Week 9 Wall
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
nkular93, 
angieL, and 5 others are discussing.
mosachoff 12:48 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul purposes that the “unconscious” Canadian identity as polite, altruistic, do-gooders is inherently vested in the psyche our aboriginal ancestors. Saul considers Canada to be a “Métis civilization” because at first contact with European settlers, they helped to teach Europeans the resourcefulness needed to live off the land and establish settlements. While this is partly true, relations between Europeans and First Nation peoples were never as genial as Saul suggests. When Vikings visited Atlantic Canada, there are documented accounts of fighting between the two groups with little reason for provocation. While it can be argued that the Viking explorers share culpability for the violence, it still shows that the First Nation people were not entirely peaceful. Saul goes on to delineate that the European constructs of our society such as our democracy and judicial system are actually manifestations of “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness [that] we have actually learned from Canada’s native peoples”. This argument is somewhat flawed. It is hard to believe that our ideas of tolerance and fairness are derived from aboriginals 500 years ago and that it wasn’t human nature that influenced the development of these same ideas around the world, not just in Europe and North America. Saul’s polemic argument does hold some merit though. He asks us to reconsider our history and the way we define ourselves. Canada, essentially since its inception as colony and then a nation has been based on immigration. People have been arriving here for centuries, and as people come, they bring with them their ideas. We shouldn’t consider ourselves a European civilization nor a Métis civilization, instead we are a Canadian civilization that is defined by the compilation of ideas from people originating around the world. If we extend Saul’s description of a Métis civilization to the development and intermarrying of new ideas, from around the world and not just our First Nation ancestors, then we can consider Canada to be a Métis civilization.
Tina Loo 2:52 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice qualification of Saul’s concept!
millyzhu 8:57 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
A “Métis civilization” as argued by John Ralston Saul is what “Canada” is. The social norms and behaviours of Canada today came from indigenous peoples and their way of living 500 years ago. Saul argues that Canadian identity was actually contrived by indigenous peoples and that the identity of Canada, which comprises of the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness, was taken from indigenous peoples instead of what many believe came from our great motherland. However, it is too much of a stretch to state that the Canadian identity was brought up single-handedly by indigenous peoples. Before Canada was confederated, each colony had different types of settlers, all of whom immigrated to the new lands. These immigrants brought their own cultural roots and ideas, while creating new ones as they merged into one nationality. Hence, the Canadian identity was not just created by indigenous peoples, but was built upon by all different cultural groups. Also, the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness that Saul argues came from indigenous peoples is too bold of an assertion as these traits can be found in anyone’s personality. Nevertheless, Sault does make a valid and interesting point when he states that Canada is a Métis civilization in the sense that it was built on the triangle traditions that involved French and English settlers and indigenous peoples with the interchange of culture and ideas that eventually formed the Canadian identity.
Tina Loo 2:53 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
But he isn’t saying that Indigenous peoples were the only group that created Canadian society; it’s a mix!
enorthwood 3:30 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul argues in his book that what Canada is inherently Aboriginal, the practices, ideas and ways we communicate is much less British as it is Aboriginal. He argues that we have positive traits that are distinct to “Canada” and are not from the colonies we come from, but were designed and sculpted right here in Canada. To some extent, I have a large amount of agreement with this. In class we’ve talked about the idea of gift giving that came from the aboriginals, and now today we give gifts for large holidays, for birthdays and to show appreciate to someone. This has also become a custom even in China, when my dad has done business in China he’d come with immense amounts of gifts in high quality tea and chocolates. Truly this gift giving practice has been eminent throughout Canada and has very much become a part of our culture. Another example I can think of is intermarriage between Aboriginals and British colonizers, (Saul talks about this in the book says the article) and how that has become very common and acceptable in today’s society. Firstly, the argument he’s trying to make is calling for us as Canadians to reconsider our backgrounds. He asks us to understand that we are a result of a cross cultural phenomenon that paved way for an opportunity to learn from the Aboriginal way of life. I think this argument is valid in our everyday lives, and even in the classrooms of my high school I was taught a very different, euro centric view. It’s important for us to rewrite our own history to tell the entire story, not just one side. I can see how there might be a few flaws in his argument though. Many of the customs did come from Britain, our basic law system and regulations were enforced by Britain. That being said, I think his argument is one that needs to be taken further into account.
kenthen 3:40 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In a idyllic sense of the term ‘Metis Nation,” one might argue that we are indeed a Metis Nation. To be an Aboriginal in the essence of the ancestor teachings means to be at one with the earth, to not place yourself above any other being and to appreciate and be grateful for what we have. Now do we do this as a country? I would like to think if we can look upon each other with non-judgmental eyes and to accept the honesty that we in fact are guilty of past misgivings as well that we can say that this is a country that in fact we are worthy of such a title. We can say that we are a country of diversity of mixed race and of shared values brought forth by our inherent desire to be at peace with our surroundings and our fellow brothers and sisters. No longer will we look at that person or “those ” people with such disdain or precursors that will hinder them or bring harm to them. Then at that point we can accept the term fully and say we are a Metis nation.
alexwickett 3:36 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul argues that Canada’s, “skill at consensual politics and negation is the direct result of our aboriginal legacy”. He argues that what many people believe to have come from European practices in fact come from Aboriginal practices. Saul believes that our, “institutional and cultural inheritance,” did not come from British parliamentary democracy, Western individualism or Western Capitalism etc… but came from Aboriginal practices. As we have studied in this course, it is true that the Europeans, particularly the French, did adhere to the some Aboriginal customs such as gift giving; this however does not constitute the thesis that all Canadian practices stem from Aboriginal ones. It is true, that many European’s did marry and have children with Aboriginals, thus forming the Métis population. For those specific people, it may be more justifiable to say that Canada is a Métis civilization, but for the rest of the Canadian population whom do not have Métis background, Canada cannot be considered a Métis nation, anymore than Canada could be considered a Spanish nation. Saul states that the “Canadian trait” of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness come from Indigenous peoples, but it is far too broad a statement to make, in my opinion. Though it is entirely possible, and probable that many Aboriginal people exuded these traits, it is just as probable that the British and French people did as well. Indigenous, French, English and many other cultures have affected the Canadian identity since it’s colonization, but it is not possible to say that Canada is exclusively a Métis civilization. To contrast, if one was to take the meaning of “Métis civilization” to mean we are a group of people that come from different and mixed backgrounds, who have come to live together, then Canada could be seen as a Métis Civilization. Like the Métis, Canadians do not have one uniform background, and many different cultures have come to influence every Canadian in a different way. Depending on the definition of what a Métis Civilization is, defines how much Canada can be considered one.
angieL 4:58 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In his article, Saul argued that Canada is a “Métis civilization” which has inherited many Aboriginal values from 500 years ago. He said that as a country, our ideology, legal systems, and our “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness” were all deeply influenced by ancient Aboriginal cultural beliefs and values. Looking back on what we’ve learned so far in the lectures, we’ve discussed many instances of accommodations, respect, and diplomatic gestures between the Europeans and the indigenous peoples, but there were also conflicts, betrayal, and discriminations. It is often through struggles, compromises, and cultural clashes that comes intellectual enlightenments and the appreciation of diversity and respect. Saul has a very narrow view on both the European and Aboriginal values; he seemed to be critical and quite negative towards European influence on Canada’s ideology and contributed all the “good” values and traits to the Aboriginal culture. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Canada’s acceptance of multiculturalism and inclusiveness is merely an influence of our Aboriginal roots; this way of thinking undermines our ability to make changes and improvements as human beings capable of compassion, empathy, and pain. I believe it was more of an interaction, or even multiple interactions between different cultural, religious, and racial groups that made Canada the country it is today. That it is a process of synthesis, integration, and social learning of cultures that made us appreciate and respect our differences, and learned to be fair to others.
Tina Loo 2:55 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
But wouldn’t Saul agree that the interaction you talk about is at the root of a “Metis” civilization? He says Canada is the result of a mixing of different traditions, including Indigenous ones.
nkular93 10:29 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada could be considered a Métis nation to some extent in that the cultural norms and practices of French, the English, and the Aboriginals as well as the relationships between these groups of people have shaped much of Canadian identity. Thinking about the Aboriginals, one finds that many of the values and beliefs held by these groups of people such as the existence of people in harmony, tolerance, and equality in some sense, are the basic beliefs held by the government as well as are a part of our identity as Canadians living in a multicultural society. Canada also carries the essence of French and English beliefs along with Aboriginal values considering that colonists from both nations had an impact on the development of the country. Through the questioning of the role of the government, citizens of Canada were able to demand for responsible government with egalitarian principles and move forward with the idea of having a society where individuals that were interconnected within a web of relationships were able to exist a part from and with other groups in harmony. The ideas of harmony and tolerance have been rooted in aboriginal culture. This suggests how the fundamental principles that underlie conduct by the state and society have been borrowed or adopted by the nation, making Métis Nation a plausible term that can be applied to Canada. Canada can be called a Métis Nation if the adoption of cultural norms and values of the Aboriginals along with the values and beliefs of the colonizers (the French and the English) are taken into consideration. However, aboriginal principles cannot take all the credit for their contribution to Canadian society as many other groups of people that colonized the land have also contributed in their own way to make Canada a multicultural and tolerant society. it is the interactions between these different groups of people that have allowed Canada to evolve into the nation that it is today. Therefore, yes the term Metis Nation can be applied to Canada if we only look at the contributions of the main groups of people that existed in Canada before, the Aboriginals, the French and the English. However, if we were to consider the contributions of various groups of people and the interactions between these groups of people and how society evolved accordingly due to these interactions, then calling Canada a Metis Nation would be undermining the contributions of various multicultural groups that make up Canada.
Tina Loo 2:56 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on this week’s blog.
I didn’t comment on your blogs individually even though it’s this group’s turn for me to do so. That’s because this week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. I especially liked how many of you took pains to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.