Week 7 Wall
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
Updates from July, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
admin
-
admin
Week 8 Wall
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
-
millyzhu
The rebellions that occurred in both Lower and Upper Canada had similarities with the colonies in the Atlantic region. There was a small group of elitists in the society that held the ruling powers while oppressing the rest of the society. As the people came to realize what was going on through respective prominent figures in the colonies, they grew more aware of their unfair situations and demanded a reform of the governing system. The Canadas and the colonies in the Atlantic region demanded for a responsible government where no one was appointed, but had to be elected by the voters. Although the idea was first rejected by Britain’s government and Governors, after spreading awareness through the establishment of the reformists’ newspaper mills, the demand grew for responsible government and it ended in favour of the reformists.
Despite their demand for democratic reform through limited to no violent acts, the 1830s could be seen as an age of revolution because of the varying methods and the then-radical thinking of their demands that the colonies of British North America insisted upon. The differing methods used by the dissatisfied colonies varied as some protested, took up arms, started newspaper mills, and/or pressed the British government and Governor for change. The then-radical thinking was the concept of responsible government where there was an assembly that was elected by the voters, but because of this “extremist” type of thinking back then, the 1830s could have been seen as an age of revolution. However, the extent to which the 1830s in British North America was seen as a revolution was quite restrained compared to the revolutions and wars that occurred outside the colonies, which were the very definition of revolution, such as the America Revolution, French Revolution, and the Napoleon War, where their respective “governments” were overthrown by the people. -
enorthwood
Both of these events are similar due to their cause that made the means to an end for this to happen. Both areas were being repressed by what is probably best called an “aristocracy” gone bad or oligarchy really. To bring in an outside example away from lecture, this situation reminds me a lot of Brazil. Profit is made in the country but it goes into the pockets of the few. Obviously, those who benefited from this didn’t want this to be discontinued so there was a lot of struggle in both areas to properly appoint people to make responsible government happen. However it seems both these places adapted some way to give the powerful voice of the people, there was an ability to overcome the voicelessness of the population and people could be properly instilled into positions where they could respond to the peoples need for political change. However, I feel like the economics from place to place differ. In the Atlantic region they seemed to be doing well economically and this created a new class of merchants that really gave voice to some of their political movements. None the less, I don’t feel like this was much of a position in Lower and Upper Canada. I feel like there was land owners and people who worked the land, at least I feel like the merchant class wasn’t really something that was available to them at the time. I also feel as if the Atlantic had a few more advantages in way of cod fisheries etc. that were mentioned through class and large scale fur trades, where as some areas of Upper and Lower Canada wouldn’t have this privileged.
I think it could be seen as an age of revolution because of what people had to go through to get to their desired end. When I think of revolution I think of a straight line, with many different series of checkpoints along the way that lead to a desired end and each check point is a step in the right direction, but they can also be gone back too. I feel like the revolution’s end was responsible government and this demolition of the oligarchy. However it took a very long time and a lot of death, punishments, disputes of power to get there and rebellions. In this way can revolution be seen because it took this desire to reach their end that the people were finally able to change the way that their prospect governments ran and people finally received the political power they had been craving. -
angieL
They are similar in ways that there were different socioeconomic groups looking out for their own self-interests. Different groups were profiting from certain rules, especially small groups of social elitists and British loyalists that were holding power over the commoners; therefore, it was difficult to reform policies and appointed officials that could benefit the majority. Atlantic colonies had also inherited the same government systems as the Canadas. With the influence of a few prominent figures at the time, the people were starting to realize that they needed a government that better represented their needs and understood the delicacy of the situation in terms of different racial and religious groups. They wanted the right to vote, and the power to elect their own officials. In both instances, the people wanted to establish policies that reflected the social desires of the majority, not just a few in power, and refused to let the British government assumed full control over the rule and decision making. Rebellions in both the Canadas and the Atlantic regions were also concerning similar matters such as landholding and the right to office. The 1830s might be seen as an age of revolution in British North America to the extend that people were dying, punished, and forced to resort to violence to achieve political goals. There were also outbreaks of war, such as the one in Lower Canada, resulting from unresolved conflicts between classes and unsettled political situation. It is a revolution in ways there were death and punishment along the way, and many who fought for democracy were convicted and trailed. Although the original government bodies were not overthrown as in typical revolutions such as the American and French Revolution, policies and systems were reformed in ways that they could finally have better representation of the majority of they people .
-
nkular93
The rebellions in the Canadas were similar to dissent in the Atlantic region in that the civilians living in both regions were beginning to demand for an elected assembly that represented the people of both regions and for a more responsive and responsible government. In Upper Canada, power was concentrated in the hands of the Family Compact. In order to keep the colony British and keep American influence to a low level, the Family Compact began to take steps to keep Americans out by telling judges to withhold oaths of allegiance to Americans, therefore rendering them without any political rights. This angered the citizens of the colony which provoked them to demand for a more responsible government instead of having a small group of people, the Family Compact, take decisions and hold majority of the power. In Lower Canada, many francophones began to suspect assimilation efforts by the British as well as resented how immigrants from the British Isles were beginning to populate the area, which caused them to speak out for their own political rights and demand for a responsible government. In the Atlantic regions, as the colonies began to grow, the middle class people of the colony were beginning to develop a sense of community and their own local interests and soon politics came down to the question of how to make appointed bodies more responsive to the elected part of government and the people of the colonies. Therefore, it came down to the objection of the concentration of power in the hands of a few in the Atlantic region and the Canadas. People were beginning to demand for a responsible government that was accountable to them. They wanted to make their voices heard.
The 1830s may be seen as the age of revolution in that the people living in the Canadas and the Atlantic region were beginning to revolt against the rule of the colonists. They were dissatisfied with the way the colonies were being run and therefore they revolted against it, at least in the Canadas they did. The 1830s took on revolutionary qualities as prominent figures began to take steps against the government and began to make their voices and opinions heard. William Lyon Mackenzie can be taken as an example as he put an appeal to small farmers and asked them to come together and lobby for change in the form of a more responsible government. Joseph Howe could also be looked at as an example of a figure who questioned the role of the government by publishing an article about it and got arrested for libel. He was seen as a champion of free speech, free press, and responsible government. As these figures were publicly revolting against the government and calling for drastic change by voicing their opinions, the 1830s can be considered the age of revolution. -
mosachoff
The rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada were similar to the reforms in the Atlantic region in that the impetus for change was the same. In Upper and Lower Canada, the established political system had elite members of society controlling the government and making decisions. In Upper Canada, progressive groups made up of newer immigrants and the poorer members of society challenged the elite. In Lower Canada, rebellion was similarly vested in opposition towards the controlling executive powers, but also contained anti-British sentiments that the French Canadian population felt oppressed by. Lord Durham recognized this as an “ethnic” problem as well as a political one. The common goal of both rebellions was for a “responsible government” that put more control over colonial affairs in the hands of those who lived in the colonies as opposed to leadership sent from London. In the Atlantic region, the rebellion was focused on installing a responsible government. A similar situation existed in Atlantic Canada as it did in the Upper and Lower provinces, where control rested in the hands of British-loyal elite. The successful shift to a responsible government saw the executive counsel or cabinet become responsible to the assembly. From the reform movements that took place in the first few decades of the 19th century, Canada experienced its most revolutionary period up until that time. While not all of the movements were successful, each carried influence in shaping the political landscape of the provinces and colony.
-
kenthen
Political dissent, elitists ruling the lands, the lack of economy, poor social structure and upheaval were both the mainstays of the rebellions in the Canada’s and the Atlantic region. While were on this we can say that all these factors gave the BNA an age of revolution as well, but more on that later. First we will look at the similarities that led to the uprising. Both of these situations can be called uprisings due to the fact that in both instances small packs of elitists, land holders, absentee proprietors or corrupt government held the power and used it to their very own benefit leaving the poorer without certain and specific rights, to work hard and to suffer while the fat cats got bigger. These uprisings led to responsible governments and better rights for the citizens and voices within their own homes and lands. The upper British, the lower french and the Highlanders from the Atlantic all had differing situations that led to an uprising and movement within their own societies but the one main thing they had in common was a revolution.
What these three societies lacked and needed could only be attained by a new social order or an upheaval of the powers that were leading them at that certain point and time. This is what made the 1830’s an age of revolution where the majority saw a need for change and did just that with forcible removal either that included death tolls, voices, freedom of speech and press, political maneuvers and hard stances that the minorities could not deny which eventually led to the changes that people sought out. Thus there were all the ingredients for an age of revolution. -
alexwickett
The rebellions in the Atlantic region, and the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada had significant similarities. In Upper Canada the elite group, the Family Compact, was in control and often used methods to stay in power that were not in accordance with what the people wanted. In Lower Canada, a similar oligarchy existed, the Chateau Clique. Both groups used their power to further benefit themselves and remain in control as long as possible. The situation was similar the Atlantic Region, as the people were controlled by non-elected entities. The people in the Canadas and in the Atlantic colonies both sought out a government that would be responsible to the people. They wanted the executive council and governor to be responsible, and they wanted an elected Legislative Assembly, where most of the power would be concentrated. Initially, the crown ignored the requests, and though some concessions were made, it mostly ended with the people being angrier than before and turning to means of violence. Though all areas did eventually end up getting a responsible government, there were differences in the ways the colonies acted to get this. In Lower Canada for example, once the people that reached their wits end, the first shots were fired in the November of 1837. In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie took a stance against the government in his radical newspaper, and though the governor, Francis Bond Head did appoint two some what radical reformers to the executive council, no real changes were made and the elections of 1836 were the most violent ever. In the Atlantic regions however, the economy was rather different. Fuelled by the fisheries and the timber trade, a lot of the Atlantic colonies were prospering, and developed a prominent merchant class. When London, witnessed that the people were unhappy with the political situation, more concessions were made because the British Crown had already seen what had happened in Upper and Lower Canada.
The 1830’s can be seen as a revolution because people were unhappy with the way they were being governed, and acted to change it. Through the publication of radical newspapers, protests, and violence, eventually the people prevailed, and every colony eventually received a responsible government. The definition of a revolution according to the oxford dictionary is, “a overthrow of government or social order in favor of a new one”. A new type of governance was definitely established and oligarchies, and suppressive, non –elected governments were overthrown. Though 1830’s revolutions were not necessarily as prominent as those in France and in the United States, they are still valid and important revolutions. Though not all the colonies were united as one to overthrow the British Crown, the people in each of the colonies did share a common goal. In respect, Britain was more lenient to granting the wishes of the colonies than in other circumstances, but that does not make the 1830’s any less of a revolutionary time. -
SteveMoody
As most rebellions are of the lower classes revolting against the upper ruling classes, the Atlantic Rebellions share these characteristics. In each location and under-represented worker class was taken advantage of by the powers of the colonizing force. The degrees to which different locations were affected by the rebellious fever varied, as the Rebellions of Upper & Lower Canada were put down after only a few weeks, while the American Revolutionary War spanned several years and the Haitian uprising against the French was almost as horrific and bloody as France’s own Revolution. In each case the call (if not the exact words used) reflected that for responsible government. A ruling cadre of elected officials from the local population. (the exception to this may be Haiti, as freedom from abject oppression and slavery was the driving factor behind their revolt)
The Rebellions in Upper & Lower Canada differ from these other instances though in while they did not succeed initially, militarily or otherwise, one of their most important goals, responsible government, was realized despite the failures. (True, it took more than a decade to materialize, but can argue how much longer this would’ve taken had there been no Rebellions.
To characterize the 1830’s as a distinctly ‘rebellious’ period only lends credence to the notion that other rebellions and resistance to colonial over-reach in the past (the Acadians, for example) were not as important to the shaping of Canadian identity. In terms of the noticeable long term effects on what we view today as ‘Canada’ then yes the rebellions of the 1830’s were significant, but I do not believe they represent a particular trend of era, but rather the lasting effects those two rebellions had on our view of Canada. -
cprimus
Although no rebellions occurred in the Atlantic colonies, like the two provinces of Canada they were greatly dissatisfied with the government and were resentful that, also like Upper and Lower Canada, the power still rested in the hands of an elite few who were ruling as an oligarchy. All of the citizens were unhappy when they realized that the government wasn’t responsive to the interests of the people, particularly over the use of public funds and land. They lobbied for responsible government. Although an elected assembly was created, the elites running the government could, at their own will, dissolve the assembly and replace them with their “friends”. Because of this, the presence of individuals calling for political reform strengthened: William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada; Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada; and Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia. The Atlantic colonies (except Newfoundland) would achieve responsible government around the turn of the 1850s.
The people started finding a voice. They wanted change and saw that they had to come together and fight for what they wanted and believed they deserved. Nothing brings people together more than an attempt to overthrow (or at least significantly change) the government. They wanted a government that listened to them and consulted them on matters affecting their region as a whole – public funds, land, voting power, immigration. They wanted to be recognized as a cohesive citizenry. Although some places did not take up arms, it was the many versus the few in all parts of British North America as they became more aware of the corruption of the government. -
Tina Loo
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did quite well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).
-
-
admin
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?
-
mosachoff
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
Nice qualification of Saul’s concept!
-
-
millyzhu
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
But he isn’t saying that Indigenous peoples were the only group that created Canadian society; it’s a mix!
-
-
enorthwood
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
-
admin
Week 10 Wall
Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?
Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011
-
SteveMoody
The short form answer is ‘Yes’, sports teams can be considered part of governmentality. I will speak directly to ‘National’ teams though (ie, Team Canada). Professional sports and leagues are much more about commerce and the business possibilities they represent, and much less about the power of government.
When dealing with professional sporting leagues and teams the governments position is much more one of economic cooperation, rather than a regional defining nationalism. If an element of the nation, say a city, requires a new arena (*Edmonton* *cough*cough*) they government may be brought in to help finance, or facilitate a deal where a particular team can benefit from national or international relations. This again represents the governments place in the economy though.
National Sports teams in Canada represent a much more signigicant hand of the government in our regular lives. National teams typically need to receive government funding and are often affected by governments decisions on national policy and international relations. If the Canadian government is in a spat with some other nation, our national hockey teams match against that country becomes a political touchstone, a measure of the power of Canadian Values against the Values of our opponents. Have our nations worked to develop courteous and professional athletes, by which the remainder of Canada may be judged in absentia? Or did our athletes behave like blowhards and create an image of Canada that most Canadian’s would not want perpetuated?
Governmentality also plays into what sports teams are honoured and which are not. There is no question that the performance of our Hockey team would be a point of national pride for our government, while the fortunes of our soccer or Rugby teams would be more of a sign of shame or lacking priorities.
A great example pertaining to this is the funding question that comes up each Olympics, about how much money the Federal government puts into funding our international athletes. We always lag behind compared to the US, Australia, Russia and China, all nations who consider physical competition to be a hallmark of their international standing. Governmentality plays strongly into sports teams as it allows the government to take an active role and position in the communal society/social lives of the citizens its rules. If the government is involved in your favourite sports, when those sports bring you pride, then the government gets the bonus knock on effect of that positivity. -
millyzhu
Yes, we can consider team sports part of governmentality because the two share similar qualities. Upon British North America’s state formation, one of its aims was to take more control of its citizens, and the society at large. One of the ways the state was able to have this control was to create and expand organizations and institutions of which desired morals will be taught and regulated. Some of the institutions that were expanded were schools and penitentiaries in Canada. Both of these institutions were used to communicate values, conformity, and discipline in hope of creating a certain type of population, which were regulated by authoritative figures whose orders were followed, and if orders were not followed, then punishment would await. Likewise, team sports have these elements as well. In team sports, certain values are taught (eg. sportsmanship and rules of the game). If these values were broken, then there would be punishment. For example, while competing in a team swim relay, if the first swimmer were to dive before the whistle was blown, then they would be either criticized or disqualified. Also, disciplinary measures may be taken to make sure such that an early start will not happen again, perhaps through extra training. In the same way that in schools (eg. private schools in Canada) and penitentiaries there are uniforms to conform individuals into one, the same applies in team sports with team wear (eg. jerseys, gears). Moreover, in team sports, there are coaches that act as the authoritative figures who make and regulate the rules, much like wardens and police officers in penitentiaries. Therefore, team sports can be considered part of governmentality in that control is asserted by some authoritative figure(s) upon its subject, or “follower”.
-
Tina Loo
Great!
-
-
enorthwood
I think certainly it can. Sports teams are a direct reflection of the governments unique but pressing ability to instill discipline in us. In light of this weeks lecture about the school systems and prison systems, I think these few ideas have overlapping concepts that fall under one huge expectation: you follow the rules. Sports teams are people that work together under the same set of rules and try to work within those boundaries, however, they’re also very intensive when it comes to discipline. It takes time, focus and effort to become good at a sport, and it’s certainly a form used by the government in order to keep focus on pretty much anything that isn’t a rebellion. I think these kind of activities promote competition to become better, and designate team captains etc. When you designate a team captain, doesn’t it look shockingly familiar to choosing someone to run a country? You as a member of the team look up to the captain, and you seek them to basically be captain of the country, as your captain would run your team. They make decisions about what plays you put forward, and whats best for the team to succeed as a whole. In comparison to our contemporary government, this makes reasonably a lot of sense. Going back to the idea of repression, sports teams are a way to teach discipline. No one tells us that we have to line up when we buy something in a store, but we do. No one tells us that we have to play by the rules in a game, but we do simply because we fear that we will not be apart of the “team” or what’s socially acceptable if we do not abide by those rules. In light of Bentham’s prison idea, we are self regulating. Sports teams are no exception to continue to keep us abiding by the rules, and continue to regulate ourselves in our every day lives.
-
Tina Loo
Yep, discipline is the key point of comparison!
-
-
kenthen
In most sports movies or if one has ever played a competitive level of sports one of the creed or mantra’s one will most likely hear is, “were going to break you down and build you up to make you the best you we can use!” If that phrase right there doesn’t encompass the context of govern mentality then I’m not sure what would. Lets look at the prison system in Canada or anywhere in the world, the main form is punishment under the guise of rehabilitation or treatment but we are punishing and making the offender pay for debts to society. Now if we take a look at sports, amateur sports we see the youth wanting to play for fun and for their enjoyment . However as adults we have been conditioned to attain and meet expectations under the guise of “doing the best we can” or “just do it” slogans. In essence we are breaking the youth down and building them up under our own desires and needs to fulfill our expectations. THEN if they don’t meet our high standards either because they are unable to or they get injured we as a whole push them aside to let them rehabilitate or seek out treatment. However the worst that any youth can do though, is show promise and get the adults excited that we possibly may have the next Sidney Crosby or Michael Jordan and then the kid just not care! This too our society is blasphemous and it goes against the grain of what we stand for not only as a country but as a society. Why have a capitalist society of we aren’t going to be competitive at an early age, why waste gifts and time on someone who has it in them to be the NEXT great one and to have them throw it all away, LETS punish them with a public slogging and perhaps we can change their temperance and make them adhere to our ways of govern-mentality. Which is to be the best we can be by all means necessary.
Now in terms of the education system
Nest is the education system, in the early years of education it was seen as a key to ruling, character builders and as keys to social and political stability. Now if we look at team sports especially again in the amateur ranks that is exactly what we try to do to the young kids. We rule over them with rules. positions, plays, diagrams, conditioning, and screaming to get them to play to our benefit. Now i say this tongue in cheek because I often wonder at hockey rinks across Canada if the kids are excited to win just for the sheer enjoyment of competition and camaraderie or do they strive to win to gain affection from us as adults and parents? Of course character building is a huge one because in our country the last thing we ever want is someone who doesn’t have character that resembles everyone else in our country. But is it building character when in reality we are being programmed to look, act and behave exactly as the next guy and the next and the next etc? Now for social and political stability of course sports and education create a social stability through the teachings of fair play, sharing etc. Govern-mentality stand to reason that we behave to the norms of society, as does most ruling bodies of any sports league. Of course we know that politics is a huge part of education and sports almost to the point of detriment when you consider strikes, lockouts and over zealous parents.
Don’t get me wrong I love team sports and always will, as the country of Canada, the education system and even the prisons. But sometimes we get too wrapped up in what we want that we forget that sports, education, the government and even the prison system are here to serve us as a society. To give us outlets for our voices, pent up energy, teachings and desires to learn, we forget the mentality of those services is designed by us for us. It should not be the other way around as it so often is. -
cprimus
I really want to participate in this week’s blog but I honestly don’t understand the question at all so I have nothing to contribute. Hope everyone has a great weekend!
-
alexwickett
Team sports can be considered to be a reflection on governmentality because not only do they present a great example of rule and regulation following, but they also function as their own mini society. As we discussed in lecture this week, the government implemented more regulated school systems and penitentiaries. These institutions promoted uniformity, and obedience that were key for the government to control the population and prevent uprising. Education was pivotal to Canadian society at the time as it prevented idleness and kept people used to following a schedule and participating in a daily routine. Sports teams effectively do similar things. Parents put their children on sports teams to keep them occupied to keep them out of trouble as well as for the purpose of exercise and fun. Sports also require a certain amount of dedication, discipline, and ability to follow rules that are all crucial aspects to having a properly functioning population. If you are unable to be governed, it is likely you will not be able to be coached to success on a team. Additionally, sports teams themselves can act like a smaller version of a government. Teams can elect a team captain who functions as the body who is responsible to the players. The players’ interests are conveyed through the team captain to the coach and the parents, who are still responsible to the players, but not chosen by them necessarily. Further, all the decisions made are fuelled by the already existing rules of the sport, or the sport’s constitution. With all this in mind, it is fair to say that sports teams do function as a part of governmentality.
-
nkular93
I’m not really sure as to how to address this question but I will go with saying that yes, team sports can be considered as a part of governmentality in that they both have the ability to instill discipline and that they both need to follow a set of rules and guidelines to conduct themselves. Teams need to instill discipline among their members in order to function as a whole and progress towards something. Each member is responsible for their own part or role in the team and, therefore, discipline is required in order to complete those tasks. The same could be said for the government in that they are responsible for establishing an agenda and carrying out the legislation that they create. The government needs to be disciplined in order to carry out their responsibilities without wavering.
The government creates laws and carry out activities pertaining to the social, economic, and political sphere and by following a specific set of guidelines and rules. A parallel can be drawn between the government and team sports in that many team sports also function in the same way. A large part of teams and sports conduct is the following of particular rules and guidelines to play the sport. If the rules and guidelines are not followed or broken, there are consequences and backlash, either by the players or the public who is watching the sport. The same could be said for governmental conduct. If governments did not consider the laws that they themselves created and involved themselves in misconduct of any kind, there will be backlash by the members of the government and the public. So in a way, both are accountable to their members. Players are accountable to their team and political actors are accountable to members of the government and the public.-
Tina Loo
You got it!
-
-
Tina Loo
GENERAL COMMENTS: Great job everyone. Most of you made very insightful links between team sports and governmentality. The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.
-
-
admin
Week 12 Wall
So what is Canada? Specifically, what are the storylines running through the first half of this course?
Yeah, baby! After the men’s hockey gold medal game, Vancouver 2010 Olympics
-
enorthwood
I think Canada is hard to define. I don’t think it is really something that is definable, it is a large mosaic of so many stories rooted in colonialism, Aboriginal matters, and political disagreements that made the country what it is now. At first my impression that Canada was a boring country, with not much to really say for itself other than the fact that we’re probably more peaceful on an international scale than most. However, since joining this course I feel like I have taken in so much information from the first settlers, to the French overtaking them, to the British overtaking the French, to the trading companies and political settlers trying to agree on a form of government. This is a country that simply can’t defined by answering what “is” Canada, because what it is an undefinable set of experiences and stories that is kind of like a phantom. It’s always there but only some can see it, and after learning about the different stories about Canada through this course I don’t think it’s possible to define it in a sentence. There simply isn’t a sentence accurate enough to make a statement about so much history, suffering, debates and sadness that happened on these lands. When I think back of what I’ve learned in this course I always think of Angelique and her story. I see how far we’ve come but also how little we’ve come. In relation to the picture, I think that’s a perfect example of false nationalism. How can you be proud of a nation without actually understanding it, understanding what it has truly represented up until this point? All of these stories make Canada an undefinable entity that has lived and seen experiences as we see them, but it has watched all of the bitterness and brutality and also the happy moments of our history. One picture, a thousand pictures simply could not define something that has such a vast history, I personally don’t think this is possible.
-
millyzhu
Canada today is a country that welcomes multiculturalism and boasts its many successful and internationally known institutions, such as health care and education systems. However, Canada was not always like this as we have learnt from the first half of this course. At first, there were only indigenous population. However, as contact was established with European countries, the demographic slowly changed. Discovering the economic potential that this vast area of land had, Europeans quickly adapted themselves to the environment through colonial settlement and established relationships with various different indigenous groups, which later led to conflicts. After the fur trade economy began slowing down, gold was discovered in British Columbia and this led to an influx of immigrants hoping to strike rich quick. As the European population quickly outnumbered indigenous population, the Europeans began to gain dominance and power, and soon polished their culture, in addition to growing their dominance and power. As the population grew, more conflicts arised and the population called for proper governance, which soon led to them demanding responsible government. Once all the colonies of British North America gained responsible government, they felt threatened by the ever growing tensions between the United States and their motherland, Britain. As the threat and tension grew stronger, the Canadas decided that uniting with the Atlantic colonies would protect the general interests of all the colonies. After many negotiations, much persuasion and help from Britain, and other external factors (ie. Fenian Raids, 1866), the British North Americas were united into one: the Dominion of Canada with the creation of the foundation of our political system today. However, Canada continues to evolve and our “image” changes with the times, hence, despite being able to state what is Canada, or more specifically, what we have, it would be difficult to define Canada in relation to all that it has been through and conjuring up a single word or picture for it.
-
mosachoff
The first semester of this course has redefined my understanding of Canada. My understanding of the country today has remained the same, but I now know about how it came to be to be the way it is today, at least from it’s history up until the nineteenth century. Although I knew Canada has a long history dating past European exploration of North America, I never considered how interesting and exciting it would be. I did not realize how much conflict was involved, contrary to the peaceful state of the country today. Canada began with population. People crossed the Bering Strait and into North America. It wasn’t until shortly after the end of the first millennium that a new story line developed. Contact between Europeans and aboriginals. European contact would come again when European powers began to reap the rewards of the resource rich territory. This intensified into Colonization. The expansion of British influence through exploration along with modernization connected an enormous area of land into an autonomous zone. Conflict is always a theme in history. Canada has experienced wars and struggles for political control over its history, but while these were important in shaping the country, I think that there is still a broader storyline for its history. Immigration and new beginnings. People have immigrated, intentionally or not, for thousands of years, and the same activity continues today. Canada is so cool (‘swag’ and cold)!
-
nkular93
What is Canada? I personally don’t feel as if Canada could really be given a single definition. The dynamics of this country are vast and have been created over the years by the interactions between various groups of people. Europeans first came to Eastern Canada and developed the fur trade which involved dynamic relationships with the natives. Eventually the British gained control of the colony and transformed the relationships that had been brought about by the fur trade by not extending the same sense of cooperation and respect the french did and by becoming more of a dominating force over both groups of people. European control led to colonization expanding to the western frontier. The changing relationships mainly between french and British colonists and the natives as well the changing views towards the government due to economic concerns as well as social concerns eventually led to responsible government within colonies and then to confederation as the colonies began to weigh the economic, social, and military benefits of joining together as one country. Therefore, Canada is basically a product of the changing relationships between various groups who had inhabited the land and between these groups and the government. It is the product of the desires and aspirations of people as a whole who believed in responsible government and representation of the people and democracy. It is a product of the ideas, cultures, and practices, and individual desires of these different groups of people. Therefore, Canada cannot be given a single definition.
-
mosachoff, 
alexwickett, and 6 others are discussing. 
cprimus, 
SteveMoody, and 7 others are discussing. 
nkular93, 
angieL, and 5 others are discussing. 
millyzhu, and 1 other are discussing.
enorthwood 7:34 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In relation to lectures this week, we discussed the idea of loyalty between the British settlers and the French and how that limited them. Firstly, we discussed the idea of the conflicting religions. Most people belonging to one religion which limited the accommodation of British into North America, and created a religious divide despite the immense desire to all assimilate the other religious standing within their own religious group. They were limited by law of law, in the fact that civil law was still French, although new anglophones were beginning to populate the area. The emergence of the two parties, the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique which were a group of rich elitists, who desired to form an aristocracy within the government in order to gain the most benefit for large powerful and their friends. In accordance to new British North American settlers, this is certainly very constricting on the general political life and the overall “New World” experience as there is still much power within the French through the massive amounts of wealth being collected through the fur trade. Certainly with conflicting division of powers, this limits the power of British subjects being able to assert their full control over the area of Canada, as they couldn’t simply reign without the predominating power of France and the wealth they had accumulated through the fur trade. After these parties are formed, Willcox, as mentioned in lecture, makes a newspaper to bring up important points based on the rights of people and the need to diminish this aristocratic form of government between the Family Compact and Chateau Clique. In relation to this, I feel like American settlers coming in and critiquing the forms of government was a very serous delegitimization against the British Empire’s “control” in Canada. Essentially what the controlled was the “few” interests, and not the interests of the many, which when it comes down to it, is not the best way to form loyalty of the people in a British government. All these factors played a role in limiting the actual control the British had, which interfered with the accommodation of not only the new settlers had to deal with, but also challenged the accommodation of a British rule within Canada.
enorthwood 7:37 pm on October 16, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
limited by law, is what I meant to say, not limited of law of law. Oops.
SteveMoody 1:25 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The British desire to see their hold on territory maintained in British North America would be a very limiting factor in terms of accommodation of the local populations. While the circumstances which led America to revolt and gain independence were not similarly represented in Canada, the presence of a large non-loyalist (ie not British) population, the Canadiens, would cause the British to take care not to alienate the population due much (especially due to their size relative to the British aligned population).
To maintain nominal control, the British were prepared to accommodate the francophone population through the process of permitting them their own constitutional rule. Ideally, had the Francophone population not been what it was, the British would;ve most likely been quite happy to bring the Canadien’s under their constitutional administrations, however due to relative population sizes such accommodation was necessary to keeping the peace.
Of course these accommodations were not shared with the native peoples, even those who had worked & fought on the side of British. A lack of accommodation for these people illustrates the very British notion that the territory conquered during the conflicts was now of ‘British control and property” implying that only British interests will be represented. The Francophones (while being somewhat belligerent) were also considered of “European stock” and therefore entitled to civilized accommodation as fellow men. The natives were still considered as savages, implying that while they were an effective tool utilized during the conflicts, they had little claim if any at all to the territory of British North America, “un-civilized:” as they were. This condition does show British accommodation however (if it can be called that through the lens of history) in regards to providing limited but preserved ‘Native Reserves’ where Native culture and self rule could be perpetuated (in a perfect world) The pressure of needing to show some reward/regard for the efforts of the Native populations while not compromising European interests in the New World would prove somewhat limiting on British policies of the time.
millyzhu 11:22 pm on October 17, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
British North America in the early 18th century had a difficult time managing the different Loyalists, so the Constitutional Act divided the land into two: Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada consisted of Francophones where French civil law persisted, and Upper Canada consisted of Anglophones where British law was exercised. However, there were also indigenous peoples that resided in both these areas. With this diversity, Britain had to attempt to accommodate these different groups. One of these accommodation was to give both Lower and Upper Canada its own elected assembly, but with limited powers because despite Britain wanting the colonies to run themselves, they also wanted to keep them in check to ensure stability and keep their Loyalists loyal. They were able to achieve this through the authoritative position of the monarch representative, the Governor. The Governor had immense power in the Legislative Assembly and could hold off laws getting passed for a long period of time. Greed and corruption to a certain degree were not uncommon practices of the Governor because of this power. Nevertheless, they still made exceptions: Francophones were allowed to keep using the French civil law and their own land system, as well as the oath of allegiance was devised to accommodate their Catholic religion. However, the Anglophones despised the special considerations that were given to the Francophones and created a newspaper that propagated against how the French will always be French, which suggested that they may still be loyal to France, and thus spies. In spite of this, a man named Pierre who advocated for Francophones created the first political party in Canada called Parti Canadien, as well as created a newspaper, which demanded for greater power in the Legislative Assembly. But, Britain and the Governor had a limit on how far they were willing to accommodate this type of thinking, especially in the Legislative Assembly and circulated in print, hence forced Pierre out of the Assembly and thrown into jail. As a result, British North America, specifically Britain and those in authoritative positions, were able to manage the rest of the population by maintaining a balanced constitution, but if the line drawn was passed, such as the then radical thinking of increasing the Legislative Assembly’s power, then those who passed the line would be brought back and punished for all to see.
nkular93 12:27 am on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Considering that many different groups of people inhabited British North America, it became necessary to accommodate for these groups of people so as to prevent tensions between these groups and the state that could compromise the hold that Britain had over the territories in North America. The state went as far as accommodating for many loyalists that had fled America during and after the American Revolution to the British colonies by giving them land to live on, which in turn, displaced many of the indigenous peoples that had lived on that land since the beginning. As well, in order to accommodate the Loyalists demands for an elected assembly and more representation, the British government go as far as splitting Quebec up into Upper and Lower Canada, where English speaking loyalists resided in Upper Canada and french speaking people resided in Lower Canada. Both colonies had an elected assembly and an appointed legislative council; however, the British still exercised some power over the elected assembly and the legislative council by keeping the power that they had in check. The governor still had the power to dissolve the assembly and withhold consent to bills. Therefore, the limits of accommodation were shaped by the amount of power that was to be granted to the people living in these colonies. Yes, there was to be a balance of power but to some extent. If any ordinary citizen was to try to increase the power of the people or the power of the elected and legislative assembly, such as Pierre Badard had done in the face of the emergence of the Chateau clique, then they would face the consequences.
angieL 1:35 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
During that period of time, the influx of the loyalists, the presence of Aboriginal people, and a large French and Catholic population forced the British government to reevaluate their colonial systems and strategies to establish a balance between freedom and stability. However, as we learned in our lectures, the effectiveness of their governing strategies were not only limited by imperial laws at the time, but were also challenged by numerous other factors such as racial and ethic diversity, political, social and religious differences and language barriers.
The Loyalist group that came into Canada was a very culturally and ethically diverse group of people with different religious beliefs and socioeconomic classes. The Constitutional law employed by the British at the time was first drafted to govern a more homogenous group of subjects, and had shown to be insufficient to apply to such a diverse group of people. The definition of being a British subject was challenged in many ways. The Constitutional Act, which divided the colonies into two distinct colonies, was definitely an attempt to accommodate the new situation and established a “balanced constitution”. Prior to the war, the British government had made several attempts to stabilize their relationship with the indigenous population and “accommodate” through contacts on landownership and gifts giving. However, the threat of war and the need to address to the loyalist settlers influx in the early 1800s took precedent over the indigenous relationship and added another layer of limitation to their policy of accommodation.
cprimus 1:40 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In the early 1800s, the British had to deal with 3 groups of people who were not British immigrants or loyalists: the native population, the canadiens (French) and the Americans. Britain wrote the Constitutional Act of 1791 splitting the province of Quebec into two: Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
In Lower Canada, the governors were comprised of Anglophone elites of the “Chateau Clique”, many of whom were merchants, to sustain the power of the Anglophone minority. The British, however, accepted that the French would stay deeply devoted to France and because they were the majority of the population, they were given a voice. French landholders and merchants were allowed to vote for the elected Assembly. The British hated French Civil Law and the seigneurial system but allowed them both to stay in place for the sake of appeasing the majority.
In Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe was the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada whose tactic to increase American immigration was to award Loyalists with land. His group of friends who he appointed to higher governmental positions was the elite group known as the “Family Compact”, and together they wanted to create an aristocracy. In this province the majority of citizens were American, and the British felt that they needed to be assimilated for British loyalty.
Objections over the fairness of the government started to rise in both provinces by representatives of the majority populations, but noticeably voiceless were the indigenous people of Canada. They believed that their land was being lent to the British, when it was actually taken away by the Crown. In both Upper and Lower Canada, accommodations weren’t being made for the natives at all as they were pushed off their land, and the tension between them and the Anglophones continued to grow.
alexwickett 2:20 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In the early 1800’s there were ample factors that shaped the relationship between the French, British, American, and Indigenous peoples. The province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada with the hopes of keeping relations cordial. Lower Canada, the predominantly Francophone area was given the opportunity to continue to speak their language, operate under the French Civil Code, and practice Roman Catholicism. In Upper Canada, a predominantly Anglophone area, British Common Law was practiced along with Protestantism. In order to adhere to common longing for the government to be responsible to the people, a Legislative Assembly was created in both areas, but the power of the people was limited as the governor was still appointed by the crown. Also, the governors frequently acted undemocratic in holding off the passing of a law, or using their veto power all together. Further, both areas came to have an elite group of people who formed an oligarchy. The Chateau Clique in Lower Canada, and the Family Compact in Upper Canada were groups of men, who exercised most of the political and economic power in these two provinces despite the apparent responsible government. They were opposed to democracy, which ultimately caused their downfall, but not before having a great impact on the Canadas.
The fact that the French were allowed to maintain so much of their original culture angered many Anglophones who believed that if the French were able to continue living as they were, they would never truly be loyal British subjects and they would always remain loyal to France. With this in mind, whenever someone was convicted of high treason, they were hung, quartered and then had their intestines removed in public in order to prove a point; whether the Francophones are able to practice their religion, and speak their language or not, it is still Britain that controls Canada and at the end of the day, allegiance to the British Crown is what is expected from all subjects.
mosachoff 4:50 pm on October 18, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As British North America grew, it needed to address the concerns of a growing diverse population that had individual priorities. It became essential for the British to ease tension as they had already lost their colonial ruling in the United States. The Constitutional Act of 1791 split Quebec into separate provinces: Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada would be English speaking and Lower Canada would remain French. The creation of Upper Canada accommodated for the influx of Americans moving north by providing settlers with freehold tenure land and free land. This action did have consequences though, as land for new immigrants was distributed from areas that had been previously inhabited by First Nations Peoples. Culturally, the British afforded further accommodation by offering some religious freedoms. In allowing the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its position in the province of Lower Canada, hostility that was sure to take place was ameliorated before it could begin. In Upper Canada, the Anglican Church shared some of its clergy reserves with the Presbyterian Church. As diversity grew though, other denominations appeared in the province; however, most of these were not afforded the same rights and remained peripheral. In the political sphere, British North America allowed for an elective Legislative Assembly in each of the Canadas as a result of the Constitutional Act of 1791. This allowed for some autonomy in terms of a voice for colonial needs as well as being able to raise funds for local needs. Aware of recent failures in the American colonies, there was a strong executive command lead by London appointed lieutenant governors. While British North America afforded accommodations in the colony in the 1800’s, they also set limits that reinforced their authority.
Tina Loo 7:39 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General comments on Week 7:
Most of you did a good job coming up with examples of how the British accommodated different groups, but very few of you discussed why that was; i.e. very few of you answered the question about what factors shaped their willingness to be accommodating.
Examples of accommodation include the British coming up with oaths of neutrality for the Acadians, designing the delegate system so Acadians could participate in politics; the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 are examples of how Indigenous people and the French Catholic majority in Quebec were accommodated. The creation of New Brunswick and the Constitutional Act, 1791 are ways the Loyalists were accommodated.
The question is why? What was social, political, and economic factors led the British to do these things?
In some cases it was war and the need for allies, in other cases it was the need to figure out a way to include the majority of European settlers in running the colony, in still others it was to preclude frustration and dissent on the part of those settlers. This is what I wanted you to discuss.
Also you needed to recognize that the willingness of the British to accommodate different people changed over time. The best example of this is what happened to Indigenous people. Once important allies who had to be cultivated, Indigenous allies were pushed aside when British interests changed.