two sides to fight against one another and a cause. The government, middle class society, reformers, the RCMP and the media took up arms against the evil and vile Asians. The main cause was to protect society but more in part to protect women and young girls from the evils of Opium and the colored folk who had access to this lifestyle of immoral pleasures. The media would serve as the propaganda machine with such writers as Jack Canuck, and Janey Canuck who would slander the Asian population and create a sense of fear into the public or even better into middle class Canada. The Asians were on par with communists and singled out in this war to preserve the Moral compass of this great country, and the Yellow Peril could not win against the tall white middle class Anglo –Saxon RCMP. The government at the time gave the RCMP special powers to search without a warrant then eventually gave the ONDA the ability to enter premises without warrant.
Canada had virtually had started a war along with the RCMP on drugs and since the war needed a face they gave one to the public in the form of any Asian that was out there. They misinformed the public; they built a sense of security into the nation built upon propaganda and they polarized an entire populace based upon the color of their skin and how they looked. This war only seemed to wage on in the press and a few confined areas of the major cities. Looking at this though one wonders was the real crime done by the few who did drugs or sold them or imported them? Or was it those who were already in power who deemed it okay to regard racism rants and attack an entire peoples based upon one groups desire to keep their employment? The RCMP justified their existence, the Canucks got to spout off racist slurs and middle class could sleep better knowing that history would show that Canada had fought a hard war on drugs and sort of won, but not really. Enter the depression.
-
enorthwood
Hewitt argues that the RCMP’s purpose was in question around 1921 after the first World War, and that it was discussed that the RCMP police force would be shut down, as there was next to no need for them anymore. There are a few things responsible for this, Hewitt argues. He says that the police forces in provinces were becoming more and more recognized as the authority within their own borders, and that regional police forces were being developed so there was very little left for the RCMP to do. That and the Liberals had just won their place in government, and the Liberals and their supporters were large advocates for provincial sovereignty, so there was no need for the RCMP at the time. The Mounted Police would need to convince Canada for the legitimate basis for their presence and their need for funding in order to stop themselves from being taken off the list. This legitimate need to have the RCMP showed itself in the case of the substance Opium.
Opium, commonly known as coming from China, is a drug that is often smoked by Chinese workers and Immigrants. This becomes the first problem with nation and identity, as this drug, seen as bad for you, was brought in through the Chinese which made Chinese-Canadians become relatively despised within Canada. Hewitt mentions that before these events, alcohol was seen as a scourge that needed to be illuminated, however, following the Anti-Asian riots of 1907 that changed the mindset very much and presented the RCMP with a new purpose: get a control on the Opium usage. The Anti-Asian Riots of 1907 made apparent that the Anglo-Canadians living in British Columbia were very unhappy with Chinese presence. After a year where about eleven thousand Chinese immigrants came into Canada, with rumors of another boatload of immigrants coming, over ten thousand Anglo-Canadians gathered and stormed the City Hall with signs splattering propaganda about the Yellow Peril, or the dangerous ‘yellow’ people who were then blamed for various diseases within Canada, and blamed for any recent faults. These riots destroyed tons of Chinese property, and even went as far as to destroy factories of people who were hiring Chinese workers.
Following these riots, large racist campaigns were held and the reaction within the government was very immediate. The Government did not try to stop racism, nor did it even try to do anything about it, instead the “head tax” or the fee to immigrate into Canada remained at a costly $500 a year, which was the equivalent to a years work of pay in some cases, and very few people were able to immigrate. Following these events, Dominion Day, July the 1st in 1923 actually suspended all of Chinese immigration indefinitely, with no idea when the immigration would be “allowed” to return. Being a Chinese person in the 1900’s influenced the way you were treated, and your nation and where you were from began to become the way that you were identified.
This event reminds me a lot of Fred Wah, who wrote a book called “The Diamond Grill” about his family who grew up in Vancouver, and were Chinese immigrants. He discussed that his father was a highly respected Chinese business man only because of the fact that he could speak English fluently, with very rare grammatical errors. He also discussed that when he was in school, he was asked to fill out a form saying where he was from. He wrote down Canadian, being that he was from Canada, and his teacher told him that he would put Chinese, because that’s where he comes from (despite living here his whole life) and he shouldn’t try to lie about his identity. I think when it comes to law enforcement, that being Chinese meant that you were strictly on the outside, and this made the RCMP look like a set of heroes that were able to come in and save the world from the Yellow Peril! They could SAVE Canada, and make it a place of British, White Canadians as it should be, and this was often synonymous with the appearance of the Mounties themselves.
It is because Chinese are associated with Opium, a restricted drug substance, that Opium indefinitely becomes a restricted substance punishable by law. Hewitt mentions that before this time, many kinds of drugs were freely and readily available, which convinces me that begin Chinese involvement with drugs (after King had interview Chinese-Community leaders specifically) that just because of racial backgrounds and nationality, the drug became ultimately bad as it was being used by the wrong ‘type’ of people. Drugs become something that only degenerates and criminals would do, or people who are not able to be Canadian, or cannot be assimilated (as Chinese were seen not to be), and you didn’t want to associate yourself with that, so it became early in the turn of the century to associate drugs with all of these things, and to legitimize a large national police force to regulate the use of drugs on a national or even international trading level.
-
millyzhu
The characteristics of Canadians as portrayed by the government and RCMP itself leading up to the early 20th century were Anglo-Celtic males who were strong and sturdy. They were also polished, honest, kind, and had good morals which could not be tainted. This ideal Canadian characteristic was epitomized by the government, which then morphed into Canada’s national identity. As a result of the self-righteousness and the social class they created for themselves, Canadians, specifically white males, found it to be their duty to weed out those who went against this moral character they had built in order to keep up their national identity. Hence, with the growing concern for drug usage and distribution, the RCMP took it upon them to crack down on the drug users and distributors, which they stereotypically depicted to be Chinese and “degraded whites”. (92) The RCMP were struggling to make a place for themselves in Canada’s national security sectors and had to prove to not only the governments, but also the citizens, that they were important and held the views of all Canadians when they started their operation and goal of ending the drug trade. The image that the RCMP wanted to be portrayed as was a “protector of [the] innocent and helpless.” (90) This “patriarchal role” and their associated characteristics emerged during their fight over the “moral battle” (86) and enforcement of the Opium and Narcotics Drug Act (ONDA), as well as other drug related offences, and was carried over to become Canada’s national identity as a result.
Quotes from Hewitt’s article
-
nkular93
Attitudes towards drug usage during the early 20th century were extremely negative and highly associated with it’s passage into Canada through immigrants, specifically Chinese immigrants. There was a huge problem with opium during the early 20th century which was thought to have been brought as a menace upon society by the Chinese. If your identity was associated with being an immigrant or basically a man of color, you were looked upon with suspicion. In the case of the drug usage, Chinese immigrants were extremely despised and thought of as incapable of being assimilated. Opium was seen to be a symbol representing the assault on the “purity” of the white race. Emily Murphy went as far as saying that men and women who indulged in drug usage were prone to seek the company of those with “lower status” (the immigrants, Chinese particularly) than with those of their own social standing. As there was extreme discontent with Chinese immigrants and immigrants of various other races, specific laws were put into place to curb their passing into Canada. The Chinese Head Tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act were implemented during this era in order to prevent Chinese immigrants from immigrating to Canada and thereby bringing narcotics with them and corrupting a stable society of Anglo-Canadian citizens.
The idea of protecting the Canadian nation, a nation that was comprised of Anglo-Celtic citizens who constituted a stable society, was a highly motivational factor as well. The fear of the corruption of the white women by Chinese immigrants contributed to the development of patriarchal protective sentiments towards the women and children. It was important to preserve the morals and values of the nation and to not let it be corrupted by “foreigners”. Therefore, this idea of having a nation built by and for a specific a set of people also played a part in the enforcement of specific laws, like the laws I’ve mentioned above, that worked to mainly exclude people of color from society and to crack down on these people of color only in order to put drug selling and usage to an end.
-
cprimus
In keeping with the theme of our course for the past few weeks – myth and identity – the story of the RCMP’s strategy for survival reveals the underlying Canadian identity crisis, and how the RCMP shaped an identity that the government, reinforced by the citizens, wanted to create.
According to Hewitt, the RCMP used the war on drugs in the early 1920s to justify their existence and make their institution an important, if not integral, part of Canadian law enforcement. It’s hard for me to imagine the Mounties not being a part of Canadian law enforcement in the present day. The Chinese were the perfect target as the Yellow Peril swept through the United States and an international anti-drug movement started. The RCMP seized the opportunity to sensationalize the threat of the Chinese and their Opium trade by catering to the white Canada’s racist inferiority complex. Yellow could not equal White. Drugs use would stain our pristine, white society.
The imagery of this scene, to me, is delightful. The crooked, yellow Chinaman has an innocent, helpless young white girl trapped in his opium dungeon. Whiteness, innocence, purity – especially of our women – was at stake. Who better to save her than a tall, white, ultra-masculine man on horseback? The RCMP painted themselves as real-life Knights in Shining (Scarlet) Armor, and the government was too happy reinforce this portrait. Canada had a seat in King Arthur’s Court. Additionally, it wasn’t just their physical nature that was ideal, it was the principles they embodied, like humility, nobility, sacrifice, duty and sympathy.
Who better to represent Canada on the world stage than this ideal? The Mounties became the most identifiable Canadian icon in the world and cemented Canada as the Great White North.
-
mosachoff
Nation and identity factored heavily on the attitudes Canadians had towards drugs, their usage, and enforcement against them during the early 20th century. While drugs were the target of laws and agencies like the RCMP and the ONDA, drug users were seen as a pernicious force destined to debase a Canadian society considered by many to be respectable. In hopes of preserving the integrity of a pure, Christian, and white Canada, the enforcement of drug laws became an issue beyond ridding the country of vice but also one intertwined with Canadian Identity. In the early years of drug enforcement, the group most associated with drug use and supply was the Chinese population of Canada. Xenophobia lingering from the Yellow Peril and Pacific Coast Race Riots of 1907 in Vancouver influenced the creation and enforcement of drug laws. Convicted drug users of the early 20th century were composed of mainly Chinese (Hewitt, 89). The drug most often used at the time was opium. Chinese migrants had brought the habit with them when they came to Canada, and for many it was not debilitating substance rendering its user incapable of functioning in society but a leisurely pastime. Nevertheless, all users were offenders under the law and many faced deportation as a result. In this way, the drug laws and the often racial-biased enforcement of them represent ideas many white Canadians had about the identity of Canada. The RCMP was tasked with enforcing these laws and at the time 78% of officers listed their birthplace as in the United Kingdom. Laws written by white men in government were then enforced by white men who sought to purge their country not just of what they saw as a vile substance but also a group of users who consisted of mainly Chinese.
-
alexwickett
Upon the conclusion of the First World War and in the early years directly following it, the RCMP was not regarded as the mighty Canadian symbol of nationalism that it is today. They needed to make themselves seen as invaluable to Canadian society, and they used a tactic that has been commonly used throughout history; create unity by finding a common enemy to fight. As the Yellow Peril and threats of communism were sweeping throughout the United States, the RCMP began its ‘War on Drugs” which united the moral, white, and masculine Canadians against the foreign Asians who were seen as inferior. Narcotics, and those who were involved in their trade and consumption were seen as pernicious threats to Canadian society who must be removed. Hewitt refers to the common view that, “Chinese, arguably, topped the list of the most despised group in Canada.” Especially after the Anti Asian riots, it was made crystal clear that the Anglo-Celtic Canadians were not at all happy with the growing presence of Oriental people in British Columbia. The war on drugs not only allowed the RCMP to purge Canada of undesirable substances, but under legislation supported by the government, provided a reason to deport many Chinese people back to their homeland. The RCMP employed undercover officers to keep certain suspicious people under surveillance, and offered rewards to those who provided any information about illicit narcotics. Ironically, some Canadians did not approve of these practices because they paralleled Communist surveillance techniques. Regardless, up to 2% of the Chinese population was deported back to Asia, and the largest demographic of people in the prisons were Asian. The Mounties wanted to be seen as the noble Canadian who saved the white Canadian population from the mischievous and evil oriental men who took part in the illicit drug trade.
-
doraleung
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
Week 1 T2 Wall
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?
-
cprimus
It’s hard having to justify our national identity by comparing ourselves to Americans, and to a lesser extent, the British, but we do. We have to. We share borders and a continent and the majority of both countries speak English as a first language and are of European descent. So where does that put us? I think that these ads were made by Canadians, for Canadians, although the world sees everything via YouTube. I think that reinforcing our stereotypes in a charming and comical manner sustains the status quo of Canadian Identity. Indeed, when I myself think of my Home and Native Land, I do think of the RCMP, the beaver, manners, Anglais et Français, and the general Canadian Snobbery. “I Am Canadian” still gives me shivers and makes me feel terribly proud, but really demonstrates that “we’re not America”. If the message board is taken into consideration, snobbery becomes straightforward hate, in fact, from users who are presumably Canadian to users who are presumably American. I also think of the Indigenous people who are often excluded from the status quo – these representations of Canada being an excellent example. “Canadian, please” lists other countries and their associations – the queen, safaris, the Great Wall of China – but the singers don’t identify any specific thing that we’re known for. Beavers? The Maple Leaf? I do very much appreciate the emphasis on Canada’s natural wonders and the bilingual verse, but I can’t help but feel that the video is dated because they apologize for Celine Dion instead of PR-nightmare dumbass punk Justin Bieber. In any case, although it exposes the insecurity of the Canadian identity, these videos still reinforce my love for my country.
-
enorthwood
I think both of these shorts actually intend to correct common misconceptions of Canadian identity. I spend a lot of time traveling to the States, and I have many friends in the States that constantly joke around about what it means to be stereotypically Canadian, which I think the Molson Ad addresses really well. What’s really interesting about both of these ads is they both really try to justify the perks or differences of being Canadian over being what our American or British spectators have to say about the cultural differences that are distinct to Canada. I think a lot of what Canadian identity means now is to constantly have to correct misconceptions of what being Canadian inherently means. It’s a constant waging war with how we begin to define “Canadian” and I think the thing the videos don’t touch upon is how hard it is to define a place that is ideally created through many different multicultural respects and connections. Canadian doesn’t mean something distinctive to me, or to those whom I know as it means that we are more of a patchwork quilt, sowing and mending between each other despite our obvious differences and making it work. Being from Ontario, and coming from there to British Columbia and UBC, all of my friends are from further places, some from Abu Dhabi, some from Brazil, and they always say how open minded and welcoming coming to Canada feels. I think that’s definitely something that the song picks up on, saying how people “wish they could be Canadian” and have the perks of being Canadian. However, none the less I feel like this is also a struggle. It is very much difficult to fine tune a definition of what being Canadian is versus the patriotic stronghold definition of being an “American!”. I think that’s being sold here is that Canadian pride, pride about who we are and what our country stands for, however, to answer the question of who is buying, I think other Canadian’s are buying it for sure. Of course, everyone wants to hear something good about their own country, and feel prideful and connected by a common identification that brings smaller people into a bigger picture. That being said, I feel like it’s hard for anyone else to really buy it. I would be more than surprised if I traveled down to the States one day and heard “Oh Canada is such a multicultural, diverse wonder!”, I think that we’re selling our identity to a market that’s already made up their mind about whom we are.
-
nkular93
Both of these shorts talk about many symbols and take pride in the meanings behind the symbols and their association with being Canadian. I also noticed that in both shorts, there were a lot of comparisons being made with the symbols of other nations such as comparisons with symbols representing the United States, China, Australia, etc. So in a way the shorts are expressing Canadian identity by exclaiming how they are not any of these nations as they can’t associate with the symbol of great money or the Great Wall or koalas. However, they portray different symbols that Canadians can identify with as a whole and in a way unify the people of the nation. For example, in the Molson Canadian short, Canada is associated with being the first nation of hockey, which is an important symbol the all Canadians can identify with and be united under. Canada takes pride in the sport and many Canadians watch it religiously. This symbol, therefore, unites the nation under a common interest that the citizens of the nation share. In the second short, a lot of pride is taken in the availability of rich resources such as timber and pure water, which are also representative symbols, which can be found in Canada. Therefore, in this short, 21st century Canadian identity is expressed through what the country has to offer or what it has compared to other nations in the world. Stereotypes associated with being Canadian are also mentioned and negated, such as the stereotype that Canadians live in igloos or that they own dogsleds or are fur traders, and a lot of pride is taken in the many characteristics that distinguish Canadians from the rest of the world, such as the distinct pronunciation of specific letters and words (Zed and about) and the fact that Canada has a Prime Minister and is a multicultural nation. In a way, the shorts are expressing how Canada is much more than just their history and they provide specific symbols that all Canadians can relate to today and unite under.
-
kenthen
“I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” both tell us of the Canadian identity by showing what we are proud of and negating what we feel are stereotypes and misconceptions. Thus we go on the offensive and defensive all the while remaining as pleasant and polite as possible and we do this mainly through humor, hence the silly ass song and funny commercials because this is how we do it. We don’t attempt to be aggressive and even skimp on the assertive and we make fun of ourselves long before anyone else has the chance to beat us to it, we rid the others of the ammunition and diffuse any possible confrontation unless were playing hockey than we will kick some ass and seek out bloody knuckles otherwise we pride ourselves on our humor and politeness. Canadian identity according to these commercials is one of politeness, humor and symbolism. Now whats being sold and who’s buying? We as Canadians pride ourselves on our ability to remain friendly and hospitable in any situation and one can look at these two shorts and realize that this is what is being sold. We use tools such as humor and our aforementioned politeness to push this through. Another factor that these two shorts are trying to sell is that we as a nation are not stereotypes, we are not in igloo’s, we don’t know everybody etc. and we again use the same tools again. The best thing about these shorts and watching others watch them you can see and feel a strong sense of pride in being Canadian. There is nothing wrong with the beaver, hockey, or even being polite and these are exactly what these shorts are saying, we are Canadian. So we buy our own sense of nationalism and we politely push it upon others utilizing humor, and for the most part everyone around the world likes a good Canadian.
-
kenthen
recently my favourite commercial is the timmies one with Sydney Crosby.
-
-
millyzhu
“I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” portrayed the Canadian identity through the similar approaches they both took: comparisons to other countries and playing on the stereotypes of Canada and Canadians. When I think about what identifies Canadians as Canadians, I do think of what were said in the videos: hockey, health care, excessive mannerisms, beavers, maple syrup, and multiculturalism. But, what I fail to conjure is our nationality – our identity as a nation and of how we are one and united group of people. Unless it was put bluntly in front of me and stated as straightforward as these videos, I would not think that we are a united nation. However, these videos point that out and what’s being sold to is our inherent need to feel prideful about ourselves without being overly boastful. It is also playing on the stereotypes and using it to their advantage to sell their message about how great Canada is. Instead of rejecting the stereotypes, they correct them (ie. igloos) and enhance them through the use of mainly comparisons to elevate the Canadian identity and nation as a whole (ie. gun control, health care). These videos are for all audiences and I think most people buy it up as they watch it because the contents are all true. Through their unique methods (ie. song/rap, speech/presentation, music) and choice of wording, the Canadian identity is successfully sold to many people as many can relate, understand, and may have experiences and knowledge prior to watching the videos that only reaffirms their knowledge and/or gives them a sense of pride and unifies them into one nation based on the common similarities that are shared.
-
doraleung
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.
-
alexwickett
“I am Canadian” and “Canadian, Please” are comical yet inspirational short videos that would fuel any Canadian with some much needed national pride. Both discuss the typically Canadian appreciation for the mighty beaver, the RCMP, free health care and of course, hockey. I think it is interesting to note, that often we as Canadians define ourselves as what we are not, as opposed to what we are. Much time is spent; especially in the “I am Canadian” add showing the differences between Canada and the United States, and in the “Canadian, Please” video the differences between Canada and many other countries are highlighted. Also, often Canadian identity is shaped by pointing out the flaws in other countries as seen from the Canadian perspective. For example, the fact that gun control laws in the United States is rather relaxed is often pointed out, as well as other countries lack of free and available health care. Many Canadian stereotypes are brought out in these two clips, many are quite accurate, but many are also corrected. I do believe that though the stereotypes such as Canadians live in igloos and ride polar bears are absurd, many Canadians actually find it humorous and enjoy correcting those people that may be so ignorant to believe that. The image of Canada being a beautiful country because of its natural resources as well as home to some of the world’s friendliest and apologetic people is being sold in these videos, and many Canadians would be proud to say that these things are true. We cherish the fact that we pronounce some words differently and that we are seen as a peace-keeping nation as opposed to an attacking state. Canadian stereotypes and images help us put into concrete words what it means to be Canadian and all people from one generation to the next can identity with the common ideas of what a Canadian is.
-
angieL
“ I’m Canadian” and “ Canadian, Please” are both videos that attempt to distinguish Canada’s national identity through comparison to the United States and other English and French speaking countries. They both attempt to correct (in my opinion, not doing a very good job at it) Canadian stereotypes that were produced and perpetuated in many American TV shows and media in general. However, it is ironic how they were both sending out a very narrow idea about what it means to be a Canadian. For one, I was completely baffled as to why I will need to have a canoe to be a Canadian. And secondly, in both of these films, they’ve mentioned diversity, but were given no examples or representations to this aspect of Canadian identity. They both stressed the importance of being culturally diverse and how multiculturalism is a central theme to Canada’s national identity; however, “Jimmy, Sally or Suzy” are all names of European decent. As for our universal health care system, it is great in comparison to the US where much struggles and challenges are still present, but there are many other countries where the service has long been provided to their citizens, so, yeah, you CAN find another country where you don’t have to pay fees when you go to a hospital. All in all, I have to say I do not enjoy these videos. I do not feel like they embody the Canadian identity and virtues I value, and they are directed at a specific audience that share similar lines of cultural heritage, but they neglect to acknowledge that Canada is composed of more than just a couple of immigrant groups and that there are a lot more about our beautiful country than just hockey and mounted police.
-
mosachoff
In the Molson beer ad and “Canadian, Please” YouTube video, the creators hope to encourage pride for the Canadian identity and explain what there is to be proud about. In the Molson Canadian beer ad “I am Canadian”, the writers list and correct stereotypes of Canadians before showing concepts that they think are integral to defining Canadian identity. Beyond the script, the creators of the ad also created the character of Joe Canada – a regular Canadian who is far from the silly stereotypes that people sometimes think Canadians are. In the case of this ad, beer is being sold. It is definitely being sold to Canadians, but because it hopes to correct misconceptions about Canada and Canadians, it seems to have been developed in hopes of being shown to non-Canadian audiences as well. The “Canada, Please” YouTube video also encourages Canadian Pride. In its case though, the creators are not correcting stereotypes so much as listing facts about what we have to be proud of Canada. In some regard, the creators actually reinforce some Canadian stereotypes by wearing Mountie uniforms and showing Canada’s love for poutine with the amount of cheese used to make the video. In “Canada, Please” nothing is being sold. The video advertises and encourages pride in the Canadian identity, presumably directed towards Canadians. Both shorts tell us that Canadian identity in the 21st century is something Canadians are proud of and are happy to share. There is no longer any reason to feel shame in being proud to be Canadian.
-
-
admin
I’m going to write some general comments here about your posts, all of which were good. The only problem that I can see – and something to keep in mind more for the coming weeks and the blog entries you will write there – is that some of you didn’t address the second part of the question about what the story of Canadian history is. Or if you did, it tended to be more implicitly stated than directly. Go for the direct approach. I’ll give an example shortly.
Most of you said that Canada was a multicultural and diverse country; in addition the diverse First Nations, it’s home to people who have come here from around the world. Many of you emphasize that this makes Canada unique, especially since relations among people are peaceful. Yet at the same time, others of you pointed out that if Canadian history is about how this place became multicultural, it’s also the story of how that process wasn’t without its tensions. There was conflict (some of you refer to a “dark side”); there were winners and losers. A number of you pointed out that the gains of settler society were often achieved at the cost of First Nations, yet as the two First Nations students pointed out, many indigenous cultures and communities are thriving now despite colonization. They also make the point that how history looks – what kind of story it is – is shaped by who is doing the telling…. One of you talked about Canada as “opportunity”. That’s certainly the case, but would everyone have experienced it as that? My point is that we need to be careful in our generalizations, whether about the past or present!
So…what does this all add up to? A very complex history! The history of Canada is in many ways the history of relations among different groups – social relations, but as one of you pointed out, trade, or economic relations It’s about how differences were accommodated – or ignored and denied. We’ll see in the coming weeks how much of your first impressions change.
A couple of things to think about: some of you make mention of size as something that defines Canada. How might size have influenced its history? Others seem to note that what they know of Canadian history amounts to some events or personalities, but at the same time there’s also a recognition that that isn’t a story, much less a history. If you know what history ISN’T, can you say what kind of story it is? Wouldn’t it be a story of change over time?
And does hockey really define Canada????? Or is the question really about how it has come to pass that we think hockey defines the Canadian identity?
Good job everyone!
-
admin
Week 1 Wall
Vancouver 2010 Olympic Street Party
What is Canada?
To give us all an idea of our preconceptions coming into the course, write your blog entry on what you think Canada is and what the storyline(s) of Canadian history are; i.e. “Canada is ….” And “Canadian history is about ….” – you fill in the blanks!
-
jbachynski
I was born in Canada and have lived here my whole life. During my travels throughout the country, I have learned that it is not only vast in open space and size, but in cultures as well. Being a country that developed through the immigration of many different nationalities, our identity as a nation is harder to pin point. There is not necessarily a “Canadian way” of doing certain things, and I feel that customs and traditions are constantly evolving. It seems very common as a Canadian to have grandparents or parents that have come from somewhere else, for example, my grandparents are from Poland. When traveling to other older countries, it becomes very clear how young and adaptable Canada truly is. I feel that Canadian history is not something that is as widely talked about. Perhaps it is because we are a younger country, or maybe it is because of our peaceful reputation and lack of dominance in world history. Besides having some basic knowledge of famous Canadians like Louis Riel, Laura Secord and Terry Fox, I know less than I feel I should about my country. I love how Canadians have preserved so many amazing lakes and national parks, and really seem to appreciate the nature that surrounds us. I am interested to learn more about how Canada came into existence and developed into one of the most beautiful countries there is.
-
enorthwood
My family, including myself, mother, father, sister and brother have lived in Canada our whole lives. However, my grandfather, who comes from Wales and my grandmother who comes from France were always telling me stories when I was younger about the great history of Europe, how they moved to Canada, what the differences in their life was from here to there, contrasting a number of ideas into my head about the differences between different parts of the world and Canada. I feel like Canada is overlooked too often, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve listened in on conversations when I’ve visited the states about Canada being irrelevant, or heard jokes about the way that Canadians do things. It seems there is a lot ignorance surrounding the actuality of the Canadian nation. I believe this to be a highly troublesome thought, considering that as a nation, and as a country, we certainly have a lot of history to offer. We’ve struggled like any other country, with political parties like Chateau Clique in the lower parts of Canada or Family Compact in the higher parts at the beginning of our history, all the way through our governmental policies to block the excess of Asian or Indian immigrants, such as head taxes, all the way to where we stand today, and it has been a long, relentless fight to equality. That being said, in Toronto, Ontario, where I went to high school, we were required to take history until grade 10 of high school, and most of it wasn’t even Canadian history, it was European. I think Canada is a literal kaleidoscope of a variety of different cultures, people, languages, and traditions which to me makes it a role model in our international community. While I think Canadian history certainly has it’s down points and dark spots, and is highly influenced and certainly a large part of European history, Canada certainly has its own lessons and legends that have made a global difference, I wish this was more widely recognized. I think the most interesting thing about history is the idea that we keep making such similar mistakes, Canada is not innocent of this. I am intrigued to learn more about where I’ve lived my whole life, and to understand the points in time where Canada has fallen, but still overcome.
-
the1strange2part3of4town
Canada is my home but because as a country so vast and diverse beyond conception, I have come to see Canada more as political entity that I just so happen to live within. Coming from a political background, I believe in the state and its power being very real in this modern time. Canada is a state. How Canada became the state it is today is very much a question of its history. Canadian history is so diverse, the story lines are infinite. However, it is this diversity and complex history from coast to coast that has made Canada into a multicultural and multinational state. From a more personal perspective, Canada is a place of opportunity and its history is made up of all the story lines of its inhabitants taking advantage of its opportunities and contributing to Canada and its growth. Canadaian history, good and bad, is all equally important because the silverlining is that everything in history has contributed to what it is now and what it means to every individual, not just Canadians. Furthermore, Canadian history is a global history because of its multicultural, multinational nature.
I am Canadian because I was born in Canada and raised to be culturally Canadian. My Canadian history is inherently linked to my parents origins. My mother’s family history is a good example of this. Emigrating from Hong Kong at a young age, my mother was brought to Canada by her father who worked in Vancouver’s Chinatown; and previous to her father, my mother’s grandfather helped build the trans-Canadian railway. My mother’s family was eventually reunited and able to immigrate to Canada where they believed they would be given the opportunity to live better than they would in China. But as a land of opportunity, Canada is also constantly growing as a result of its inhabitants contributing to its growth directly or indirectly. My great-grandfather who helped build the trans-Canadian railway took advantage of opportunities in Canada, as well as contributed to its growth and prosperity through his contributions to the railway directly and the Canadian economy indirectly today. My grandfather on the other hand contributed to the growing Asian-Canadian culture by whole-heartedly “becoming” Canadian. Once he landed in Vancouver, he learnt English and would only eat Chinese food on special occasions. As a result, his entire family followed suit in assimilating to Canadian culture. Today, my mother sees herself as an unhyphenated Canadian while still understanding that where she came from and the journey she and her family took directly effects where she is today and has contributed the multicultural, multinational Canada we live in. Consequences of my family’s commitment to assimilating as Canadians, I see myself as purely Canadian. I follow Canadian customs, culture, speak only English and French, while being ethnically Chinese and Polish. What Canada is to me is a place of opportunity and growth where everyone adds something to Canada from their experiences and origins. It is thus this growth from people coming to Canada that has created the Canada we all live in and its history. Canadian history is a global history because almost everyone, except for the indigenous minority populations, came to Canada from other places for one reason or another and brought with them an infinite amount of experiences, ideas, and things contributing to Canada and its history.
-
cprimus
O, Canada!
Canada is a beautifully diverse country. Although we’re known for our manners and lumberjacks, Canadians have a lot more than just courtesy and plaid jackets hanging on our hooks. The injection of foreign cultures, customs, language and people into the stream of life is really what makes the country’s heart beat. We are mostly a country of immigrants, and as a cultural melting pot we’re still trying to assemble a national identity. Well, some of us are. French Canada seems to be pretty clear on its own culture and politics, and wants nothing to do with the rest of us. And Native Canadians have given us plenty to work with, much of which has been overlooked, disrespected or discarded on the side of the highway but through ecotourism and a shift in consciousness it’s becoming appreciated once again. We have a lot of land to populate but keep the density pretty low, and the scenery is stunning. Canada’s bounty of natural resources is indeed a gift to us, her humble inhabitants, as we enjoy a high standard of living. We Canadians are a diverse, dynamic group of people. Hockey-loving people.
Unfortunately I can’t say nearly as much on Canadian history. I graduated from high school too long ago to remember much else about our history besides Jacques Cartier mistakenly believing Kanata to be the name of, well, what is now Canada. Really, I’m here to re-learn Canadian history, because I love my home and native land.
-
Tina Loo
Who are you? I can’t give you credit for your blogs if your name doesn’t appear on the post – your alias doesn’t help me figure out who you are… Please edit your posts and insert your name.
-
-
nkular93
If I had to define Canada at the top of my head I would most likely say that Canada is the land of immigrants. There is so much multiculturalism present in this country. You see people of all origins and backgrounds everyday which is something that I am , in particular, very proud of. Canada is a nation where their is unity among people who do not have very much in common in terms of their backgrounds and cultures and yet are still held together by this one national identity: being a part of a nation that is inhabited by people from all over the world. Canada is spectacular scenery. Canada is tolerance for people of all origins. Canada is a history of various groups of people and their attempts and struggles to make it theirs. Canada is a mixture of a lot of identities. I feel like many people that live in this country are associated with more than one identity. One which is that of being a Canadian: being a part of a national identity that associates itself with various characteristics that are displayed by citizens of of this country on a daily basis such as the habituation to cold weather, winters, the passion for our national sport hockey, the stereotypes ( Canadians are too nice, they live in igloos, etc etc.) and one which connects them to their actual origin. I would say that although I was born in Canada and am a Canadian I am also associated with my Indian roots. Its a constant struggle trying to figure which identity you fit better or which you associate with the most and I believe that most Canadians experience this. This is one thing that many people have in common and that, I believe, is an important aspect of Canadian identity. Although their is not much I know about Canadian history, at least in a lot of detail, i believe it is the struggle between groups of people and their struggles to make Canada theirs as I mentioned before. It is the battle between the Europeans and those who have inhabited the land long before any of the Europeans showed. It is the struggle to bring inhabitants of the land under one national identity. It is the attempts of a country to be free from British identity. It is the process of gradual immigration of not only people from all across the world but also their ideas, customs, practices, innovations, and thoughts. It is the success of these immigrants and ideas, thoughts, and innovations that has led to Canada being identified as a land full of opportunities.
-
alexwickett
I feel extremely blessed to be able to call Canada, and more specifically Vancouver, my home. Growing up in Vancouver and having both parents grow up in Canada, I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of Canadian history, in comparison to people who didn’t necessarily have to learn about it as part of their curriculum. That being said, I travelled throughout Europe this summer and I learned so much about so many other countries and places just by going and visiting buildings, museums, and places that are so full of rich, well known history. This made me realize that my knowledge about my own country, even after studying it for years is rather minimal. I feel much of what I was taught in high school had to do with the fur trade, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and John A. Macdonald. I know there is to be more to this country’s history, and I am excited to be able to recite as much and more about my own country’s past as I can about a lot of foreign places.
Being away really showed me how lucky I am to live in Canada, and it made me realize that Canada, and specifically Vancouver, is really the only place I would be able to settle down in the future. I love the fact that my country doesn’t have a overly violent history, and I love the fact that we are a peace keeping nation as opposed to an aggressive, or suppressive nation. Of course there are dark periods of Canadian history such as the mistreatment of aboriginal peoples throughout the nation and the internment of the Japanese people during the Second World War. Though these and many other parts of Canadian history are not something to be proud of, Canadians can be proud of the fact that we have learned from our past, are not fated to make the same mistakes, and have tried to make amends wherever possible. Canada is a country with so much to offer, and in my opinion the more people know about the past, the more informed they will be to make great decisions in the future. -
millyzhu
Canada is a very diverse country. It is known for its multiculturalism and abundant amount of immigrants. I was seven years old when my family emigrated from China and there were quite a lot of cultural shock. The main ones were that the ratio of people to land was unbelievably unbalanced and that there were people with different hair colours, such as brown and blond. There were many services that catered to new immigrants and areas where immigrants gathered together to make new friends and connections. However, Canada, specifically Vancouver, has more immigrants annually than other provinces and territories. With such a diverse nation, it is difficult to unite all Canadians. There may be areas where all different types of Canadians mingle for a bit, but in the end, these different types of Canadians go back to their comfort zone to those that are similar to them. Looking back at the history of Canada, this is not the first time it has happened. With the takeover of the land by Britain and establishing Canada without the consent of those originally living on the land, Canada has had major relationship complications with indigenous people. Even today, after almost one hundred fifty years, there still remain disagreements between indigenous people and the Canadian government. Even so, Canada has proven itself that it is constantly improving and learning from past mistakes, continuing to become a better country to live in for all different types of people.
-
angrysteve
Canada is a place where common decency has a chance to flourish. Canada is a place where the best parts of market capitalism are kept in check by common sense and sensible rules. Canada is a place inhabited by a predominantly respectful and polite people, but respectful and polite doesn’t necessarily mean ‘friendly’ by definition. Canada is place that appears better to outsiders than it truly is, due to a lack of imperialized cultural export, unlike our neighbours to the south.
A country build on immigration that does not hold a great deal of animosity towards these immigrants, Canada is not a nation of one ideal or perspective. The “christian” way of life predominates in Canada, but this is coloured by the contributions of numerous expanding cultures. In this sense, Canada is truly multicultural, while leaning towards a secular sense of government and law.
Canada is a place where we work to live, not live to work. Many of us have jobs that are not the focus of our lives, but instead provide us the means to live our lives outside the grind of employment. The most beautiful landscapes on the planet are contained within Canada’s borders, and a vast majority of Canadians make some degree of use of these resources.
Canada is a cold freaking place, no matter where you go. Sure it may get to 35+ in Toronto summers, and the average temperature in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland may be the highest in the nation, but there are no true “Sunny Beaches of Canada”. The American’s can fly out to Hawaii or Florida if they want to stay within their cultural norms but escape the ravages of winter. Canadian’s are not so lucky. We make up for it with a continual good nature; we don’t complain and we’re good at taking things in stride.
I was born and raised in Canada and it has helped make me who I am. Canadians are great people, inhabiting a great country. That is Canada in all its glory. -
Angela Lin
What I’ve known of Canada on a personal level is limited to the province of British Columbia only; that is, I’ve never lived in another city besides Vancouver nor have I had the chance to visit another Canadian province. I have to admit I haven’t been particularly interested in Canadian geography or history (and here I am trying to change that!). Most of what I know about Canada consists of a collection of geographical facts and statistics that I’ve acquired through my education over the years. I know Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of landmass. It is located south of the United State, and the two countries shared the longest common border among the world. Canada has an abundant source of fresh water and lumber, and it is famous for it’s ice wine and maple syrup. There are many stereotypes and iconic symbols concerning Canadians and Canada as a nation. Those items often include hockey, maple leafs, RCMP, grizzly bears and excessive politeness in mannerism. As of Canadian history and culture, I know that Canada used to be a British and French colony, hence the two official languages. Canada is also well known for its cultural diversity. It is a country where most of its citizens are immigrants or have ancestral roots somewhere else in the world. This unique blend of multiculturalism has shaped our government policies, education system, and made us more accepting of and open to individual and cultural differences. Canada is a country where basic human rights are respected and protected by most, and where same sex marriage is legal. It will be interesting to learn more about how we come to be who we are today as a nation. I look forward to our next lecture.
-
-
admin
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?
-
enorthwood
Canada as multicultural nation is certainly seen as a new idea, however given this past weeks lectures on the involvement of the French in our fur trades and the several different Aboriginal groups, this is clearly inaccurate. Our recent lectures are a representation of the idea that multiculturalism in Canada dates back far beyond what many of us as Canadian citizens would ever dare to imagine, and speaking for myself I can say that this dates a lot further back than I was ever expecting to see traces of a multicultural Canada. From the very start of European colonization in Canada it is clear from the mix of French and the Native settlers, that there has always been a mixture of the types of cultures here in Canada, and different types of people throughout Canada have been evidently noticeable since the arrival of the French. I was also thinking that the vast amounts of Europeans who moved over from Europe to live in Canada also would certainly be a mixture of a variety of different settlers as well. On a personal level my grandmother moved here from Paris, and my grandfather from Wales, because of this I have come to the conclusion that multiculturalism was an idea that was more or less inevitable from the start. This also puts me under the impression that multiculturalism was prominent and promisingly put in Canada before it was recognized as a very culturally diverse nation. It’s interesting to draw attention to these facts, as previously I had never really thought about the idea of multiculturalism before several different cultures existed in Canada, but upon greater thought I’ve come to the conclusion that Canada had a diverse set of people from a much farther history back then I originally had expected.
That being said, I think that the idea of multiculturalism is also very debatable, I think a lot of the cultures that exist in Canada today, while they are certainly allowed to be openly practiced, are almost Canadian mixtures of the original culture and traditions mixed with Canadian traditions. If you’ve ever seen Between: Living in the Hyphen by Anne Marie Nakagawa, it examines 7 different Canadians who have one parent from European background and one from a visible minority, and after seeing this documentary I have to ask the question if Canada is truly multicultural, do we truly accept the cultures of others and understand them as they say we do? I feel the populace have a broad understanding of the tip of the iceberg of some of these cultures. However these “Canadians” are almost penalized for having other cultures, like Fred Wah, whose experience is that when he was in school, being a white-Chinese mix, he was told he couldn’t get a Visa because of his last name, however when he mentioned he was only a certain portion Chinese, he was allowed to get said Visa. This makes me question multiculturalism all together, so I think the idea of multiculturalism is newly mentioned more due to the fact that it’s only more recent that we’ve started to identify with other cultures and accepted them as being able to be a multicultural Canadian.
-
Tina Loo
Emilee, I liked your observations at the end and they’re certainly something to continue to ponder. Does diversity necessarily mean acceptance? Or what kind of diversity is acceptable, and does that level of acceptable diversity change over time, and why?
-
-
cprimus
It would be a bit ignorant to say that Canada was not a multicultural nation until recently – we’ve been a multicultural nation for a while now. The land now known as Canada has for thousands of years been shared by a number of different cultures. Native Canadians were spread all over the country, with different customs, beliefs, living habits and social structures. The climate and geographical environment impacted the different Nation’s tools and means of subsistence. Languages were as diverse as the people who spoke them. Each nation had its own culture, and some got on well with other cultures and some did not.
Although the Norse did touch down just over 1,000 years ago, they were outsiders who embarked only in trade with the natives and their time in Canada was temporary. It wasn’t until the French created a permanent settlement in the early 17th century that an internationally diverse culture was birthed, and very slowly at first because of the tiny French population. France was in Canada (“New France”) for their own economic benefit, one which forced them to create alliances with the Native groups whom they traded with, and soon came to rely upon. As more immigrants arrived, the presence of foreign religion increased as the Catholic Jesuit priests tried to convert the locals, with some success. The newcomers also brought foreign disease which wiped out half the population of Huronia, the most populous of France’s indigenous allies, and are then driven from their homes by the warring Iroquois. As the Hurons are displaced and mix with other Nations, the French commit to the land and mix with the Natives as they start growing their own food and attempt to establish trade further inland.
So although the idea of Canada being a multicultural nation might be new, the principle itself has, in fact, been in practice here for hundreds of years. -
millyzhu
Canada is a multicultural country. Before this week’s lecture, I thought that it was only recent that this statement was true. However, this was not the case. During the lectures, I learnt that way before immigrants from other parts of the world came and Europeans encountered the land, there was already an established exchange of people, ideas, and things; there were different indigenous groups. These groups had variations in culture, language, norms and practices, religion, skills and trade. Moreover, they had allies and trade relationships, along with rivalry and war, with other indigenous nations. However, with the arrival of settlement from France, there was now an international exchange of people, ideas, and things. At first, the multiculturalism was not as prominent as the indigenous groups still outnumbered the French settlers. Nevertheless, the French settlers created allies with the Huron and both gained from this affiliation. As more immigrants from France came, so did diseases. The Huron, whom the French had much contact with, had no immune system built to attack these foreign diseases. As a result of this devastation, half of Huron’s population died. Unfortunately, the string of misfortune did not end there as the French had no one left to rely on for the fur trade, food, protection, and knowledge of the land. Consequently, the French had to rely on themselves, and they began learning the language and culture of their surroundings, as well as agriculture and hunting. Hence what were once groups with different distinctions was now a single nation as they grew to become a single entity with variations in backgrounds, which still continues today.
-
nkular93
Given what I have learned in lecture, it would be ignorant to say that multiculturalism is a fairly new thing, I think we say that Canada is so multicultural today due to the fact that countless immigrants of so many different origins immigrate to Canada on a daily basis. We define the sea of colors and ethnicities that we see daily as multicultural. But if you think about it, Canada has always been multicultural. The habitation of different groups of Aboriginal peoples across Canada is proof of this. There were already so many different cultures and ethnicities and beliefs and practices present in Canada among the Aboriginal peoples. When the Europeans encountered North America, they brought along their culture, views, beliefs, and practices as well which added to the already diverse land. The French began to inhabit the land and conflicts occurred between thoughts and ways of living between the Europeans and the Aboriginals. I truly do believe that Canada is the land of immigrants and it is not only due to current situations that I am saying this but also due to the fact that the Europeans that had colonized North America were themselves immigrants. Even the Aboriginal peoples were immigrants considering that they had migrated over to the Americas through Siberia and the Bering land bridge. Therefore, Canada has pretty much been multicultural since the habitition of different Aboriginal groups across Canada. Then, over the years, as Europeans began to colonize the area, it became more and more diverse.
-
angieL
Although the concept of multiculturalism has only been introduced relatively recent, the roots of it have long been embedded in the Canadian culture and history. Given what I’ve learned in the lecture and the tutorial, the interactions of different cultures had probably begun as early as the 11th century when trans-Atlantic Europeans first encountered the indigenous people on the land of Canada. The dictionary definition of multiculturalism is the “preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society”. Before the arrival of European culture and British/French colonization, there were already so many tribes amongst the Aboriginal people in which they all had their own customs, traditions, arts, and dialogues. So in a sense, there were already multiple cultures intertwining and mingling with one another before the introduction of European culture. One may argue that those individual groups were not a “unified society” – thus multiculturalism did not apply – but I think even though they did not share the same ideology, policies, traditions, language, or legal system, they are still considered closely connected for being economically, socially, and politically interdependent. Fur trade and the formation of alliances between the French and the indigenous people were prime examples of economic and political interdependency and how two cultures interacted. However, come to think of it more carefully, although Canada has long been a multicultural nation, the concept of respecting and preserving all cultures equally has only begun to prosper and gain wider acceptance in the past few decades. With increasing number of non-White immigrants from Asia-Pacific countries, the obvious distinctions of our diverse cultures and races have really push this concept of multiculturalism under the spotlight.
-
SteveMoody
Would we create a distinction between multi-cultural and multiculturalism to answer this question? I believe Canada has been multi-cultuRAL since before the arrival of Europeans. The distinct nations that comprised the First Nations peoples were unique groups among themselves, sharing a large and verdant territory with others who’s level of technological development was akin to their own. The arrival of the Europeans brought several new cutlures which immediately began to affect and influence the cultures they came into contact with.
Multiculturalism is the cultural political concept that in Canada all cutlures are free to flourish (as long as they subscribe to our reasonably secular laws) without impingement. The culture of Canada under this auspice is specifically decentralized and multi-faceted, no one unique element (aside from geopolitical boundaries) are needed to define Canadian’s. That is a somewhat forward approach, a modern idea in that a colonized nation would choose to identify its culture with having multiple cultures that share freedom.
Canada has been filled with immigrants since the first early explorers crossed the bearing straight land bridge. What makes multiculturalism new and unique is its progressive choice to embrace that fact, rather than favour homogeny as many other nations and cultures do. Different groups have moved into Canada and called it home through centuries, so a multicultural landscape has always been the reality. Its just whether that’s what’s defines us as a cultural or not that is the question we answer with multiculturalism. -
mosachoff
Canada today considers itself a multicultural country. The country has grown its population over the last century through immigration, first from Europe and later from Asia, which continues today. Despite Canada being a relatively new nation, considering the length of its history, the area that we call Canada today has a history that is rich with multiculturalism stretching back over 1000 years. First Nation Canadians living at the time before European contact had diverse cultures and different lifestyles. Some were farmers and others were hunters. The groups interacted with each other, trading and exchanging culture such as language and ideas. Later, Vikings arrived in the area as described in The Greenlander’s Saga and Erik the Red’s Saga. They had interactions with the Native population that was at times peaceful where trade took place, but also violent as communication was difficult and reactions were unpredictable. Canada became home to further diversity with the arrival of the French to the area around the St. Lawrence and the beginning of permanent settlements. The French interacted with the Natives, through trade, exploration, and a desire to convert them. The French however weren’t the only people to live in their colony of New France. Slaves from as far away as Portugal were brought to the colony as it developed, adding to the diversity. Despite the idea of Canada being multicultural is often perceived to be relatively new, when we consider the scope of Canadian history, the country has actually experienced multiculturalism for thousands of years.
-
alexwickett
Canada is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. Multiculturalism is defined as “the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country.” If we are to accept this definition as true then it is not possible to say that Canada has been a multicultural society from the time of its early European settlers. As we have learned, since before Canada was ever even a country there has been a diverse group of people inhabiting the land. Whether it be aboriginal people, or different European people living on Canadian soil, the land has been inhabited for centuries. Though one may argue that this makes Canada a multicultural nation through and through, I don’t necessarily believe that different people living on the same soil makes a nation multicultural. The French were in conflict with some native groups, while trying to colonize others. Many aboriginal tribes had a longstanding conflict with one another, and though some may trade with each other it would be hard to argue that everyone was living in peace with each other, which is key to having a true multicultural society, according to the definition. In my opinion though, it is almost impossible to have absolutely no problems amongst different groups of people. If we are to say that Canada is multicultural now, which I would agree with; I would also say that multiculturalism did in fact begin long ago but maybe not necessarily in the time of early New France. As soon as the rights of different groups of people were recognized, and a variety of people were able to coexist peacefully together multiculturalism was born. I would argue that probably around the time Quebec was established as its own province, and the rights of the French people were protected was the time Canada became truly multicultural. Of course, there was still conflict amongst people, and even to this day racism, and racial profiling still exists, but it was the fist time that a group of people was legally identified as having different customs and beliefs, and legally allowed to practice them. To answer the question plainly, I do not believe multiculturalism is a modern change that has come to Canada recently; I believe Canada had been multicultural to some degree for generations.
-
daverob1
Canada has been a multicultural land from the time ice began to melt and hunters as well as animals began migrating here in search of new resources. Dr Sutherland exposed archeological evidence that proved the Norse had established a historical trade with the existing Nation the Dorset people. “…the beginning of globalization…”(Dr. Sutherland, The Nature of Things). Later in history when the French and English established alliances with the First Nations treaties were established to allow trade amongst equal Nations. The mixing of cultures has only become greater as the Americas evolved through the promotion of land and resource availability. Canada was founded on the establishment of treaties between equal Nations, for the benefit of trading cultural resources. It is the trade of various natural and cultural resources that has continued to promote Canada as a multicultural and prosperous Nation. Canada is multicultural now and has been since the First Nations began exploring and exploiting the space and resources available for trade and a prosperous future. Conflict is a necessary function of communication and not a determination of multiculturalism. The lectures and readings have proved to me that Canada promotes the benefits of having a culturally diverse population. I believe our Nation embraces the trade of multiculturalism within Canada’s borders.
-
the1strange2part3of4town
The idea of Canada being multicultural is not a new idea based on what we’ve learned so far in lecture. Going back to the beginnings and development of colonialism in North America, there were the English, French and numerous indigenous nations and thus numerous diverse cultures. Prior to Europeans coming to North America, there were numerous indigenous nations living throughout the land for hundreds of years.
While this may be all well and good points, the question being raised is specific to Canada being a multicultural nation. Canada is a multicultural nation where a large aggregate of the Canadian population does share a common history, culture, language and territory. However, there remains large aggregate populations that can be considered nations within the Canadian multicultural nation, hence multi-national rather than just multi-cultural. Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that a multi-national entity would have multiple cultures and thus be multi-cultural. I would therefore argue that Canada is multi-national state rather than a multi-cultural nation. Yes, Canada is a multi-cultural nation, but that’s because Canada is multi-national with many cultures entrenched in Canadian history and pre-Canadian history.
This is because prior to the creation of the Canadian state, there existed a several nations, which, for too many reasons to note in this blog post, eventually became a collective of nations that formed the multi-cultural nation of Canada. Many people consider themselves an unhyphenated Canadian, which is intrinsic of Canadian nationalism. However, Canadian nationalism is founded on the aggregate of nations within the nation. This is what makes Canadian nationalism and Canada as a nation unique. All the parts make a whole. Canadian multiculturalism is a singular entity that incorporates all the cultures and nations that make up Canada. Therefore, to argue that Canada is multicultural only because Canada is multinational because culture is implicit of nations is simply a semantic argument. Nonetheless, Canada being a multicultural nation is only as old as Canada is as a nation (which relatively old), but the history of Canada’s multiculturalism comes from as far back as pre-colonial times.-
Tina Loo
This is great, but again, can you tell me who you are so I can give you credit for your blogs?
-
the1strange2part3of4town
Alex Ninow 45449105
-
-
-
Tina Loo
Comments on your posts for Week 2:
Just so you know, I will offer general comments on the blog entries most weeks. Some weeks I will comment on each student’s blog (I can’t do that every week so I am rotating among the 5 tutorial sections).In general, you all did reasonably well. I would remind you that the blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lectures, so I expect you to draw on them directly in writing your entry.
Most of you appreciated that the place that became Canada was multicultural from the start in that it was home to many different nations and cultures; in other words, as many of you noted last week, what distinguished the place that became Canada was its diversity, which was there even before Canada existed!
However, some of you went on to make some important observations which I think all of us need to keep in mind: (1) that the place that would become Canada is more accurately described as multi-national; i.e. home to many different nations (Indigenous and European); in other words (2) the place that became Canada was diverse, but it wasn’t a single nation. In addition, and (3) there wasn’t the acceptance or even the tolerance of differences and the idea of equality that lies behind the modern notion of multiculturalism.
So…where does that leave us? In the 17th and 18th centuries, the place that would become Canada was a diverse, multi-national place. It was home to many cultures, but it wasn’t a single nation. Perhaps the story of Canada is how this multi-national place became a multicultural nation-state….
One last thing: as enorthwood noted in her blog, it might be useful to think about whether diversity = acceptance, and what kind of diversity is acceptable…. (And I’d add how the level and kind of diversity that is acceptable changes over time, and why it changes!).
-
-
admin
Week 4 Wall
Communication across cultures is tricky. Do you have an experience of how you successfully or unsuccessfully negotiated a cultural boundary? Did you work out a “middle ground”? How?
Lost in translation.
Photo credit: John M. Unsworth, 2009-
nkular93
Communicating across cultures is indeed very difficult. You never know if what you are conveying or trying to convey is necessarily getting across to the other individual who does not share the same language or cultural background as you. And it is true that a lot of things can be lost through translation. If I look back I can remember a time where I was put in the same dilemma of trying to convey something to someone who could not understand my point of view simply because they were not familiar with it. I was trying to explain to my own mother how in order to really get to know someone and in order to decide whether you would want to get married to them that it was important to date and see whether you have common interests with that person. It was important to go out and spend time and become familiar with one another. I also tried to explain that sometimes there was a possibility of things not working and having to move on to other people. My mother just would not accept that way of thinking because to her it wasn’t necessary to date and go out and it was just unacceptable to date around with other individuals. Basically it was the idea of sticking to one person for the rest of your life. And honestly I didn’t blame her for her mentality. She is from India and in India there are a lot of reservations when it comes to going out and meeting people due to the fact that a stigma can get attached to your name because of it. Therefore, to her, it was unacceptable. Eventually after lots of persuading she started to understand my point of view. I had to explain to her that life here was different and that there was no need to be afraid of stigmas because of the fact that not a lot of people were familiar with each other as they would be in India. I also had to make her understand that life is not so straightforward and can not be predetermined by parents. Everybody is independent and doing there own thing. It was a very tedious task though because things like culture and values would get in the way. But eventually, after a lot of conversation i managed to get a bit my point across. This allowed her to loosen up and not be so stringent when it came to meeting other people and developing relationships. I can’t say that I’ve changed her outlook on EVERYTHING; she still thinks its better for girls to not go out a lot and to maintain a low profile etc etc; however, i can say that i made some sort of impact on her thinking and her way of viewing things. I made her more laid back and relaxed through conversation and by stating examples etc. I also tried to relate situations to people we knew and were both familiar with so that she could she what I was getting at. In some way, I managed to cross that cultural gap.
-
enorthwood
I think something that I began to learn this year is how different translations are, and how much translations are entirely up to interpretation of the person who is translating it. I think when it comes to cross cultural communication, which is something we fail to recognize that things don’t translate exactly the same, which the sign above reminded me of. To me, a famous example of this is the Qu’ran, which no matter what kind of Islamic or Muslim background you come from you always read the Qu’ran in Arabic because translating it into other languages forces the translation to become something completely distorted, and in order to truly understand the Qu’ran it must be undistorted. A friend from back at home in Toronto this past summer, Ada, is from Islamic faith when she, I and a friend of ours were in Chapters looking at books. My other friend pulled out a translated to English version of the Qu’ran and started making remarks about how the authors note was that this was ‘his interpretation’ of the Qu’ran and how he doesn’t see how anything couldn’t be translated to English and how it couldn’t be “that hard” to make an accurate translation. My friend, Ada, being highly offended by this began to voice her opinion about the obvious translation issues that come along with any language. Seeing this was becoming an issue and topic of debate between two of my good friends, we went back to my house where we all looked up one word in English on the internet, the continued to find that same word in other languages then looked up in dictionaries what they actually meant. This process across several languages showed many different broken lines and several different interpretations and the guy who made a comment about how it’s not very hard to translate something to English, had a little further understanding of how subjective this process is. I think the middle ground was created in the seeking of knowledge to prove a point about the way that translations work and it was clear to both people involved, including myself, how ignorant we can all be in understanding this fact. I think cultural boundaries are set up by ignorance, which makes communication complex for us. It’s not always that we don’t want to understand, but much about the fact we don’t want to listen to what other cultures have to offer our Eurocentric way of thinking.
-
alexwickett
This past summer, I went on a trip throughout Europe with three of my close friends. Being naïve students, we did extensive research on where to stay, what to eat, and what to see while in each country, but we did absolutely no looking into the cultures and customs of these other places. We had assumed that because we were staying in Western Europe, the etiquette and cultural practices would be the same as in Vancouver. We were wrong. The place we noticed the greatest discrepancy between our customs and theirs, was in Paris, France. The people there are much more standoffish, far less friendly, and generally more formal than here in Canada.
On one hand we were able to negotiate the cultural boundary because we made a friend who lives in Paris and he taught us the Parisian cultural norms. We learned that if we needed directions, to always approach someone in French, and wish them a good day before you ask for anything or especially, switch to English. We also learned that there was a certain standard of dress for dinner anywhere. We were unfortunately lacking on many of the appropriate clothes, but we were able to polish ourselves as much as possible and at least run a comb through our hair. We also learned that it was a sign of respect to Parisian restaurants to come looking presentable. We were able to somewhat successfully, navigate the French cultural boundary, but unfortunately there was no middle ground established. We were guests in their city; therefore we made all the concessions in order to fit in with them. Not only did they not go out of their way to even speak to us in English, but also they were viably displeased with us and would be rude and unfriendly wherever possible. I believe this was the case because unlike in the early part of our history, both parties did not need something from the other.
The French gave the Indigenous people gifts and adhered to their practices because they wanted to show that they respected the Aboriginals so that they would agree to what the French were proposing, in one case, a peace agreement. In another instance the Indigenous people tried to take up the dress of the Europeans, which also showed respect and acknowledgement of the European customs and practices. The Parisian people wanted nothing from us, or really nothing to do with us, so no middle ground was made; if we wanted something, all the concessions had to be made by us. It is unfortunate, but I do believe that people need to have an incentive of mutual gain first, before they go out of their way to show respect for other cultures. If one party requires nothing from the other, they will not go out of their way to acknowledge the other cultures practices. -
kenthen
In my own culture, I am a secwepemc native from the interior Salish. One of the things i enjoy to do is to tell stories from the Secwepemc people. Some have even gone as far to title me a storyteller and I’m not sure if i am comfortable with such a prestigious title such as this. However In my travels i have come across many differing chiefs, scholars, elders and people that have enjoyed me perform and to tell of the stories of our ancestors. however at this one event i tried to recreate a story titled, “The Story of Snina'”. This is a simple story of a young mother in the pre-contact days who has a bratty son and when puts him out in the night to trick him into behaving by telling him if he doesn’t do as such Snina’ will come to get him. Which she does and the young man grows up to to trick snina into releasing him and for her actions she will only be able to convey the bad news of when someone passes away. Its a simple story of moral and creation as told by our ancestors. So i tell this story in the English language through the character of coyote who is the trickster, but coyote is the character i tell all my stories through. A chief in the crowd didn’t enjoy the way i told the story because as he put it he only learned it in the Secwepemc language. So he told of how the way i told it too much was lost in translation and that in essence what i was doing was a bad thing. I was no better than the priest that came along and took artifacts and personal belongings years ago, nor I was I any better than the people who came along years ago and took some of our stories and made them into short comics that were seen to be disrespectful. thus here i was caught in a cultural boundary within my own culture! I stopped telling stories for a short while and really considered my actions and behavior until finally i went to see some elders and asked if what i was doing was indeed a horrible thing. I was told that the story tellers of our past told the stories as a way of creating an atmosphere or to teach or to tell of news and that the exact translation was lost even in their times due to creative changes. They went on to ask me if i tell them in a good, kind and respectful way in which i reiterated with a sound yes. The elders I spoke to understood that while the chief may have had some anger at the situation, some tobacco and a short conversation with him might clear the air and to also tell him of my desire to learn from him as well as to be treated with the same respect that i show him. So i did just that, I went to him told him of my conversations with the elders, how his speech made me feel and that i respected and honored him as a chief and if he were willing i would learn from him. We agreed and compromised that in some ways we were both wrong and that together we would learn, we are now friends.
-
millyzhu
I come from a Chinese background, but because I immigrated to Canada at an early age, I was not able to learn Chinese to the point of being able to read a newspaper completely. As a consequence of this incapability, I have a difficult time speaking to Chinese elders and my parents, especially when I want to tell them something or share an idea or opinion. When I want to tell my parents something interesting or funny that happened to me, I have a hard time conveying my story because my vocabulary is so limited. Because of the lack of Chinese knowledge, I sometimes end up ruining the story or just giving up. However, I am currently learning Mandarin right now and using that as a bridge to cross over to be able to speak fluently and to communicate easier with my parents. Even though my parents can somewhat understand my fragmented Mandarin, it still does not solve the problem with communicating with other Chinese people, especially elders. I worked for a friend’s mother one summer, and one of the requirements was to be able to speak Mandarin. Although I was able to somewhat get by with my simple vocabulary when we were conversing, we still had difficulty explaining and understanding each other when it came to work and the vocabulary used for business. Nevertheless, I tried my best and when there was something I did not fully grasp, I would either ask her to use a different word to explain it, or use translation programs on the computer. In order to cross that barrier of language, I had to use different means to do so, such as finding another way around it, or using what was at hand (ie. technology).
-
daverob1
I work in a boxing club and everyday I come across various cultures and persons from all over the world. There is more often than not cultural and language barriers to be overcome. The positive part of this situation is that boxing is a known common interest in the initiation of every relationship here. The obstacle of a verbal language barrier must be overlooked. Speaking in a form of demonstrative sign language becomes in common. I have coached many persons over the years where throughout the entirety of our relationship verbal conversations have never taken place. It is funny because this has not generally effected the development of skill or the understanding of what is being demonstrated to what is being learned. There is a sign-language to boxing that if demonstrator and student agree to listen to each other communication is possible. It may not sound like much but boxing is a full body activity and the hands must be coordinated with the feet and without language to describe what is expected teaching is different. The funny thing about it is I feel the relationships developed in this way are no less descriptive or explanatory than the relationships where I communicate verbally. There is no one situation that stands out to me because it is a daily practice and as a person who speaks fluently in two languages I speak in the communication and language of boxing and English. I think a person can know how to speak a language without ever communicating well in it. I think I know how to communicate well with persons when commonalities and interests are worth trading. I’ve always found it interesting that the economics involved in the development of relationships regardless of language barriers has never come to be misunderstood.
-
angieL
Vancouver is known for its cultural diversity. Simply just living here has provided me with a lot of opportunities to connect and interact with different cultures. For someone who was born outside of Canada, I remember it took me a while to get used to all the hugging, which seems to be so prominent in Western mannerism. Although it has always been obvious to me that the act itself merely displays a sense of friendliness and politeness, when it is exchanged at parties and functions with people who barely know each other, it still seems utterly pretentious and excessive to me. It is not because I dislike physical contact, but before I moved to Vancouver, I would never imagine myself hugging people other than my family and very close friends, simply because there was no such expectation to do so in social interactions. It was a little awkward at first, but I pushed myself to do it and eventually got used to it. In this example, there was not really a “middle ground”; it was either you adapt to this social behaviour or you don’t. I guess if I was really repulsed by the idea of hugging, I could just tell people that it is not in my culture to hug so much and I don’t think anyone would have forced me to. But then I don’t want to appear unfriendly or cold, or feel like I have to explain myself as to why I am “different” each time, so I voluntarily gave up negotiating a cultural boundary in this case. My reason for doing so was simply because I wanted to facilitate new social relationships and intergrade into a new society as smoothly as I can. Like what we went over in the lecture, the indigenous and the French both adapted to each other’s cultures in forms of clothing and communications as ways to establish social bonding, trust, and more importantly, liaisons. I believe every little effort you take in order to understand or just imitate another culture will not go unnoticed. When the indigenous representative attempted to dress like more French-like to facilitate the negotiation, although the French laughed about it, I believed the friendly gesture made them more at ease knowing that the indigenous people were trying to understand and respect their culture.
-
cprimus
I’ve both found and failed to grasp middle ground with my coworkers at different stores for the company I work for. I want to share the example of a lack of shared understanding, and will avoid using specific countries, cultures, and names.
It might seem somewhat uncommon for a Caucasian woman to be discriminated against, but I was. I work as a customer service rep in a male-dominated industry, and had no female co-workers for a year and a half. I was the only Caucasian working at the main store in Vancouver for 6 months. When I first started working at that store, I decided that although I was friendly, I would give my new coworkers a chance to warm up to me, because maybe it was “a cultural thing”. They didn’t. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t because of my gender, but when two new employees were hired, both Caucasian males, and were immediately assimilated, I knew that something was amiss.
I wanted to fit in and be included so I baked cookies, bought plants to liven up the office, wore a fake smile in hopes to win them over to no avail. As I became more aware of my exclusion, which was sometimes blatantly hurtful, I realized that despite what they actually thought of me, I could not respect people whom I felt no respect from. I had tried to be tolerant of them, and I tried to do things to please them, but I was out of energy and ready to move to a different store.
Guess what my doting boss – who comes from the same country that most of my coworkers come from – told me when I came to him in tears one day? “Baby girl, it’s a cultural thing”.
-
mosachoff
I went to middle and high school in Singapore, a diverse island, and city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. The country’s population can be divided into two groups: Singapore citizens (who make up 62% of the populations and other residents such as permanent residents, foreign workers, and students (38% of the population). Within the group of people who are Singapore citizens, there are three distinct cultural groups: Chinese, Malay, and Indian. Singapore has a diverse and unique cultural composition that I was fortunate enough to have experienced while living there. As a Canadian, the cultures that I interacted with were often vastly different from my own and were at times puzzling. A common occurrence for me where I needed to communicate across cultures was interacting with taxi drivers and providing them with directions. In Singapore taxis are subsidized by the government to minimize the number of cars on the road and as a result are much more affordable than cabs in Vancouver. Taxi drivers came from many different backgrounds from Mainland Chinese immigrants who spoke little to no English to wealthy businessmen who would drive a taxi in their spare time to earn extra money. If you were lucky however, you would hop in a cab and be greeted by an older Singaporean man who had been driving cabs for forty odd years. These individuals predated Singapore’s independence from Britain and were distinctively Singaporean by their use of the creole language Singligh. As soon as you were greeted you would know that you might need to respond in Singlish. Because it is English based, the language is quite simple to pick up and can be sort of feigned by foreigners like myself who only had to change their accent and structure of their speech. When giving directions to a destination the driver was not sure of, I would provide directions like “can turn left here ah. After go straight all the way and can stop”. Along the way I would also make small talk saying “so much traffic is it” meaning “there is a lot of traffic”. My experiences were for the most part successful in communicating across cultural and language barriers in this way as well as a lot of fun. I was successful through adaptation to the local culture as opposed to the reactions of other expats who found the coarse and blunt nature of the language offensive and unintelligible.
-
the1strange2part3of4town
To state that communication between cultures and languages can result in miscommunication is commonly accepted at face value. The reasonings behind the occurrence of lost-in-translation communication as seen in the agreements in Acadia covered in class, I see as being a result of a power-struggle between cunning trickery and good-faith. Successful cross-cultural communication would be the result of finding a “middle-ground” between opposing agents where both sides obtain a mutually beneficial agreement. Furthermore, in finding a “middle-ground,” I’ve found that a precedent or status quo is just as important as establishing prior to any kind of negotiation between people, groups or institutions. In my experience, when communicating across cultural and linguistic borders, the above factors are important to consider in order to avoid miscommunication.
As full-time student that has a part-time job, I find that, though I may not be communicating across cultural borders with my boss, my work-relationship with my boss crosses borders that separate us based on our priorities. My priority being schooling before work, and his priorities being centred around the success of his small business. I would argue that a small business owner and a full-time student live in different “worlds” in a sense where the only overlap is my employment. Therefore, in transitioning between summer mode to school mode while keeping my job required careful communication between him and I so that our symbiotic work relationship could continue. In trying to figure out a schedule that worked for the hand-full of employees and I, a miscommunication occurred resulting in me almost being let-go because in our negotiations, I wanted at least one weekend day off to study. My boss is profit oriented, like the early European settlers and traders, and I need an income to which my services and skills can be traded, like trappers. Luckily, through our negotiations, a mutually beneficial outcome was reached for both parties. I attribute this success firstly to the establishment of a status-quo, which was my summer work schedule. I had good-faith that I would be able to keep my job while working only 1 day on the weekend, though that was not the case; herein lies the power-struggle. Rather than exchanging a weekday shift for my one of my weekend shifts, a middle ground was reached where I would work 2 days on the weekend and keep my job in good-faith and loyalty rather than losing my job all together and finding a new (and probably less desirable) employer. Though I am not seen as expendable, nor do I see my boss as cunning or disloyal, this cross-cultural (small business owner vs. full-time student) communication could have had ended badly for both parties as a result of a miscommunication. I need a job, and my boss doesn’t want to hire and train another employee was a middle-ground that was reached between us. There were trade-offs on both sides, but successful communication was key in negotiating while the establishment of the summer status-quo prevented a miscommunication and an non-beneficial agreement on my part, such as my loss of employment. Lastly, a miscommunication as noted can be a result of a power-struggle. The maintenance of successful communication I have found in this instance and many others, is the result of symbiotic relationship where both sides or parties accepts that the other is integral for continued success of the status-quo or in finding a solution to a problem; rather than one party dominating the other for one-sided benefit (i.e. me being too much trouble and not worth negotiating). Hence lastly, accepting the noted factors that contribute to successful communication rather than miscommunication, mutually beneficial agreements are also integral in maintaining successful communications and relationships wherein this prevents domination and submission. -
Tina Loo
Some general comments on Week 4 :
Many people in the class brought up the fact that UBC is a very multicultural campus in a culturally diverse city, so that learning how to accommodate oneself to differences is something we have to do all the time. There were some great examples of how people react to differences – everything ranging from reacting with unease, frustration, and sometimes with aggression and bullying to making an effort to learn and adapt, whether through trying new foods, learning new words, figuring out new customs, or sharing (whether it be food or a love of football). And sometimes, as at least one of you pointed out, all the efforts to make a middle ground fail….
Your stories led me to think that the key to making a middle ground is a mutual interest and commitment in doing so. The French and Indigenous nations that met at Montreal really wanted the same thing – trade and above all, peace – to the extent they were willing to be hostages in the “enemy’s” camp. Most of us don’t engaged in treaty negotiations, but we do have to find a way to get along in the midst of different cultures, and doing so successfully seems to be premised on an ability to get beyond our fears and to be open to new experiences, to let go, to a certain extent, of some of the ways we do things. This begins by recognizing that the way we do things, the things we think are “normal” aren’t necessarily seen that way by everyone!
-
-
admin
Week 5 Wall
Given what you’ve learned this week about the politics of representation, what ideological purposes does the image below fulfill?
Mort du Montcalm, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, 1902
-
enorthwood
Given what I’ve learned so far about the politics of representation this week, especially through the painting of wolf is that this painting serves a political purpose to represent the people being portrayed in a certain way. As drawn upon in the lecture, “The Death of Wolfe” is showing Wolfe as making the ultimate sacrifice and they portray “Wolfe as Christ” by the way he is being held like the Virgin Mary held Jesus. This kind of artwork can serve several representations such as the suggestion that Wolfe’s death didn’t really matter and it can be mocked, or it can be seen as a literal painting of the great sacrifice made by Wolfe in the Seven Years War. Moving along to the ideological purposes, I think for Wolfe the political issue is that it can lead us to misinterpret the impact these individuals actually had within the time period. These paintings serve a purpose to portray these people as heroes and people who sacrificed themselves, however this interpretation can lead historians to several interpretations of the past. This idea honestly makes me question sometimes the validity of historical interpretations. Throughout my year here at UBC through taking an Islamic history course, I’ve already learned so much about how language is all interpretation, I’m starting to learn that maybe historians are subjecting us to their interpretations as well- which to me is a foreign idea because I’ve always seen history as a solidified figure.
The ideological purposes that this painting serves seems to make Montcalm almost a martyr in a way, by making it seem that in the battle against Wolfe he too sacrificed something for his people. Ideally, at this time the painting certainly could affect the way that the people of the time reacted. When someone martyr’s them self for a cause, it motivates the people to fight harder in that persons’ sacrifice. I believe that that kind of ideological purpose is being served for the time, especially the way that Montcalm is portrayed in all white, and almost like Wolfe, like he’s a holy figure. That being said, he’s surrounded by what looks like military cavalry waiting on the death of him to plan their next vengeful move. -
kenthen
Montcalm was a representative of France and stood the ground in New France as a lieutenant – Governor and led the army into a series of battles through the seven years war. On that fateful day in September during the “Battle of the Plains of Abraham” as the French army retreated Montcalm was shot which would prove to be his demise. The funny thing about looking at this picture is all the glorification that it resonates about Montcalm when it was his decisions that led to the defeat and there is a question as to whether he even wanted to be in Canada in the first place. So the question that one has to ask is why the choice was made for the French government to commission such a glorified painting of a losing commander and why was the inevitable blame put onto the shoulders of Vaudreuil, when in fact it was the decisions of Montcalm that led to the defeat. Thus leads into the politics of representation, what was the French government trying to say with this painting? That Montcalm is truly a man that deserves such high praise to be caste into the light of Godliness with only those of importance to surround him as he is sent away to the heavens to a place that can only befit such a earthly man as he was? meanwhile those left behind were left to deal with the aftermath of his fateful decisions that not only lost New France but the lives of many soldiers that were considered not quite ready for such a battle of this caliber. In the end one can plainly see that that is the road that those in powers chose, to have Montcalm immortalized in such a way that shows him as a great man, solider, leader and heavenly.
To look at the possible ideologies of this painting one has to consider what the government was trying to say about Montcalm and how did they see him? Looking at him and the way the light shines down upon almost seems saintly, one can almost hear soft music playing. The way all these powerful military men, members of the church and a nun seem concerned and even kneel before him suggest power and genuine love and concern for him. In a way it made sense that battle was New Frances to win or lose and its almost as if Montcalm chose to lose so the French government had to save face and reputation and blame the remainders of the New France military and government. Meanwhile Montcalm is immortalized in this painting. -
millyzhu
Given what we have learnt this week about the politics of representation, this painting of Montcalm on his deathbed depicts him as a heroic general who has contributed much to the cause of France and New France. He is surrounded by soldiers, members from the Church, and other authoritative figures. With a soldier in the background covered in bandages and a nun kneeling on the floor, it shows great concern and love for Montcalm, as well as how much is worshiped and his importance.
The ideological purpose that this painting may try to fulfill during the time it is painted could be that France is trying to show Montcalm as a saint that was sacrificed for New France and that his contribution to New France will not be forgotten, but galvanized and remembered. By depicting Montcalm in his way through this painting would allow France to be able to gain sympathy from citizens in both France and its colonies, as well as be able to rally up the settlers in New France regarding the war. It could also show France trying to portray that whoever contributed for New France during this time of need will not be regretful and their bravery will be noted and remembered. However, this ideological purpose is very much like propaganda where they both try to promote a particular point of view through political strategies. It is difficult to extract subjectivity and selective bias when presenting history, especially if one is trying to convey a certain perspective, and in this painting, it only shows a heroic representation of Montcalm. -
cprimus
If I saw this painting in a gallery, I would guess that the central figure was a great man – a hero. The artist clearly wants to portray the subject – the Marquis de Montcalm – as self-sacrificing, Christ-like, revered, venerated, respected, and worshipped. His pure, unstained body is in a pillar of light, adorned in white clothing, and in a dark background which to me looks like the inside of a cave. The artist wants the viewers to see this man as a man of great importance (which is absolutely true) and as a saviour (which isn’t at all true). Louis-Joseph de Montcalm was a man who contributed to the fall of France in North America. His strategic error resulted in the 20-minutes-long Plains of Abraham war and Montcalm died of wounds sustained during the attack.
What the painting doesn’t show is the poor public opinion of him at the time, according to historians. Until the early twentieth century, Montcalm was described as unpopular because he butted heads with the apparently likeable Canadian-born Governor Vaudreuil. However, experts started to disagree on whether he was as bad as early historians described him. This specific painting was made at the time when opinions of the man were changing – perhaps to add fuel to the pro-hero movement. Either way, the repercussions of his arrogant actions left a legacy of bitterness in French Canada.
-
nkular93
Given what we have learned in lecture about the politics of representation, by looking at the two different representations of Wolfe (one in which he is depicted as being heroic and sacrificing for the interests of the British and one in which his death is depicted to be of little significance), this image of Montcalm seems to depict him as being a self sacrificing, revered, and heroic figure who died fighting for New France. The way the officers from his garrison have been painted surrounding his bed and the way in which the light has been painted to shine on him in a way illustrates the importance of the French General and his worth in the context of the Seven Years War and his fight against British invasion.
It is interesting to see this portrayal of Montcalm considering the fact that his decision to stay and fight the British troops instead of retreating to the towns defences, is often viewed as a mistake and the cause of the defeat of New France and the loss of New France and Quebec to the British. Perhaps the painting’s purpose is to paint Montcalm in a more heroic light and to depict him in a manner that may overlook this error in judgement and focus on his endeavours and struggles against the British in order to save the colony of New France. Therefore, this painting can be seen as fulfilling the ideological purpose of representing Montcalm as heroic instead of a man who erred in his judgement and cost the French their colony. It can be seen as shedding a different light on Montcalm, symbolizing his Importance and his contributions, and it can be seen as an attempt to distract from his error.
-
angieL
From I’ve learned in the lecture, painters often compose their political views on historical events through the form of art. The positions of the characters in the paintings often reflect the political relationship between countries, races, and religious groups. In this particular painting, the death of Louise-Joseph de Montcalm, Montcalm was surrounded by many different groups of people on his deathbed showing grief and respect. In class, we’ve looked at two paintings of the death of general Wolfe, with one depicting him as the ultimate sacrifice in reflection to Jesus Christ, and another much less sacred and glamorous with crowd watching him die from a distance. Those two almost opposite styles of composition reflected the different views on General Wolfe’s contribution to the colony and to France during the war. As for Montcalm in this painting, he had a Frenchman kneeled in front of his bed holding his hand, a sister praying for him, and a representative of the church standing beside him. The tone of the painting is very sad and heavy. Everyone seems to be grieving for the passing of the commander, and there was people crying in the background. The ideology of this painting shaped Montcalm into a martyr; someone who was noble and loved. The position of the Frenchmen illustrated how Montcalm was greatly respected by the French and how his passing was a detrimental blow to his country. The two religious figures in the painting was also showing their respect to the commander, as a metaphor that he was with God and had a noble spirit.
-
alexwickett
In light of what we have learned this week, this portrait, “Mort du Moncalm” portrays Montcalm in a way that may have not corroborated views of many people in the colony at the time. This image portrays the general in a very positive light. He is glowing white, completely clean, and surrounded by people who are mourning his death. The image seems to represent the almost Christ like Montcalm in white, standing out from the dark background in the photo. This contrast of colour makes it seem as if Montcalm was leading the valiant French out of the darkness that was the British. This, as we have learned this week is completely false. Not only did the French surrender to the British, but they surrendered in twenty minutes largely due to a poor military tactic initiated by Montcalm.
It is hard to say exactly what the artist was trying to portray exactly through his painting but seeing as the artist is a Quebec born French Canadian some assumptions about his ideological purposes can be made. Seeing as he is a Quebecer, I assume that de Foy Suzor-Coté would have a fair amount of empathy toward Montcalm. He is trying to show that despite Montcalm’s poor military strategy, he is still a leader that deserves the respect that any other great leader would receive whilst fighting and dying for his beliefs. I think the artist is trying to evoke sympathy for Montcalm through his image and the way he represents the deceased. We learned that all the works of art pertaining to the fall of New France were laden with the artists’ different representations of different events based on what they were trying to evoke from the audience. This particular one seems to be a very pro Montcalm painting, and tries to represent the views that not all, but some of the people of the time.
-
mosachoff
The painting Mort du Montcalm depicts the French commander on his deathbed. A group made up of important soldiers, priests, and nuns surrounds Montcalm. The light from candles focuses Montcalm as the center of the piece where all of the individuals around him look on solemnly. This representation of the death of Montcalm depicts the commander as a hero who has paid the ultimate sacrifice. Much like the painting The Death of General Wolfe, where the British general is given Christ like qualities, Mort du Montcalm reflects the respect the painter held for the French commander. The painter, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, painted the piece in 1902, 143 years after the actual event. The painter could have had political motives for his saintly depiction, encouraging a celebration of French heritage. A reminder that individuals who sacrificed their lives for New France would not be forgotten years later. The artist who painted the piece is also of French heritage. It is possible that he was invoking French sentiments as a means of supporting a political cause. The event is of a dying general and he could be encouraging that other French Canadians should continue to have the qualities and respect for their culture and history.
-
Tina Loo
General Comments:
Good job everyone. Most of you picked up on the fact that this painting, like Benjamin West’s, makes a visual argument about their subjects; i.e. Generals Wolfe and Montcalm. That said, the two paintings are very different. Many of you commented on the significance of the colours used by Suzor-Coté as opposed to West, but not many of you picked up on the significance of portraying Montcalm dying in bed.Why show Montcalm in bed rather than on the battlefield? Is it some sort of critical commentary; i.e. that generals die in bed while their troops suffer? Probably not in this case. Could it be that the painter wanted to avoid showing Montcalm dying on the battlefield because that would call attention to a French DEFEAT? He still wanted to portray the French general as a hero, though, so he showed him inside, with no reference to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (or any other battle for that matter). If you didn’t know anything about the circumstances of Montcalm’s death, you wouldn’t even know he’d been fighting….
-
-
admin
Week 6 Wall
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
-
enorthwood
In light of what’s been discussed this week, I think it certainly can be universal. However, I’d argue that not every place in the world is going through the same economic situation at the same time perhaps. I think that trading amongst one another is commonly acceptable as universal. This is applicable to the women known as the Metis from our lecture on Monday. They understood economics through trading and establishing trade relationships with the HBC and NWC. I think the desire to trade to gain goods you normally can’t get, and is certainly universal, however not everyone perhaps has the same timeline for it’s universality. I don’t think people do pursue their self-interest materially at the time, realistically there is a lot of organizations and people that do things despite material gain or not. Arguably, the Red Cross Organization is certainly extraordinarily self-less and is an humanitarian organization. Many people follow these organizations and put time in, donate money, and also dedicate themselves these causes. It would be hard to say that all people pursue their material self-interest all the time. None the less, they’re certainly people who do pursue their self-interest through tyranny as leaders. I mean, looking at Brazil there is a huge divide between rich and poor. Through my own behavior I can relate to my job over the summer. While I was saving for school during summer months, I worked long hours sometimes 13+ hour days at the start of my job as a waitress. I was then after a month moved to bartender, and after a few more weeks promoted to shift leader. With my promotion to shift leader I could take on less hours because I was being paid more, therefore my self-interest to obtain more money went down and I could enjoy more resting and down time. However, I decided to continue to work long hour days still because extra money was still extra money, and I could buy more things for myself. That’s a situation where I myself have let my material-self interest guide me, however I would argue that when it comes to economic gain, that was my personal interest. Nonetheless, someone else might have enjoyed more leisure time, that just wasn’t in my interest.
-
Tina Loo
Emilee, I think you do bring up a good point: how people behave (economically or otherwise) depends on the context; i.e. they don’t behave the same way all the time. Instead, circumstances shape their behaviour. Also I think you’re right to point out that if we really did pursue our self-interest all the time there wouldn’t be any altruism. I suppose you could argue people donate to or work for the Red Cross because they get something out of it materially, but that might be too cynical… However, I did wonder about one of your comments: is the desire to get things you can’t usually get universal? Don’t those goods have to be seen as valuable in your society first?
-
-
kenthen
Economic behavior is universal. I think everyone everywhere trades some form of goods for other goods in some form of exchange. Now saying this I think it’s relative and relevant to the existence that the people live within that defines to what extent they do trade or even how much they trade. Which leads to the next question: do people pursue their material interest all the time? I will say no only because human nature is to socialize and to find leisure and comfort of others to surround us. We have the ability to laugh, to smile and share and wouldn’t this be a shame to waste on accumulating nice couches, vehicles and bank rolls all the time. I think back to the fur traders and although I’m pretty sure not many in this day and age would have the strength or capacity to lead and live within that existence, especially the ‘voyageurs” but I also believe that they took time out of their lives to just be still. Also look at human nature we invent, develop and re-invent items to make our lives easier to accomplish tasks faster and with less thought, saying that its also human nature to use that time to accomplish other tasks. So while we have tried to make life easier we still remain busy but we also seek out leisure when we can for not only socializing or rest but our health as well. Now in extreme cases I think that there probably is a scrooge mcduck out there who pursues their material self at all times and that there is someone who lives outside of our civilization and society who might have no one to trade goods with and finds way to be autonomous of any form of economics, those are extreme. As for backward sloping curve I think back to my days as a conductor for CP Rail where as a junior conductor you receive only 85% of your wage. As you finish out your junior period you eventually move up in 5% increments till your at 100%. So when i first started I worked as hard as i could and got in as many trips to make up for that 15% loss that i was incurring. As I moved up and eventually made my way to 100% I relaxed a little and stopped trying to jump ahead. So less money meant i worked more and more money eventually lead to me trying to work less for more leisure.
-
Tina Loo
Kenthen, I like your example of working for CPR. I wondered if you thought what was considered in one’s self-interest differed across cultures? In other words, we might all pursue our material self-interest, but what was considered self-interested behaviour is different among different peoples, and in different times and places.
-
-
millyzhu
I believe that economic behaviour is universal because everybody wants to climb higher on any type of ladder, be it social, political, or economic ladder. Even from before when there was no exchange of money, people still managed to establish a trade system, valuing which one equaled to what and thus creating a measuring scale of some sort. I also believe that people do pursue their material self-interest all the time, be it consciously (usually under a competitive setting) or unconsciously. For example, during the fur trade with the focused interaction between indigenous women and French settlers or fur traders, it led to the creation of a new group of people known as the Métis. Despite the original purpose for interacting with indigenous women and French men, and vice versa, which was to gain more access to goods, status, or better lifestyle, after giving birth to children, the French men wanted to send their children to Europe to “better educate” them. This was the French fathers’ way of unconsciously pursuing their own material self-interest in hopes that with this investment, the return will be relatively higher than compared to if the children stayed in young Canada. A situation where a backward sloping supply curve occurred in my life would be the transition from volunteering to being employed at a certain school district’s international summer program. When I was volunteering, I tried very hard for two years because I wanted the employers to have a good impression of me for when I applied for work. My material self-interest was already showing at this time where I did as much volunteering as I could for the two summers, which usually ended up being five days a week for two months. However, this paid off as my experience led me to being employed. After getting hired, I was scheduled for only working for three weeks during the entire summer. Despite that, compared to my volunteering days, being employed and getting paid was easier work as I had more time to do more significant things, while passing the smaller tasks to the volunteers. Nevertheless, my economic behaviour kicked in and I wanted more hours in order to accumulate and satisfy my own material self-interest. Therefore, when there are advantages and benefits to be gained, I believe that anyone with a material self-interest would unleash their economic behaviour.
-
Tina Loo
Good example Milly. I wondered how you’d explain altruism if everyone really did pursue their material self-interest all the time?
-
-
mosachoff
I think that economic behavior is for the most part universal. At the basis of every trade, there is a buyer who wants something and a seller who is selling something. The same motivations for trading today have existed as part of human nature for thousands of years, where the individual is looking for a result that they desire. This can take the form of currency, time, or altruistic satisfaction, knowing that they have made an improvement in the lives of someone else. From our readings about the fur trade, it is clear that the natives trading with the Europeans were adept traders and good judges of the quality of goods they were offered. That being said, the Indians did not have the same cultural values where accumulation of wealth was analogous to a rise in status. This misconception led historians to believe that the natives were cheated and really did not play an integral role in the fur trade. In fact, natives were vital to the fur trade and although their ideas of wealth differed from that of Europeans, they were still astute traders. The natives pursued material self-interest in their trading, just not excessively. In every trade they made, they acquired something they needed or wanted. Even later when Europeans traded fur for alcohol, it was still the native’s self-interest that drove the trade. At times, my own behavior is best described using the backward sloping supply curve. I have declined to work in situations because the pay I received already was satisfactory to my needs and working more was considered less valuable than my leisure time, after a point. This summer, I worked as a lifeguard on the beaches of Vancouver. The pay was pretty good and because of the fantastic weather we received in July, I often opted to spend time hanging out with friends, despite the demand for my labor. In this case, my decision was not to pursue a material self-interest but instead gain free time. Though I did not receive pay I found the time off was equivalent in value. Both my behavior and the Indians trading in the fur trade made decisions that didn’t necessarily yield material wealth, we both gained utility in the form of time in my case and necessary supplies in the case of the Indians.
-
Tina Loo
Good example Michael. So does that mean you wanted a certain lifestyle more than you wanted the money? If that’s the case, then is pursuing your material/economic self interest universal?
-
-
nkular93
I personally do believe that economic behaviour is universal in that ultimately each and every individual wants to advance their economic interests and make money or any sort of profit for themselves. Individuals are overall self interested and will look out for things that will improve their quality of life. It doesn’t matter where you are from or what group you being to or even how much you know about the world or how educated you are as every individual is going to look at what is going to be beneficial to them. Its natural to look out for yourself. In light of the material we have been looking at in class, aboriginal people who were involved in the fur trade were very much sophisticated traders who knew how the fur trade market functioned and what was beneficial and profitable to them. These people were also self interested and wanted to profit from the fur trade just as much as the Europeans.
I don’t believe that people pursue material self interests all the time as a persons life cannot always just revolve around one aspect. There are so many things and situations that life throws at people and I don’t believe that it is possible to only think about your own self interests ALL the time. A lot people can choose to let it define their goals however if they have the drive to be successful in terms of being wealthy.
A situation in which a backwards slope supply curve could describe my behaviour is when I became a tutor and started working for a tutoring centre. In the beginning when I volunteered there I would work as hard as possible to gain the experience that I needed for teaching. When I got hired and when I started working there I began to slow down and take things a lot more easier. Its interesting because more than myself I’ve seen this with my own employer where he worked and worked to make his business successful and then started to ease up and take more time off for himself as his business was doing well.-
Tina Loo
Navreen, I like your example but if that’s the case, then is it really true that economic behaviour is universal? How can it be when you don’t pursue it all the time?
-
-
angieL
I believe economic behaviour is mostly universal. People have learned long ago, way before the invention of currency, to use barter system to maximize utility. It is only logical for one to trade with what they have in abundance in exchange for something that would be hard for that particular individual to obtain. This model of functioning keeps the cost of goods low and allows development and pursuit of specialization in a society. On a microeconomic level, the basic principles demand assumptions of such behaviour – that a rational individual will allocate his/her limited income to achieve maximum utility. And although I believe not all utilities are always derived from “material gain”, I would say there are self-serving motivations behind every individual’s actions and decisions. Since even seemingly altruistic acts such as volunteering and donating provide the individual with a sense of self-satisfaction, it can be argued that the altruism stems from the desire to fulfill self-interests. Relating back to our lecture, the gift-giving custom carried out by the Europeans to the indigenous, although the purpose of the act was not to gain immediate material reciprocation, was still an exchange and a pursuit of material self-interest in hope for material gain in the future. An example of my own behaviour in relations to the backward sloping supply curve is when I got promoted from a part-time cashier to a full-time administrative assistant. When I was working as a cashier, I worked extraneously hard everyday. I’d voluntarily stay late after work so I could do some extra work to help out my store manager. However, after I was promoted to an administrative position, I chose a more relax approach at work. I still did my duties and made sure the office was operating optimally, but I no longer put in extra hours after work and tried to get things done ahead of schedule so I have more time to enjoy leisure activities.
-
Tina Loo
Angela, I like your example and wondered if we are stretching “economic self-interest” a bit much when we say that it includes altruism… We certainly do get something from altruism, but is it material, really?
-
angieL
You are right, I don’t believe there is a “direct” relationship in terms of economic or material gain. I guess it is a bit too cynical to question altruism!
-
-
-
doraleung
Though economic behavior is probably generally universal, there are moments when not everyone is just looking to maximize utility. But first of all looking at economic behavior is being universal, we can first look at the fur trade between the aboriginals and Europeans. These two groups established strong ties among themselves to strengthen their economic status. Even when aboriginals practiced gift giving traditions and such, they essentially had a material-gaining motivation behind it.
However, a situation I could find where people are not just motivated by material self-interest is whenever someone gets promoted at work, or a more efficient method of work is put into place. This is when the backwards sloping supply curve would apply. One would be able to put in less time and effort, but still be able to produce the same amount of utility if not more. Take for example an under ground musician who is not well known by the general public becoming an international award winning artist. During this artist’s early years, he is probably not motivated by material gains, and simply does what he does for the sake of doing it. Say hypothetically he gets discovered by a record label, gets signed, and becomes famous. He no longer needs to put in quite as much work to earn is certain amount of money. Even if he does need to work the same amount of hours, he is definitely earning much more than he was originally. Therefore he is spending less amount of time and energy to make the same amount, if not more, money.-
Tina Loo
Great example of the backwards sloping supply curve Dora!
-
-
alexwickett
In my opinion, economics is universal and though some societies’ economies may not resemble ours, they are economical just the same. It is a basic human instinct to try to put yourself in the most competitive position possible, and that is achieved by doing things that will make you the most money, or the applicable equivalent. Unfortunately, we live in an unequal society. When there is inequality there is competition, and where there is competition there is bound to be people who want to lead the competition. In Canadian society everyone wants to be at the top, whether it be at the top of a company, the top of the class in terms of marks, or maybe even the best athlete, people thrive on the incentive to do well, and this creates a completely economical mindset. Even in societies where maybe money is not necessarily an incentive, people still prove to be completely economical whether it is through getting the best deals for a trade, or maybe even finding the best partner who will help take care of you in the future. It is completely normal for people to want to take care of themselves and do whatever they can to better their own position in society. I would argue that people are generally formalist as opposed to substantivists; economics is universal. A time where backward sloping supply curve could describe a choice I made is when I received a raise from my employer. I was working so hard at the beginning in order to make more than minimum wage over the summer, and finally when my salary was bumped up I breathed an effective sigh of relief, and began to relax a little more. Now that my raise has been given, I do not have really anything to work towards so I honestly do not put my full effort into my job. It is unfortunate but a very common occurrence that people want to better their own position, and once they have reached the top and do not need to do anything else to maximize their happiness, work and effort levels will decline.
-
Tina Loo
I like your example Alex, but does it prove that economic behaviour ISN’T universal? If it was, wouldn’t you have continued to work hard to increase your pay or otherwise get ahead by being noticed by your employer?
-
-
cprimus
The tricky thing about addressing whether or not economic behaviour is universal is determining what economics exactly is. I suppose you could say that it’s about the production and consumption of goods, in which case without certain goods human beings would inevitably die and indeed, that need is universal. The need to fulfill desires is universal. But economics in a financial sense? I disagree. The societal conditions of the native fur traders in the 18th and 19th centuries prove that economics alone, self-interest alone, is not entirely universal. While material self-interest is a motivator, from what I’ve read about Native history so far, it seems that the social conditions and way of life limited how many goods an individual could gain. These people were very community-oriented and because of this tribal culture shared a lot. As for the backwards-sloping supply curve, as the quantity drops, the price goes up. For example, if there were fewer beaver pelts available, they could be sold for more money or traded for a good of higher value or more product. So here’s the thing, they want to get as much as they can get, not for themselves but for the tribe. This illustrates the difference between tribal culture and contemporary ecomics.
-
Tina Loo
Christine, I think you are onto an important point: just what is economics? It might be different things in different societies, or different societies might perceive value differently (what is worth pursuing might differ). So if this is the case, then economic behaviour can’t be universal.
-
-
Tina Loo
General Comments on Week 6:
What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone said economic behaviour is universal; i.e. all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). BUT then you all went on to give me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?
Bottom line (ha ha, pardon the economic pun): Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….
-
nkular93, 
cprimus, 
kenthen, and 4 others are discussing. 
mosachoff, and 4 others are discussing. 
doraleung, 
alexwickett, 
angieL, and 6 others are discussing. 
angrysteve, and 7 others are discussing. 
daverob1, and 8 others are discussing. 
enorthwood 10:20 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Both of these readings by Rotenburg and Frances discuss what the importance of determining Canada’s future and women’s place in it while the war is going on, because war is a cataclyst for change and changes need to be made. Rotenburg argues that this is a woman’s war, that women are being suppressed, being made into ‘obedient robots’ that serve men. Jobs, education are not for women, they are sent to the Church, Kitchen and Children. If you’re not married they want to know why not, if you are they tell you how many children you need to have and when. Women provide the never ending stream of men to fight for their country. Kitchens sphere men are interrupting, asking questions, poking their heads in and trying to offer advice. Second sphere, children, of course they want them but they don’t want them to grow up to be pieces of the war machine. A woman’s war is too see her children grow free and strong without having to kill to earn that title. How are we supposed to believe in religion when all it’s taught us is being dethroned? We have been taught that we should reign righteously, is that forgotten? Is might truly right? The woman’s job is not to wait to build a better place after the war, but to build it now. You cannot have something done the way you want it done unless you yourself do it. Women as guardians. Women need to be prepared for battle, just a different type of battle. Rotenburg ties all these things together in a serious question for Canada at the time, what position will Canada take when the war stops in regards to women? Will they go back to their roles in kitchen, children and church. What role will they have? It is clear from the First World War that men have no interest in the role of women or their importance in after war.
These articles are trying to tell women that there IS a place for them in society, but they have to unite together to make those positions because men will not allow those places to exist. They want women to remain within the ‘trinity’ role where they have three explicit focuses as previously mentioned. The problem with this outlook is that it actually convinces women that they actually belong there. This is something that Frances discusses is the role of women after the war and if they will still be involved in their community affairs. Women in these positions learned things about themselves, that they CAN do men’s work and make a positive change in their communities by taking leadership roles. Women have to use their brains to plan for Canada’s future. Women have to get to know their community, see it, feel it and smell it. This article is largely a cry for women to abandon their household roles, or their roles from being a spectator and actually becoming involved and further KNOWING the things they are talking about. Women have proved their capacities in being able to hold both their jobs and their community involvement. Women could get involved with the slums, taking roles in their government and searching for issues to the problem intellectually. What will happen to Canada when the war is over, will we fall back into old patterns or will we embrace new identities.
In my own thoughts and leading away from the readings a little here, I think what the main point that BOTH of these authors are addressing is that an identity cannot be made for women if they don’t make it aware that there is an identity that needs to be attached to them. Women were not seen as relevant and they lacked definition besides the woman behind the man. This was a unique cry out from authors during the war to encourage women to define themselves, to define their sisters within their country so that all of them could lead the lives that made sense in their new identities. How are you supposed to make the government and people of the country see your concerns and issues if you’re not even identifiable to them? Frances addresses this a little more significantly when she discusses the importance of women to KNOW their surroundings. To become involved, to know what is going on in their areas and to not only address it from their rocking chairs knitting at home but to address the issue as an equal intellectual with the capacity to solve the issue. This was a crucial time period for really defining the desires of women as a group, as prior to these opportunities in war, there wasn’t much of a group of women that were seen as intellectuals fighting for a cause. They were seen as passive parts of society, and these articles are a cry out to change that passive role and become active members of the community. Another big theme I saw here was the desire to abandon the trinity of jobs women were responsible to do. They wanted to be able to have a say in their own lives, at the same time as working and raising children and being church going women. The articles draw on a main function, the ability of being able to multitask, which could also be associated with the ability to be intelligent. It is because of this ability to multitask women are arguing for recognition for their capabilities to do so, and to be given the right to make their own calls in their own affairs without the disturbance of men. This is a defining factor of our culture even today. Women want to develop careers without a man, they want to achieve goals and they don’t want a man involved in that, they want to earn it the same as a man. Women want to be able to step in front of a man for once, instead of being locked behind. That is what these articles are begging the women of the war to do, is evaluate where they stand and take a step forward instead of being planted in the same place they had always been, behind the man.
nkular93 12:31 am on March 5, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Rotenberg and Frances both provide an account that highlights the position of women in the second world war and deals their role in the public sphere. Rotenberg highlights the role of women in war by referring to the war as being a women’s war. She talks about the enslavement of women under fascism and their inability to practice the freedoms they have worked years to gain. She talks about the regimes interference in the private sphere, in the welfare of the women’s children, and in religion, all of which work to diminish the rights and freedoms of the individual and set back the nation into moral, social, and political degression. In the context of the war, women are reduced to unthinking and obedient robots confined to their role in the kitchen, as mothers, and in the church. Having any sort of agency in the public sphere was out of the question for a sex considered inferior to men. Especially living under a doctrine of National Socialism, women were bound to be considered to be unequal and as servers to the Master Aryan race. Rotenberg emphasizes the importance of women’s role in the public sphere and claims that through the realization of the issues involving the right for the woman to be the boss of the kitchen, the right for her to aspire for a better future for her children, and the right for her to be able to choose whichever religion and practice without the infringement of a tyrannical regime, women will know the war to be their war and to address these issues as women who want a new world order.
Frances also highlights the role of women outside of the private sphere by focusing on the possibilities of the kinds of roles the women could have in the public sphere even after the war had ended. She talks about how women had developed skills and experience through their work and had wanted to keep working together with a team so to have some influence in the public domain and invoke recognition of the importance of their contributions outside of the roles that society had confined or limited them to.In a sense, Frances is referring to the breaking of the barrier of limitations subjected upon women and letting them use their minds to plan their own place in the future of Canada.
In my opinion, I believe that the war’s causing of the change in gender roles for the women, through their increased engagement in the public sphere as means for supporting the war effort, did good for the women as it allowed them to realize their potential in the economic and social aspects of society. I believe Rotenberg and Frances make a good point when they point out how the role of women could be so much more and was so much more than the limitations of the private sphere that they were confined in allowed them to be. It also made them more conscious members of the community as they came to terms with the issues plaguing the community-issues that heavily pertained to the kinds of roles that women were familiar with and that meant something to them. For example, the concern for a better future for their children in the face of a war demanding conscription was something that women as mothers could identify with and which made them realize their ability to be able to bring these issues in the forefront in the public domain through the use of their own agency.
millyzhu 10:44 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
World War II was a watershed moment in Canada history in regards to women’s roles. There was the belief that women were too fragile and had to stay home and tend to the house and children while the hardy men worked outside to provide for the family. However, during World War II, this family structure changed dramatically as both men and women now worked outside the home. Men were on the front lines while the women supported from behind the scenes back home through contributing and keeping the home economy alive. Due to the lack of young, capable men leaving for the war, the women stepped in to tend to the industry back home. They were able to balance both work and home, proving that they were just as capable as men, if not more. Also, contrary to outdated beliefs that women could not work in a group, they proved otherwise. They were able to initiate, organize, lead, and carry out various fundraisers to raise money for the war effectively and efficiently within a short period of time. By working outside the home due to the opportunity given by World War II, many intelligent women realized that they could keep this new lifestyle, seeing the changes that they have made with the new skills they have gained. This moment when they realized that they wanted to keep these new opportunities and the positions they have worked for and gained was the watershed moment in Canadian history. The women now had awareness of their powers and desire to be able to contribute equally to their nation alongside their male counterparts.
mosachoff 4:17 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
From the primary sources “It’s a Woman’s War” by Mattie Rotenberg and “ Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future” by Anne Frances, we gain insight about the sentiments women had towards the war and their role at home with the absence of men. Both sources identify the new roles and responsibilities women gained as positive steps for the future of Canada and the role women will hopefully play in that future. Each author understands that unless there is a cohesive movement towards reform, the advancement women experienced socially and economically during the war will have a finite existence. In relation to the war effort itself, each article is wholly supportive of the battle at hand and the need to support the men fighting on the front lines. Nevertheless, each author is also in favor of advocating for the fight they face as women at home. Idleness will not prove successful and without activism women may never regain the positions they inherited during the war years. Each author, while advocating for change at home also notes the privilege to do so in a democracy. Where in Germany and other fascist or totalitarian regimes, they’re plight may be insurmountable. I think that the point each author makes is not for complete reform but for changes that recognize women as competent and capable members of society whose involvement can only bring about prosperity. They do not want to abandon traditional, more domestic roles such as childcare and work in the kitchen, but should be able to pursue opportunities available to men if they so choose. Especially considering they have proven their value in the war effort.
alexwickett 5:10 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The primary documents “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” and “It’s a Women’s War,” are documents written by women expressing their views on the changing roles of women during and following World War Two. The change in womens’ typical role of working in the home, to working in the industry in a time of Total War is explained in both documents. A prominent issue facing many women was the question of what were women going to do when the men returned from combat. Frances’ article pegs many questions such as why should woman have to go back to working exclusively at home, and why even after all they have proven and contributed, are they forced to retake their old societal roles. Frances states that many women in fact do not want to go back to working only in the home, they gain more satisfaction participating in the workforce than they do sewing, cleaning and cooking only. Both documents also come to similar conclusions, which are unless a united movement towards permanent reform takes place, women will eventually end up back in the home. Though it is acknowledged that many women in fact want to go back to the home, and want to continue their traditional role, what needs to take place is the option for women to choose. Though immediate and complete reform would be almost impossible, the main goal, it seems, is just to change the mindset of many people and make them understand that women can contribute to society with just as much fervor and competence as men. Rotenberg discusses the issues that women faced in the NAZI totalitarian regime. It is impossible for reform to happen when an all powerful seemingly, demigod, is dictating everything that happens within the regime. Additionally, Hitler believed that women were needed to produce strong children who would further aid in his war effort. Women, as valued members of society, should have the right to decide how they want to live their lives and have the choice to work in the workforce or work exclusively in the home.
kenthen 5:38 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Being from a First Nation Culture one of the teachings that you will receive from any elder is that women and females in general are the most powerful being because of the ability to give birth. For this point alone women are regarded so highly in our culture and their views, their advice and their motherhood is taken very seriously and that they should and shall be protected from any form of harm at all costs possible.
Now having said this and after reading these articles I cannot really speak on these points from a euro centered point of view from which these women I am assuming come from.
In my culture the Secwepemc or Shuswap peoples of the interior Salish do not consider the women to be the weaker sex, in fact we see them and believe them to be way stronger than any man, and i stress any man. We as a people also have a differing view on feminism because as basic is the matter is, that within the household, the community and on the land the woman has the very last say on what goes, she makes the rules or disregards them if she doesn’t agree with what is being said. No such need for movements is needed because the greatest leaders from my Nation are that of women. While we have had great male leaders it is the mothers, the daughters, the grandmothers, aunts and sisters who taught them.
So while I understand what is being said in the articles about equality, the need for women to strike while the iron is hot, in terms of seeking a place in life. The desire for women to be taken seriously and not for granted is of the utmost importance. But in the end while I understand it and I can see the struggle it just feels a little alien to me to speak on it, because of the way I was brought up and brought to believe.
cprimus 7:08 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
For us, by us?
I think that the programs which broadcast these two different messages are significant. Both are about unification and female empowerment, but I think that both the audience and the medium are important factors in assessing these sources.
Rotenberg’s program was on the “Trans-Canada Matinee” – an afternoon broadcast on the CBC. She appeals directly to women to unite and create the new world order. Because of this, I’m guessing that women were the main audience of the program, perhaps while they are at home. Rotenberg personalizes her message to women whose lives focussed on childrearing, cooking and devotion, speaking of the Nazi’s invasions on these inseparable parts of women’s private lives. This is about women at home for women who stay at home. The message is to stay at home and mold the culture that they want their children to grow up in, a culture of strong moral fibre which can be created through happy homes. This is just a guess, but she too is probably a stay-at-home mom. Using the same ideology as the vilified man she speaks of, “Hitler himself says that his battles are fought with ideas, no less than with guns”.
Frances’ article was in “Saturday Night” magazine, which was probably read by more educated women, and men too. While Rotenberg who tries to find a place for women in society at home, Frances tries to find a place for women outside the home. She indicates that although some women would prefer to retire at home once the men return, many female professionals want to continue to work in the public sphere. She believes that by working outside of the home that women can cure the ills of society: unemployment, juvenile delinquency and the like. She stresses the importance of education and participatory community involvement to these women. She’s finding a place for working women in society.
cprimus 7:17 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Edit: the title was not supposed to have a question mark after it. It was supposed to be a period.