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!
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?
Connor Easton
Canada had always been a multicultural nation. From the moment the first Europeans arrived in Canada, there was already a mixing of different cultures, because the French had to make an effort to live colloquially with the Natives. The French had to accept and even learn from the cultures of the Natives. This example suggests that Canada was a multicultural nation even before New England was officially a component of Canada. The French also had to deal with the conflicts between Native nations. The fact that the French involved themselves (willingly or not) in conflicts of the Natives which they were not even directly involved in solidifies the soundness of the argument that Canada was a multicultural nation from its very beginning.
Canada is most defiantly a multicultural nation. Even though there were conflict between the First Nation people, Europeans, and French in the past, resolutions were found and everyone came together. Through trading and relations between different cultures, Canada quickly became a multicultural nation. For example, Europeans learned about the Native culture and even relied on the hunting bands for food for some time. French culture Is one of the biggest aspects of Canada, with French being the second most spoken language, and the entire province of Quebec and some parts of Ontario speaking French as their main language. With all the discoveries of places such as Port Royal, Montreal (and Quebec of course), and the St. Lawrence area, it brought people of different cultures in search of food, new worlds, etc. Some stayed, calling Canada their new home. Today, Canada is popularly known for its multiculturalism, especially Vancouver as we all know. There is every culture possible present in this city! There is no doubt that Canada is a multicultural nation since the day it was discovered.
Multiculturalism is the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a society, state or nation. Canada is a very multicultural country. We know that not only because we are taught it in schools but it exists everywhere. For example, at the Save-on-Foods self-checkout counters, there is a large option of languages that one can choose from including English and French (the two official national languages), Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, Korean, and many more.
Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy in 1971 after which multiculturalism was officially recognized by section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. By adopting multiculturalism, Canada confirmed the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, the rights of Aboriginal peoples, as well as affirmed Canada’s two official languages, English and French. Multiculturalism ensures that all Canadian citizens can keep their identities and have a sense of belonging while being treated as equal. Furthermore, the rights and freedoms of each citizen in Canada are clearly stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Multiculturalism promotes the harmony between different races and ethnic backgrounds as well as the understanding of each culture.
Prior to adopting multiculturalism in 1971, multiculturalism in Canada was not well recognized and equality between all cultures was not established. As learned in lecture on Monday, September 9, relations between Canada and the rest of the world began with the Fur Trade involving the many First Nations communities (including the Huron, Innu, and more) and international countries extending as far as France.
Walking in the streets of Vancouver we can easily notice the diversity that the city holds and the people from all over the world that live here as Canadian citizens. Although multiculturalism is relatively new, Canada can claim to be indeed rich in diversity and multiculturalism.
Nadir, In the future, please write your blog entries drawing on the material you learn in the lectures. The blogs are aimed at getting you to reflect on what you learn regularly.
A multicultural society is made up of a diversity of cultures, and reflects this diversity in the working of its society. Canada has always been a multicultural nation, it just did not become an official policy of the Canadian government until the second half of the twentieth century. Today, multiculturalism is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is recognized by the government and people of Canada. Multiculturalism existed before Canada was called Canada, and even before contact between the Europeans and the Indigenous peoples of Canada occurred. Different Indigenous groups existed in within Canada, and these groups held political alliances and trade agreements with one another, because each group had something unique to offer one another. These groups also came in conflict with one another, proving that these groups held different beliefs or some kind of different societal structure and wanted stronger political power and influence.
The contact between the French and the Indigenous peoples in the seventeenth century is an example of the creation of a multicultural society. The French and the Indigenous peoples were radically different, in what they knew, and in what kind of resources and products they had to offer one another in trade. These two groups began to work together, which created a type of multicultural society due to their constant contact and relations. This multiculturalism continued when the English colonized Canada, and as immigration continued through the next few centuries. Canada is made up of many different cultures, and always has been, but unlike the seventeenth century, multiculturalism takes a different form, and has become a point of pride for the country.
The idea of multiculturalism in Canada as we know it today may be a relatively new notion, but it is not the case if we take a look back at the history of the country.
Even before the arrival of the French and the other European nations, Canada showed a diversity in culture and language. It is important to remember that whom we call the Natives were not part of the same tribe. Although these tribes were tied together by trade and diplomacy (sometimes also war), they were divided in three groups mainly: the Innu and Algonquin, the Huron Confederacy and the Five Nations Iroquois. They all presented different features (diversity) but shared some too, like religious beliefs and respect to the Earth (uniformity).
When the French started trading fur with the Natives in the 16th century, they had to adapt to their culture and language to be able to communicate. They knew it was necessary to benefit from the local products but also the knowledge of the territory the Natives held. This led to several alliances and involved the French in wars in order to support their allies. The destruction of Huronia by the Iroquois resulted in the foundation of New France when it became a royal colony, so many French people decided to settle there permanently and start a new life on this new continent.
However, one must not forget that the Norse probably established contact with the tribes in Canada around the year 1000. According to the archeologist Birgitta Wallace: “the only Natives present in central Labrador (Markland) in the 11th century would have been the Indian ancestors of the Innu (Montagnais and Naskapi)”. The remnants of settlements in L’Anse aux Meadows enhances the idea that the different expeditions organized by the Europeans were a factor in favor of multiculturalism, as they left some traces of their passing, even though the Scandinavian implication is not as consequent as that of the other European countries like France, the Netherlands or Great Britain.
The widespread understanding of multiculturalism in Canada being a new concept seems to mainly be based on the fact that its population is a product of different people with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds that immigrated to the nation throughout the past decade. Indeed, this is true. Canada has acquired an appealing reputation as a nation of rich diversity. However, Canada has clearly been multicultural since the very beginning. For instance, Canada’s indigenous peoples were definitely not a homogeneous group. There appears to be a tendency to broadly group all indigenous peoples in a collective group, when that was certainly not the case. Rather, different beliefs, values, customs, and histories defined various aboriginal groups throughout Canada, further resulting in a complex system of allies as well as enemies.
Moreover, not only was Canada multicultural in terms of its indigenous population, its multicultural roots also go back to the first time of contact between indigenous and European people. For example, the Norse people interacted with indigenous groups such as the Innu, Huron, and later, the Mohawk, long before the more widely known interactions between the English, French, and aboriginal peoples decades later. Archaeological proof of such interactions further strongly identify and emphasize that multiculturalism was a reality in Canada for a much longer time than most people might assume.
Canada is definitely a very multi-cultural society. As we learned this week in lecture, Canada has been a multi-culture society forever. Whether it was the French forming colony’s and trade posts in upper and lower Canada, the Vikings making settlements in L’Anse Aux Meadows or English trading posts in Upper and Lower Canada, Canada’s roots are based off of multiculturalism.
Tourists and newly arrived immigrants quickly see and learn that there is no race that can distinguish someone as not a Canadian. This is the beautiful part in being a Canadian. Canadians come from all different backgrounds in order to make up one lovable and fair country. Although not having one distinguished ethnicity may not be everyones cup of tea, the best part is they do not have to live here!
Many people are united with other people that share their ethnicity and others are thrilled to embrace another ethnicity. Which is personally my favourite part when it comes to the variety of restaurants available across the country. In conclusion, Canada was founded by many different countries and continues to grow with many different ethnicities in order to make one.
How is Canada a multicultural nation? i believe that it was a multicultural place before the first europeans arrived on this great diverse land mass, due to the fact that all of the indigenous peoples in the north, south, west, and east were all from different types of cultures. This fact is proven within all of the diverse languages across Canada and the many cultural beliefs,and simply the way of living that all of these many various nations that lived off the land and passed it on to the next generation. When we are talking about multiculturalism in a way of when the first immigrants arrived in Canada then we can put it forward to when the Vikings came over then the French and British and with them they were sure to of brought over some other people from different countries from Europe. So Canada is and has been a multicultural place since the beginning of time or since the word multicultural became a word in the english dictionary and vocabulary.
Jonathan, In the future please write your blog posts by drawing on the material you learn in lectures. The blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lecture material on a regular basis.
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, you may want to reflect on the following: (1) the place that would become Canada might more accurately be 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 always 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….
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?
Economists define money as a measure of value since it is used universally as a medium of exchange. People value money for various value-added reasons: sometimes it is to make their life better, and other times it is to help others. So, I believe people pursue their material self-interest all the time for different reasons.
Basically, what a person values influences their behavior. The same applies to the ‘backward sloping supply curve’ since people value their money and their free time just as much. So, if they are making more money, they may choose to reduce their work hours to do the leisurely things they value. From my own personal experience, I was a barista at Starbucks. Let’s say for argument sake, I made $10 per hour at ten hours a week, so I made $100 per week. If my wage increased to $20 per hour, I would only have to work five hours a week, resulting in the same $100 per week with a lessened amount of effort on my part. This way, I could spend the other five hours doing leisurely things that I value.
If we apply the same to what we’ve learnt, we know that the interests of the Europeans and the Indigenous clashed violently throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. The fur trade was so profitable that it significantly expanded from about 17 fur trade posts across Canada in 1774 (directly before the American Revolution), to about 430 fur trade posts across Canada in 1804 (directly after the American Revolution). As a result of this expansion and material self-interest, the Europeans decided to increase the price of the furs whilst exploiting Indigenous efforts. Just like how an employee reduces hours if they are paid more, the same can be applied here. Even though the Indigenous were not employees in the formal sense, they reduced their efforts in response to higher fur prices as a form of retaliation against the Europeans. This is how the ‘backward sloping’ applies to the fur trade: an increase in prices (fur prices set by Europeans), caused a decrease in supply (Indigenous effort).
Economics means money, and money means power, value, and importance. Look at our world today, we are driven by economic strategies and ways to increase revenue. This was the same for the fur trade. For example, the Indigenous people demanded that HBC make the furs HBC match or exceed the quality of items to risk the loss of their trade to the French. This led to more profit. Strategies in economic behaviour has always played a role in our intentions. As for the First Nation’s, it was to improve the terms of trade to get economic rewards.
People do pursue self interest most of the time. Sometimes, it may be in the interest of someone else (ie: as a good deed) but the question is always why do they do it? Creating strong relations with another country may either be for self interest and/or an attempt to create a more peaceful world. Everyone has different interpretations of doing things based on their life, what they’ve been taught, and been exposed to etc. It is also different in other nations/states/cultures.
An example of a “backward sloping supply curve” in my life: When I was employed to work for a company, I valued leisure over money a bit more. Even though the wage was $25-40/hour, I worked everyday/12h shifts, which reduced my leisure time drastically (sleep, too). So what did I value more? At the time i began, money, as I needed it, but at the same time, my personal life was going down the hole. In the end, i chose leisure; with very high pay, i was able to enjoy more leisure time
It is true that most people have interests in money because it is the crux of our everyday modern life. Even politics has to manage with the economic will of powerful international firms. We all have heard of statements like “Time is money” or “Money is power”. Of course a man with money is probably more influential but the key point is to determine what he would do with his influence: “With great power comes great responsibility”. Some people who do have money are trapped in a vicious circle, the more they have the more they want. Eventually they don’t even see what money is for – to be spent – and pointlessly accumulate for the sake of it, when they could actually use this money in a more realistic way. For example, the Natives at the time of fur trade did not have this material interest, they were very mobile and therefore could not accumulate material goods. They spent their money in immediate required goods to make their living easier and not to brag and expose their social status. This situation leads me to think that a distinction must be made between self-interest as a reflex to insure personal basic needs for life, and self-interest which turns into vanity and selfishness.
Indeed, the Natives were everything but selfish towards Europeans with the practise of gift-giving and the elaboration of treaty trades to insure mutual benefits to both sides. These two elements are proofs that economic behaviour depends heavily on culture. Europeans think that indigenous people were exploited and cheated in the fur trade but they don’t take into account the perception of trade of the Natives back then. They were not much interested in profit but more in establishing peaceful relationships with Europeans. Nevertheless, some customs reveal that the Formalists are not wrong concerning the reason of indigenous people’s participation in fur trade: they used the rivalry between the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company as a mean of pressure to get products of better quality, by threatening one to go do business with the other if their expectations were not met.
What about the backwards sloping supply curve part of my question? Does it apply to you?
Economic behaviour is universal, but the reasoning behind the behaviour is not. As mentioned in the lectures, there are different theories as to why Indigenous peoples participated in the Fur trade, and the reasons were not always in line with the European reasoning. Indigenous peoples, as seen from the readings, traded for goods they needed for the time being, and the Europeans traded more for wealth and status. I think that this contrast in reasoning shows that material self-interest played a part in trade for both the Europeans and the Indigenous peoples, but their self-interest came from different places. Knowing that self-interest plays a key role in economic behaviour makes it easier for groups of people with such cultural differences, to trade with each other, and come to some kind of solid ground.
I think that this backward sloping supply curve gives people the chance to cut their hours, while still making the same amount of money they previously did. I did this when I worked at a job and received a raise. I got to take off a couple of hours, and make the same amount of money that I did before I got the raise. In terms of a backward sloping supply curve during the time of the fur trade, the amount of goods traded would probably be affected, depending on the kind of supply and demand of the time, and the amount of wealth and status that the Europeans were aiming for. If there was more of a need for a certain good, the Indigenous peoples would probably make more of an effort to trade to get the goods they needed, and when there was less of a need, the quality or quantity of the items that they were trading would probably go down.
I think you’re getting at something important by trying to understand how “economic behaviour” is different in different cultures!
I think that determining a universal nature of economic behaviour is quite difficult, given the vast existing differences in the measures and ideals of success. That is, the fact that North America is capitalist in nature and depends on the free market leads to great biases in their respective views to what success is. On the other hand, other nations may tend to include leisure and the fine arts to be within the scope of their best self-interests. In other words, different cultures will demand and pursue different ideals.
This relates to Arthur Ray’s article which we discussed in the tutorials this week, based on his finding that whereas European settlers were predominantly driven by the desire to accumulate profit and wealth from trade, the indigenous traders did not appear to take advantage of situations in the same way that might have increased their potential profits. Clearly, there was a discrepancy between the two groups’ ideas of what embodied their best self-interests. Seemingly, whether or not material self-interest is a priority for people depends largely on the culture of the society in which they live. Typically, given that North America is so deeply engrossed in a culture revolving around economic wealth and material pleasures as the defining characteristics of success, that is, “the good life,” there is a great tendency to project this perception as a universal norm.
Situations where a backward sloping supply curve may explain my behaviour would be instances where I prioritized gaining valuable experiences and/or leisure as opposed to being paid. Of course, this would be based on the assumption that the opportunity cost of being paid would be less than the potential value I would gain from leisure time/non-paid work. For example, while unpaid internships and volunteering opportunities tend to be unpaid, they still have a significant amount of value to offer in terms of a rich learning experience, or an opportunity to seek other interests besides academics/work. Relating this back to the indigenous people in Canada during the fur trade, while the European settlers may have judged the indigenous traders for employing what they viewed as economically unsound behaviour, rather, the indigenous peoples simply found priority in investing their efforts in furthering a different self-interest which was still equally as economical in terms of supporting their societies.
Great answer Geena!
General Comments on Week 6:
Where is everyone else???? A lot of people didn’t respond this week. Bad, bad, bad!!!
What struck me about your blogs this week is that many people 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….
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
Connor Easton
When I first moved to Canada I spoke little to no English, and as such had serious communicative issues. I had great difficulty creating a connection with other students, which proved to be an issue with making friends. Upon reflection, I realise how important language in relation to cultural boundaries. Even if I spoke English, I likely would have had issues connecting with Canadians. Because I was incapable of speaking English, it amplified the intensity of my disconnection to fellow students. However, as I developed a capacity for the English language, I slowly became able to make friends. I believe that language is the most significant form of “middle ground.” A path in which two vastly different cultures may connect.
It is also interesting to consider the same issues that the colonizers of New France must have had. With the cultural boundaries in mind, it is much easier to understand the tension that rose between the French and the Natives, or even the English and the French in the later ages.
This week, we learnt that the Indigenous Nations and the Europeans had to figure out a way to deal with each other, across cultural boundaries and come up with a middle ground. We also saw that by not finding a middle ground, various tensions arose and wars were fought across cultures. On the plus side, once a middle ground was found, many traditions and cultures were shared amongst the groups. For instance, the fur trade was established. During and after the establishment of the Peace Treaty, we see the French and Europeans adapting to Indigenous cultural practices. This Peace Treaty allowed the French and the Indigenous Nations to arrive at a good solution, both politically and economically, so in essence the groups were able to create a middle ground. Also, in the cultural ceremony of the recognition of the Peace Treaty, a Two Row Wampum Belt was used, which was part of the culture of Indigenous Peoples, however, clothing for the ceremony was inspired by the French and Europeans. Each group therefore, benefited and gained knowledge from each other.
I have successfully negotiated cultural boundaries during my facilitation of work meetings and club meetings. I managed to find a middle ground by allowing members of different cultures to speak and share their opinion. In some cultures, people are uncomfortable with speaking up, so I asked members to express their opinions with me privately if they were not comfortable doing so in a group setting. By doing so, it helped develop greater confidence and understanding as well as allowed for an expression of opinions. It is straightforward when everybody shares a common culture because one understands what is considered right, wrong, acceptable, or unacceptable behavior. However, since Canada is a very multicultural country that encompasses different cultural backgrounds, it is important to manage or negotiate boundaries so that a middle ground is worked out to arrive at a good solution.
Growing up in a community full of Caucasian people, I never really encountered cultural boundaries other than the occasional First Nation’s person from a nearby town. Through that, I learned what is acceptable and not when it comes to their cultural. For example, some stereotypes are considered jokes, while other jokes are outright offensive, and could get one in trouble… or even saying certain things. I used to have a best friend who was Aboriginal when I was younger, and we both established boundaries between each other of what was acceptable to be a ‘joke’ and what ‘went too far’ when it came to our friendship. The two of us pretty much called each other Pocahontas and Mulan (acceptable in our opinion). This was the middle ground. basically, through some discrimination we both learned what was wrong/right. This created stability….which is similar to when Richard Philips created the treaty called “Neutrality” to settle land issues. It created political stability, and a middle ground.
Since my first linguistic trip to England in 9th grade, I have been given the opportunity to visit several other foreign countries such as Sweden, Ireland, Germany and Canada. Because I come from France, language was the most important issue that I faced while in these countries, for their population is not French speaking – except for Quebecers, since I went to Montreal. Therefore I had to adapt to the language used there and do my best to be understood, by speaking English. It was a particularly difficult situation in Germany because the woman who hosted me didn’t speak a word of English… However, we did establish a communication, a so-called “middle ground” by using drawings/sketches and sign language to understand each other. The picture chosen for this blog entry is a striking example of this way of dealing with differences of language, with a visual image that everybody can understand.
There is another point learned in lecture which I can relate to my personal experience of meeting people from a different culture: the custom of gift-giving. I don’t think it is still a strategic manoeuvre nowadays as it used to be at the time the Great Peace was adopted in 1701. But it is still an effective way to share our own culture with the others and find some topics to talk about. I remember having brought French wine and dry sausage, plus a book presenting pictures and the story of Lyon -my hometown- to the English family I visited. Consequently we discussed for a long time about French cuisine and the heritage/architecture/monuments of Lyon and France.
Different cultures are born and evolve from people sharing common histories, values, perspectives, and ways of life. In North America in the 18th century, settlers from France and indigenous nations clearly came from very different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, they spoke entirely different languages which further made any sort of interaction difficult. That is, there was very little with which each side could personally identify with in terms of cultural similarities. In order to break through these distinct cultural gaps, the “middle ground” was absolutely necessary for cultural accommodation to take place, and ultimately, for the peaceful interaction between them.
In 2012, I participated in a program called Global Perspectives at my high school where I traveled with a group of 25 students and 3 teachers to a rural village in northern South Africa called Hazyview, situated in the Mpumalanga province. Despite the fact that we closely studied about South Africa throughout a year before actually setting foot on the plane, the cultural differences only became vividly clear once we arrived in Hazyview. For example, while travelling on rural roads, it was common for the majority of passers-by to greet us and wave. At the elementary school and orphanage we worked with, I was frequently pushed out of my comfort zone in dancing and singing. And of course, the language barrier was very much present. Not only did we interact with the black South African population who spoke two different languages (Zulu and Swahili), we also met white South Africans – Afrikaners who spoke Afrikans.
Overall, these differences were quite overwhelming in the beginning of my month-long stay. However, they were easily overcome. For instance, the language barrier was barely even an issue. Rather, I realized culturally apparent differences did not change the fact that we were all humans capable of feeling emotions and expressing love. Smiles and laughter resonated more strongly than the articulation of words. The middle ground that I established with South African people was in many ways, similar to the one that was created in 18th century North America. Of course, while we did not take part in hostage sharing, we gave gifts to the community of Hazyview that we brought from Vancouver. Likewise, they prepared many gatherings and performances where we were able to become more accustomed with South Africa’s vibrant culture. By making the genuine effort to appreciate differences and focusing more on the ways which made us similar, I was able to successfully display cultural sensitivity and cooperation throughout this whole experience.
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?
Communication across cultures is tricky indeed. As being born and raised in Afghanistan where culture and traditions varies very much from Western countries. I witnessed a good Afghan friend of mine had to work out a “middle ground” for her marriage. Her name is Fatima. It explains well by its definition of “middle ground”; a position or set of opinions that is acceptable to many different people. Fatima had to negotiate between Western and traditional Afghan culture in order to marry the man of her dream. Her family did not approve of her marriage to a white Canadian at the first place. Therefore, her negotiation was to follow the exact tradition marriage, which involves a certain fund to the girl’s parents, fancy gifts, and a large wedding party. In the party groom arranged a traditional food, which is long grain rice, chopped carried, and fried reasons called Palaw, and beef stew with tomatoes sauce along with plenty of fruit for dessert. At a large wedding hall, Afghan music was played in order to please girl’s parents. The groom was also expected to wear tradition clothing, which had lose pants, long shirt in white colour. More importantly, the wedding ceremony was done in Afghan-Muslim way, which is called “Nekkah”, where the bride and groom take oaths. Its western version is marriage document, and the priest performs the oath. In that way, the couple’s middle ground successfully worked.
According to our latest lecture, Aboriginals of Canada had to work out a “middle ground” with Europeans under the colonial rule in order to get a diplomatic solution in 1604. During seventeenth and eighteenth centuries wampum (a trade item was adopted through Europeans) and Europeans trade goods enjoyed primacy of place in gift exchanged between various Aboriginal peoples. The gifts of Algonquiens to Europeans usually consisted of wampum belts and beaver fur. Wampum is traditional sacred shell beads of the Eastern Woodlands tribes of Aboriginal peoples in North America; affairs of great moment between Aboriginals themselves were marked by presents of trade goods and wampum belts as well. Further more, once a middle ground was found, many traditions and cultures were shared amongst these mentioned groups. For example, the fur trade was established. During and after the establishment of the Peace Treaty, the French and Europeans adapted to Aboriginals cultural practices. This Peace Treaty allowed the French and Aboriginals to arrive at a good agreement, solution, both politically and economically. During the ceremony Treaty ceremony two wampum belts were presented, however, the chortlings were in European style. Following this middle ground negotiation, both parties established political understand, and respect to each other.
The negotiation of a cultural boundary in my experience, has always been with more than one person at a time. Living on campus, I have met many people from a number of different cultures, due to the great amount of international and transfer students that go to UBC. Language barriers are sometimes an issue with roommates, but also other parts of culture, such as the types of food one can eat and cannot eat. Since Vancouver is a very multicultural place, there are many places that offer hybrids of cultural foods, which allow every one to have an option when going out for floor dinners and the like. The middle ground for my roommates and I have been understanding why we do and do not do certain things for cultural purposes, and this understanding leads to a respect of other cultures.
I think that having an understanding of other cultures, and being understanding of what they want and believe is more important than forcing them to try something new that goes against their cultural beliefs. Much like with the French and the Five Nations, they were able to find a middle ground to create The Great Peace, and to ensure that each side was to keep their priorities in check, while still peaceful with one another. Much like with my roommates from other cultures, having an understanding of why we do certain things, allows us to have more respect for each other, and makes getting along much easier. This respect is our middle ground, much like the peace was for the French and the Five Nations.
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).
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!
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
British North America in the early 1800s was a period when the relationships and ties between the English and the French were unfolding, and so multiculturalism was not the main goal of residents. One of the key issues from the 1790s to about 1815 was the question of loyalties. The peoples of Upper Canada and Lower Canada had to decide where their loyalties resided.
In Upper Canada, there was a huge influx of loyalist settlers who chose to flee from America and declared their loyalty to the British. Also, in Lower Canada there existed a similar situation with its primarily Francophone inhabitants that started to define themselves as ‘separate people’ moving towards a liberal-based idea that a notion is something made by the people of the place coming together to create common institutions. The ‘Family Compact’ in Upper Canada and the ‘Chateau Clique ‘ in Lower Canada were the small, privileged groups of individuals, or aristocrats, that governed these two colonies and made many decisions regarding the distribution and development of land in the colonies, among other things. This resulted in one of many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s as the tension increased between these two groups and each defended its own interests.
The emergence of the two parties, struggle for power, religious conflicts, and a non-representative form of government combined with little attention to the rights or interests of the populations severely limited the move for more accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s which resulted in the rebellions of 1837 and 1838.
By the British adopting to several diversities, they established institutions. To Bedard, the colonial administration made the Constitution unequal b/c it favoured the English minority. As a result, he used British political theory to make things equal, and so people could have a place in Canada. With the “Family Compact” Simcoe decided to offer land and govt jobs to people. factors such as culture, religion, different ways of governing all caused conflict. for example, when the Aboriginal people helped Tecumseh, their privileges and possessions they had prior to the war were ignored. not only that, they were forced westward, and came under control of a different govt. There are always questions of loyalty when it comes to institution building, such as self interest, war, short/long term interest etc.
The British, in taking the North American colonies from the French, had to accommodate the French peoples that were already living there. The British were bringing in their own settler, but in the early 1800s, they were the minority, and the French settlers were the majority. The want for fair and responsible government by the French people, and the English in both Upper and Lower Canada greatly influenced the way that Britain approached managing the system of governance in the colony of British North America.
The fear of those who were not loyal to the British crown was also a factor in shaping the limits accommodation of British North America. The tensions between the French and the English colonists and the Irish and the English colonists needed to be lessened, so ensuring that peoples had a chance to have some sort of representation in the assembly was important, and ensuring that they did not need to change religions to do so. Although this would sometimes not be enough to relieve these tensions, and there would be people against the British crown, and there would be different ideas on how to run British North America. The most important event that happened in the early 1800s in relation to British loyalty was the War of 1812, and this was considered to be another stress point of loyalty in the colonies. Up to this point, threatening those who considered treason, and punishing those people as well, was a way to ensure loyalty, but the actual war, was a time to see who actually would be loyal to the crown and the colonies. Ensuring there was decent government representation for the settlers, and that people could practice their own religion, while becoming British subjects, was how Britain attempted to accommodate the previous settlers, while still trying to keep them loyal to the British crown.
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
The major conflict which the British colonial government in British North America encountered in the early 1800s was the need to maintain supreme authority over the colony, yet at the same time, to make sure no rebellions arose. That is, the British government could not successfully maintain their power over the colony by simply forcefully imposing and enforcing their rule. Within the context of the time, the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution stirred British North America; the threat of revolution caused much fear and anxiety felt by the colonial government.
Indeed, while British North America may have appeared very progressive in trying to accommodate the various culture groups making up the population, the fact that the government still maintained a strong hold on political authority greatly undermined this notion. For example, while the British colonial government extended support to the abolition of slavery by welcoming black loyalists with free land, however, if we look closer at the particular land they received, we can notice that they ended up with considerably smaller and less desirable land than white loyalists. As well, by bringing in loyalists, the indigenous peoples were very much disregarded. The actual political structure of the colonial government was also extremely questionable. While the colony was split into Upper and Lower Canada, each having English Common Law and French Civil Law implemented respectively, British rule was still dominant. In other words, despite the fact that the Constitution Act of 1791 created legislation assemblies with the notion that the colonial government was finally recognizing the voices of the masses, the British elite who made up the executive councils still had the final say.
With the threat of war and revolution, the British aristocracy (Chateau Clique and Family Compact) was mainly interested in consolidating their power through assimilation rather than accommodation. The issue in Lower Canada was the French majority, and in Upper Canada, the majority of the settlers were American. The War of 1812 further tested the loyalties of these cultural groups to the British crown. In these aspects, the colonial governments could not afford to accommodate each group’s particular interests to the extent that they might increasingly gain power and as a result, possibly overthrow British rule.
Although the French withdrew from their colonies in Canada after the British took over, many French-speaking settlers remained. Moreover, a large number of British loyalists went to Canada after the US revolution. Therefore, British officials had to deal with different cultural groups to maintain their authority in North America and consequently had to reshape their governance system. They tried to accommodate the different waves of immigrants by giving them lands to settle, but even within the loyalists inequality was seen between white and black people, those last being offered smaller and less desirable lands. It also affected Indigenous people who were moved from their own land and put in reservations (Haldimand Proclamation, 1784), aboriginal sovereignty was ignored.
Soon the British loyalists and the Canadiens demanded more representation of common people in the government, they wanted an elected constituent assembly. Their demand led to the division of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in 1791 with the Constitutional Act. Even though Lower Canada was governed under French Civil Law, the British elite of Chateau Clique was still in power. In Upper Canada the British aristocracy of the Family Compact still hold the executive power despite the creation of Houses of Assembly in 1791.
Consequently, in the early 1800s the situation in British North America implied questions of loyalties of the different cultural groups towards the British monarchy, attempts to accommodate these groups in order to avoid a revolution (great fear after the French Revolution), but also limits to accommodation because the British colonial government wanted to enforce its political system and treated severely those who were considered traitors.
There were many factors that shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800’s. The first to consider is that the French population in Lower Canada had obvious ties with France and the French crown. This forced almost an awkward “switch,” of crowns from the homeland crown of France to the current crown in power, Britain. You can imagine how this went over to the very high population in Lower Canada. Secondly, you must consider the high population of American settlers in Upper Canada. This made the very interesting array of settlers question what everyone motifs and beliefs are. Are the Americans loyal to the crown? Thirdly, how were decisions and governmental like organizations going about? How did the young Canada function and make decisions? Upper Canada had the ‘Family Compact’ while Lower Canada had ‘Chateau Clique’. Both had very different interests that eventually lead to rebellions in 1837 and 1838.
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.
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
In order to analyze this painting, it is important to understand its context. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham (September 13, 1759), is a battle that takes its name, Abraham, from the fact that it was fought on a piece of land belonging to Abraham Martin. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham killed both General Wolfe and General Montcalm (depicted here). Montcalm is a controversial figure amongst military historians who remember him for his fall of Quebec because he made a bad decision to attack too quickly without waiting for the onset of 3000 more troops, and yet others have worshiped and memorialized Montcalm, especially in France and Quebec.
Thus, the ideology and political representation of French-Canadian nationalism in this painting is well portrayed by Quebec born, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, who recognizes him as a hero that fought for his country, not one that was defeated on the battlefield. She makes Montcalm look like a hero because he is on his death bed, surrounded by several religious figures that seem to worship him. For example, we see the nuns reciting a prayer, a Catholic priest in purple signifying royalty and mourning, and probably other important figures that formed part of his troop.
The consequences, therefore, of the Plains of Abraham for world history are recognizable: without it, the peaceful coexistence of two rivals, the English and the French, for two centuries side by side without violence, would never have been possible. Notably, the battle shaped a new country that would one day be called Canada. September 13, 2013 marked the 254th anniversary of the Battle of Plains of Abraham, an event that is still remembered by many.
Nadir, I hadn’t thought of this painting as you did: if I understand you, you’re saying that Montcalm is made to look more heroic because he’s depicted dying in bed. I suppose that could be the case! After all, there’s no direct reference in the painting to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. For all we know, Montcalm could be dying of old age! Maybe you’re right that Coté was trying to deflect attention away from the defeat on the battlefield. Anyway…you’ve given me a new perspective on the painting!!!
It is important to understand that every painting has different interpretations, all depending on what the artist chooses to put in/leave out, and how he/she completes the piece of art. A single painting can tell us a lot, such as what occurred in history. Some artists will interpret it by portraying the main character (ie: West drew on artistic convention to portray Wolfe as Christ – from Sept 30 lecture).
It shows Montcalm as the main character focused on in the painting. This shows defeat and sacrifice. It shows that Montcalm was a spectacular hero in the Battle of Plains of Abraham; he helped in shaping Canada to become what we call the land of freedom today. He is the center of attention in the painting, with mourners surrounding him, condoling him, and showing sadness.
I believe the painting is a great reminder of the sacrifices Wolfe and Montecalm made to Canada, especially Quebec. it is a piece of remembrance for history and what happened in the past. The fight changed North America and Quebec forever. This is a simple reminder of a battle fought by great men.
Susanna, Yes, Montcalm is the centre of attention, and he’s shown dying. But there’s no reference to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham…. Maybe the painter doesn’t want to draw attention to defeat?
The painting, ‘Mort du Montcalm’ painted by Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor Coté, in comparison to the multiple paintings depicting James Wolfe’s death, shows a death without the victory, or obvious glory and religious symbolism. Wolfe’s death is depicted on the battlefield, while Montcalm’s is indoors, on a bed surrounded by other French people and two religious figures. This painting has a lot to do with French or French-Canadian pride, rather than celebrating a victory like Wolfe’s painting does. It feels very sombre, due to the way that the people around him are standing. They’re all looking down at Montcalm, and therefore he is clearly the focus. Due to the sombre nature of the image, it shows that the French lost at the Battle of Abraham, but it aims to represent that Montcalm did it with dignity, as he is wearing white, and there is light shining upon him.
This painting was only created in 1902, hundreds of years after the Battle at the Plains of Abraham. Due to this date, this painting is definitely a representation of ideologies rather than depicting accurate history. This image fills the purpose of maintaining a proud French-Canadian identity. It reminds people that the French lost Quebec, and they were defeated by the English, and this was a time of change in Quebec. It shows that the French-Canadian identity still exists, even after the French defeat and the control of the British. Compared to other depictions of Montcalm’s death, it appears more real, and foreshadows the changes that occurred after the Battle at the Plains of Abraham. The painting ensures that General Montcalm is remembered as a hero, and French-Canadian identity lives on, even through he lost the battle.
Lindsey, I like this interpretation and especially that you’ve noticed when the painting was done. It is a sombre painting, for sure, without any sense of celebration. But do we know from the painting that Montcalm is dying as a result of wounds he suffered in battle – a battle he lost? Do you think that’s significant?
As few people have already mentioned and was discussed in class, works of art history are subject to both the interpretation of the painter and the person looking at the painting. This painting of Montcalm can have a number of different meanings depending on such circumstances.
Here, we see Montcalm indoors (in contrast to the painting of Wolfe in which he is on the battlefield) which does have a hint of accuracy behind it – Montcalm was wounded in the abdomen during his final battle and taken to hospital where he perished. He is also surrounded by many people, clergy included, and depicted as a man of high worth, similar to the painting of Wolfe which we viewed in class in which he is presented as almost Christ-like. In this piece of art, Montcalm is dressed in white, and the artist has included somewhat of an aura around him.
This, however, is a clear indicator of the artist’s standpoint of Montcalm and his battles: he sees them as good and memorializes Montcalm. Commemoration of Montcalm took place in various places in England and France, however, this is not the case for all. Many view Montcalm’s choices in battles as controversial and criticize them, especially those which were made in Quebec.
Finally, with this painting being done many many years after Montcalm’s death, it solidifies a connection between French Canadians and their ties back to the French Monarchy, even though British Monarchy succeeded in the defeat of the French in the battle. It serves as piece of worship for French-Canadians who view Montcalm as champion.
Marissa, Is there a significance to showing Montcalm inside instead of on the battlefield? The painter could have shown him getting wounded…or in the immediate aftermath of his injury (like West). He is the centre of attention as you say, and it’s likely the painter wanted to put him in a good light. How is that achieved by erasing any reference to his last battle?
France’s defeat in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759 is historically undisputed. However, various interpretations and portrayals of this event exist, such as this particular painting which presents the French General’s death. Through this painting, Suzor-Coté provides contextual evidence which furthers our understanding of the significance behind the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in Canadian history.
Firstly, in analyzing this painting, I think it is important to recognize and establish the overall mood Coté aims to present. For instance, he has chosen to depict General Montcalm’s death indoors, with a dark and dull backdrop. The colours he has used also contribute to the overall serious and solemn atmosphere of the scene. If we compare this presentation to West’s painting of General Wolfe’s death, we can note that the colours in West’s painting are contrastingly more vibrant, the scene is set outside on the battlefield, and while the overall mood is indeed serious and solemn as well, it expresses a more glorious aura. Thus, these differences indicate the differences in the ideological purposes of the two paintings. That is, while West presents the Battle of the Plains of Abraham as a celebratory day, Coté attempts to convey the serious yet dignified stance of the defeated French people.
Evidently, General Montcalm’s placement in the centre focuses on the general respectful attitude towards his efforts in the battle. In contrast to his bleak surroundings, he is dressed in white, possibly representing France’s pure and heroic vision of him. The nuns kneeling and praying is also a direct representation of Catholicism. This seems to suggest the fact that despite the hardships, French Canadians were determined to remain faithful to their religion and culture.
Overall, I think this painting offers valuable insight on the deep roots of French and Quebecois nationalism. Coté presents a powerful painting which presents the ideological views of French Canadians; Coté being born in Quebec suggests the bias of his interpretation. While the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was indeed a time of mourning, it was also a time where French Canadians became strongly united.
Geena, I like your comments on the contrast in colours in West’s painting and this one; and your comment on Montcalm’s clothing (I hadn’t thought of that!). I agree that Coté is making an argument with the painting, one one that is favourable to the French. Is there any significance to the fact that Montcalm is shown dying in bed and not on the battlefield?
History can be interpreted in many different ways; and art is just one of the ways that it can be interpreted. Even in art itself, history can be portrayed in various ways. This piece, “Mort du Montcalm” or “The Death of Montcalm”, painted by Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté in 1902, is his take on General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm’s death at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. Due to his successes in previous battles, Montcalm was considered a notable French commander respected in France and Quebec.
To analyze what ideological purposes of this image, we must understand that Foy Suzor-Coté was a French Canadian from Quebec. One could assume that he most likely adopted French Canadian nationalistic ideas. This can be seen through his painting of Montcalm. As we see, Montcalm is lying in his death bed, painted using paler, lighter colors than the rest of the painting, almost as if there was a light shining on him from heaven. The contrast between the lightness and the darkness portrays Montcalm as if he were a holy sacrifice given at the Battle of Quebec. The downward angled faced of the people standing and kneeling around him show deep mourning. Some of those people even have their hands covering their mouths or faces. It can be deducted that Foy Suzor-Coté is trying to communicate that Montcalm’s death was that of a hero’s.
Dora, I think you’re right that Coté was trying to paint Montcalm as a hero, and I like the comments about the paler colours and what they might signify. I wonder if you think there’s any significance to him being shown dying in bed instead of the battlefield?
In order to exploit the full potential of historical documents we have to ask the questions “Who wrote/painted this?” and more precisely “In what purpose?”. Most of the time authors convey their personal opinion and interpretation on historical events by using devices to portray what they want the audience to think about – and possibly convince people to share their view. This intention clearly appears in painting such as Benjamin West “The Death of Wolfe” (1771) or Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté “Mort du Montcalm” (1902). These two paintings serve opposite ideological purposes: they portray fallen leaders of both camp after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (September 13, 1759) between the English and the French for the domination over Canada.
While “The Death of Wolfe” depicts him as a heroic figure doing the ultimate/Christ-like sacrifice in a brave death on the battlefield then exposing the victory of Britain over France, “Mort du Montcalm” represents the French general on his death bed in a very solemn way. The colors are darker and the atmosphere developed by the tints is funerary, not as victorious as West painting. However, the character of Montcalm is put in the centre of the painting to focus attention on him and to remind us he played a significant role for the French-Canadian people back then, and still does nowadays. The light aura upon him represents his devotion for Quebec and the faith people had in him. The presence of clergy members and nuns also enhances the desire for French-Canadians to keep their Catholic beliefs and stand their ground behind their fallen hero.
Suzor-Coté is born in the province of Quebec and it definitely has an influence on his painting. Through the prism of his artistic creation he supports a socio-political point of view in favor of a French identity and values in Canada. The fact that his painting was only created more than a hundred year after the events strengthen the idea that it is used as a manifesto to ensure remembrance of Montcalm and what he represents for French-Canadians despite the defeat of the French and their eviction from North America.
Pierre, I agree that the painting has a political argument and is meant to celebrate Montcalm (just like West’s painting was to celebrate Wolfe). It is solemn rather than victorious. I wonder if you think there’s any significance to the fact that Montcalm is shown dying in bed rather than the battlefield?
In order to depict this image we must look at the focal points. We see Montcalm as the main focal point, in which defeat is obvious. This is vital because without Montcalm’s efforts the Canada we have come to know today would not be the same. Montcalm displayed heroic feats during the Battle of Plains of Abraham. The people surrounding Montcalm are clearly mourning or are upset. This demonstrates respect and thankfulness towards him.
It has been said that the winners of a war always write the history books. In this case it is a painting, glorifying Montcalm. This is important to note because by glorifying Montcalm it pushes again the fact that the British had won the battle (this painting was painted in 1902, many years after the battle). As well, Montcalm clearly wearing white may represent purity and dignity in which he gave his full efforts in the battle.
Wesley, Yes, Montcalm is the centre of attention and people are upset at his death. But is it significant that he’s shown dying in bed instead of the battlefield?
General Comments:
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 (except for Nadir, who makes an interesting argument).
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).
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?
Canada was split up into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and in both of these, armed struggle shaped political culture and two rebellions overpowered. The Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada were the result of a non-representative form of government that gave little or no attention to rights or interests of the populations and put power in the hands of elite groups, namely the Chateau Clique which focused on Francophone values and Family Compact which focused on American values. Similarly, Atlantic revolutionaries questioned the legitimacy of the state and power relations in the name of freedom.
In the aftermath of these rebellions, the British Government realized that it needed to take immediate steps to retain the loyalty of its subjects and retained Durham to investigate the uprisings and give viable recommendations. The prime solution of the Durham report was the principle of responsible government and a large self-governing colony. This principle gradually extended to all of the colonies of settlement from the Canadas to the Atlantic colonies including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. So, the rebellions were very similar: a fight for freedom and responsible government.
For various reasons, it is fair to say that the 1830s was an “Age of Revolution” in British North America. The first was political change resulting in expanded powers for the elected assemblies. The second was religious toleration which allowed for more diversity. Finally, there was the abolition of slavery, which is by far the best example of British North America’s progressiveness. In the 1820s, slavery had been eliminated from non-rebelling colonies, and in 1833, Britain listed colonies in its Empire where slaves could get compensation, but there were no North American colonies on that list.
The division of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as a consequence of the application of the Constitutional Act in 1791, provides us a window to look more easily at the political and cultural situation of this time. Many changes were in their making because of rebellions rising in both colonies. These dissents found their origins in inequalities at a socio-cultural level, coming themselves from a misrepresentation of the middle class people in the political system, and from a two-speed economic policy.
Indeed, middle class people and liberal professions were oppressed by the governance of elite minorities – Family Compact in Upper Canada and Chateau Clique in Lower Canada –, who held the political power. This situation led people to campaign for the creation of elected Assemblies, more responsive to their electorate. The elite also largely benefited from the land policy in effect: they owned more, better lands, and consequently the voting and political rights which go with it. The question of citizenship through land ownership was essential and subject to many changes at the time.
These rebellions spread to the Atlantic colonies because the issues were similar. Atlantic colonies had inherited the same political system there was in the Canadas, and its flaw at the same time. Power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of elite, a colonial oligarchy governing for their own interest, not the interest of the colonies. Then people wanted reforms to be undertaken for a better representation of the local population in the elected Assembly. There were a lot of struggle about the lands as well. In New Brunswick, the “casual and territorial revenues” and the taxes levied on trees harvested allowed the Council – which was not elected and therefore not representative – to take actions without the consent of the elected Assembly. In Prince Edward Island, William Cooper led an “escheat” movement: the confiscation of land from absentee proprietors and reallocation to people who invested their labour in improving it, to serve local improvement of urban areas and economy.
As a consequence of the rebellions in both Canadas and Atlantic colonies, British North America in the 1830s saw political changes with expanding power for the elected assemblies. Economic reforms also were undertaken. Agreements were found on immigration and religious matters, allowing people more freedom. All these changes are reasons why the 1830s might be seen as an age of revolution in British North America.
Rebellions in the Canadas resulted from constitutional, social-cultural, and economic factors; they were esp made worse in the 1820-30s leading to open insurrection. In the Atlantic, there were also political and economic power issues that led to issues. In both, there is a focus on elites and those who have power controlling what happens. This time was the age of revolution for many reasons. People like Joseph Howe played big roles in lobbying for change; he published the Novascotian which noted the negative aspects of the govt – he was known as the “champion of free speech” b/c of this. Also, acts by other people such as protesting and petitioning led to changes and resolutions. For example, the govt was responsible for territorial revenues in 1854. So with these changes and profound actions by leaders, this was the age of revolution when important changes were implemented.
In the Canadas and the Atlantic region, the rebellions were results of long-existing tensions and the subsequent realizations by the majority of the population of the corrupt nature of the British governments which were controlled by a handful of appointed elites. The tensions were also triggered by the efforts of the government to suppress the majority in terms of economic, political, and social influences. Conservative approaches were replaced with more liberal reforms; people were no longer willing to follow unaccountable and arbitrary power.
The Rebellions in the Canadas unfolded between the Anglophone minorities against the American and French populations in Upper and Lower Canada respectively. Land and property holding was the main issue, and with this came the political segregation of the English and Americans in Upper Canada, and the English and French in Lower Canada. Essentially, the American settlers and Francophones were denied equal political opportunities and the British appointed councils in both colonies were focused on assimilation as well as bringing in new British immigrants. Also, the Francophones in Lower Canada began to reject the Catholic Church, foreshadowing the modern secular state. The reformists in the Canadas were particularly critical of their government systems; despite the existence of elected assemblies, their influence was minimal due to the fact that the appointed councils, which were made up of a small group of British elites, had the ultimate ability to veto decisions and thus, impose more authority. Similarly, the colonies in the Atlantic region were experiencing the same situation. Although land was not as much an issue and despite the population’s overall economic prosperity, like the reformers in Upper and Lower Canada, the Atlantic regions did not approve of the unequal distribution of political involvement and influence. They wanted more representation and accountability. In all these areas, major reform leaders (Mackenzie, Papineau, Howe) significantly led the rebellions in directly refusing the appeasement attempts by the governors and the appointed councils; they were adamant for change.
The rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic region were similar in their concern for making the appointed councils more accountable and stressing for the need to implement responsible government. The 1830s can definitely be seen as an age of revolution in British North America as the colonies eventually were able to adopt the system of responsible government, and in all cases, the British governments as well as London were made pertinently aware of the need to respond to the needs of the majority, and that accountability was necessary in order to prevent further rebellion and potential violence.
The rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada occurred because of the want for responsible government due to an appointed system that mainly served the elite class. The dissent in the Atlantic colonies existed because of the appointed government and the power of the elite class as well. The dissent in the Atlantic, and the rebellions in the Canadas both brought about more responsible government in the 1840s and 1850s. The similarity of the governance in the colonies before reform and the similarity of the reform movements in the colonies, show that they had similar political and societal goals.
The 1830s, the time of this rebellion and dissent in the Canadian and Atlantic colonies could be seen as a time of revolution in British North America, because people were active in calling for reform, in the form of protests, and attempts to overthrow the government in Upper and Lower Canada. In the Atlantic colonies, the dissent took the form of criticism, which eventually caused political change in the colonies. Each of these colonies eventually received and achieved political change that led to more responsible government which served society with more equality towards the middle class that wanted the reforms.
The Rebellions in the Canadas have many similarities, in social, cultural and constitutional tensions arising. Both were stands against an appointed system, allowing the elite to dictate what they want, at the cost of the rest of the members of the colony. Upper Canada showed a distinct issue with the Family Compact, in their distribution of land to friends and others in the colony for the means of greater political power. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system of land tenure was not well liked. Atlantic Canada became highly critical of it’s governing body, especially after seeing the steps Upper and Lower Canada were taking, on an issue almost all the same.
The Canadas, each in a different way, fought against an unequal system. Although they had some elected officials, the power of majority was still in the hands of the wealthiest in the region, who had little concern for the rest of the community. They both fought for a responsible government; to have their own voices heard.
The 1830’s could most definitely be classified as a revolution in British North American. For the first time, the settlers were speaking out against the imposed system, and striving for a voice of their own. Both political and economic changes resulted from the Rebellions (although there was far less bloodshed in the Atlantic regions). On top of political reform, also came religious reform. Religious tolerance was increased as the Francophone people began to reject the Catholic Church. The stands which Mackenzie and Papineau took ultimately lead to Durham’s recommendation that the Canadas should be granted a responsible government. After all, revolution is defined as “a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”, and despite different means, this is precisely what Upper, Lower and Atlantic Canada achieved.
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did pretty 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).
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?
In Saul’s view, the Métis civilization was created as a result of the relationships or the intermarrying between the European fur traders and Indigenous women. Aboriginals taught the fur traders pretty much everything worth knowing, from how to live on the land, how to survive and live in unison. By doing so, the Europeans improved their lives in terms of social, economic and political aspects. Rather than simply seeing Canada as a country developed through conquest and immigration, it is important to focus on how Canada has been shaped by these relationships. Métis civilizations refer to thinking of Canada as being built on the triangular foundation of British or English traditions, French traditions, as well as Aboriginal traditions or cultures.
Moreover, children of these relationships between European men involved in the fur trade and Indigenous women developed a distinctive culture: a combination of European and Aboriginal cultures. This hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne,” was based around bison hunting. The “country-borne” could choose to either live with their British relatives or their Indigenous relatives. If, for example, they chose to live with their British relatives, they were considered British, and vice versa. Generally, the Métis and the “country-borne” were very different because of their ways and methods of trade. Through these marriages, new relationships were formed and spread.
I believe most aspects of Canadian culture and polices can be owed to our aboriginal heritage and what has been inspired by the relationships amongst the Metis, indigenous peoples, and the traders. The Hudson’s Bay Company, the Loyalists, and New France, amongst others, were built upon these relationships and partnerships. Today, we are the outcome of that experience consisting of aboriginal influences and ideals. Thus, Canada can be considered a Metis civilization.
Canada is a Metis civilization even though many may disagree. There is defiantly much controversy over land today, but that is b/c of Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada. They were smart citizens who were key in the fur trade, economic development, etc. The relationship they have to our land is extremely important. Many underestimate the cultural and language importance of place they have in regards to history. Many of our families have maybe been around Canada for a few hundred years or less (depends), but the Metis civilization has been around for as long as we know. We are built on First Nation’s, French, and English traditions in Canada. If it weren’t for the Aboriginal peoples, Canada would not be what it is today. Not only did they help establish the great country we live in, they taught European’s the ways of the fur trade and other valuable lessons by creating relationships with them. They were smart traders who gained economic surplus from the fur trade. Even though we are considered on Indian land, there is much controversy on land claims, who gets what, what its used for, settlement issues, historical landmarks etc. Many like to think that we can simply “strip” away their land where history, family, relations, and cultural were built up from just to build something like a condo complex. We need to think twice about Canada and that it is in fact, a Metis civilization.
I completely agree with both of my classmates in saying that Canada is most definitely a Metis civilization. Not only were Aboriginals the first people to inhabit Canada, but as Saul suggests, they played a key role in developing the fur trade that helped the European to colonize the land and make it “their” home. With early trade starting only in and around colonies, help from the Aboriginal who knew the land was needed to expand sales. Aboriginals were also key in establishing the trade when they acted as the “middle men” for transactions, as we talked about in earlier classes and blog entries. European settlers learned many lessons from the Aboriginals that helped to establish them as a large trade entity, and some of their practices are still used today.
Aside from trade, intermarriage plays a huge part in Canada’s Metis civilization. This marriage between Aboriginals and Europeans is quite literally the meaning of “Metis.” Today, a vast majority of Canadians can trace back ancestry to the 1800’s and have a Metis bloodline in the family. I myself know quite a few people who are Metis (even though most are only 1/8th or less!).
In conclusion, Saul’s term “Metis civilization” holds great accuracy in describing Canada. Through trading lessons and aid, to intermarriage and widespread numbers of Metis people currently residing in Canada, Saul’s term is one of the better one’s to describe our country.
Despite the contemporary tendencies of understanding Canada as a product of European imperialism and creation, Saul argues that Canada as we know it today is a direct result of Aboriginal peoples and their culture. That is, Saul stresses the need to recognize and emphasize the fact that Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada, and even though European settlers dominated the land upon their arrival, interaction with Aboriginal peoples was inevitable and thus, had a significant impact. Saul notes the intermarriages between Europeans and Aboriginals to further prove Canada as a “Metis civilization.” Based on what we have learned from lectures so far, it is clear that Aboriginal presence was strong. They undoubtedly influenced European interests and shaped them accordingly. Based on primary sources which many historians have researched, Aboriginals were skilled traders, culturally vibrant, and highly educated and aware of their best interests. In other words, they were not passive. In addition, once a whole new generation was born from the many intermarriages, it further influenced Canada in becoming a product of Aboriginal values. In other words, Canada’s formation was not simply about European settlers dominating and imposing their views. Although Saul’s notion of Canada as a “Metis civilization’ might be highly controversial among those who are not accustomed to viewing Canadian history through this particular lens, I believe it is considerably accurate based on the fact that European and Aboriginal interactions and relationships were undeniably present and thus, influential.
John Raston Saul establishes Canada as a Metis civilization, which is established through Aboriginal legacy. The legacy of Aboriginal peoples in Canada was created through the relationships that they had with both the French and the English fur traders, and then their relationships with the colonists. The relationship between the French and the Aboriginal peoples, such as in the negotiations of the Peace Treaty of 1701, both sides made an effort to adopt certain aspects of each other’s culture in order to create a successful peace treaty. The Aboriginal peoples and the French held a strong relationship throughout the fur trade, and the relations between the French traders and the Aboriginal women created a new Metis identity in a very literal sense.
There was a reliance on the Aboriginal peoples by the English and the French to hold on to land. When the British gained the French land in the Canadian colonies, they took into question how treaties would be established, and by what means. Although it often did not work in favour of the Aboriginal peoples, the thought was still there, and Aboriginal practices were being adopted in the process. The creation of new identities directly creates this idea known as a “Metis civilization”, but not only these relationships and distinct peoples are a part of Saul’s concept. Canada exists because of the relationship that exists between the French, English and Aboriginal peoples. Canada as a nation is built up of the diplomatic and cultural values of all of these peoples creating a unique identity and “Metis civilization”.
Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of the land which we know as Canada today. The history of Canadian civilization is tightly linked with Aboriginal culture because they were the first people whom the Europeans met when they arrived in North America, and quickly relations were tied between the two populations: fur trade, gift-giving, treaties, inter-marriage… Despite European population eventually took over Aboriginals, the influence of the latters is undeniable as they helped creating the economic, social and political policies in force in Canada now.
But the history of Canada is also based on migratory flows. As we saw in class, since the middle 18th century, different population from different cultural origins have populated North America. In Upper and Lower Canadas you could find French and English populations. Moreover, many Americans came to British Columbia or simply passed the border to find work during the gold-rush. All these cultural groups brought a contribution to what Canada is today, and even though they were long-time rivals they melted into a broader view of Canadian population.
Canada is a “Metis civilization” because it answers to the two criteria of what we call melting-pot or intermix. There is a biological interbreeding, that is to say White settlers who had children with Aboriginal peoples. These children evolved in a hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne”. Moreover, Canadian history also demonstrates a cultural mixing: the English, the French and the Americans were not ethnically different because they all belong to the White phenotype. However, they clearly showed cultural differences in terms of societal organization, political systems and several other aspects of what constitutes a cultural group. All these cultural influences were mingled in order to form the Canadian civilization we see today.
General Comments on this week’s blog.
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. With a few exceptions, all of you bought Saul’s idea. I wonder if you would like 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.
Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?
Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011
Governmentality is a concept that was developed and originated by the historian and theorist, Michel Foucault, however, was not completed due his death in 1984. Governmentality, also commonly known as “governmental rationality,” defines what politics is all about and concerns those who study, think about, write about, and report on politics. More socially, governmentality encompasses the way in which people are organized in a society, and the way in which governing or ruling is organized.
In relation to team sports, such as hockey or soccer where teamwork is key, I argue that team sports can be considered a part of governmentality. As defined above, governmentality can include the way in which people are organized. In a sport such as ice hockey, different players have different roles throughout the game, and players are given their roles and responsibilities prior to the start of the match/game by a team leader or by a coach. This team leader or coach has a similar responsibility to a government official, or someone who has ultimate responsibility over a group of people.
The emergence of governmentality is shown to not only be restricted to apply in governmental or political situations, but also the application in social activities, such as team sports, requiring a certain number of players and the laying out of certain roles and responsibilities of those who are involved.
I believe sports teams are apart of governmentality b/c they are funded by the government (to an extent) and involves some of the same structures as the govt. For example, there is a hierarchy. The coach and his staff are at the top who control what occurs, who plays where, team lineups etc; the players are secondary following their boss. In govt, this is the same w/ the prime minister at the top, and we, as citizens are below. This includes staff as well. Both also thrive for the best through changes such as hiring a new coach, adjusting the team (ie: changing lines), trading players etc. The goal is to progress efficiently. Also, everyone has a different role in govt and same goes with sports teams. In hockey, the defence has their duties, centre players have their, along w/ the goalie who is key. The responsibilities may be different but their aim is the same: to win. They adjust responsibilities to best fit the situation, and team as a whole. Negotiations and agreements are made to create equality, and making sure the majority is happy. There are many similarities between the 2; but just different aspects and a different environment.
Teams also serve our nation, so it is important for us to recognize them, esp. the govt. Hockey is the most anticipated sport in Canada, w/ the govt recognizing their accomplishments such as “congratulating Team Canada finalists at WorldSkills Competition” so surely sports teams can defiantly be apart of governmntality. Not only do they represent Canada, they are representing our entire country worldwide.
Governmentality is a concept introduced by Michel Foucault, which refers to how government practices beyond those of laws and policies, shape and influence citizens in behaving a certain way as to preserve the peace and order in a nation. That is, government is not strictly restricted to government institutions, but rather, can be found in various areas of society. Thus, team sports can be fully considered as a part of governmentality because they largely reflect the ways society is governed. There are many parallels between how team sports are organized and operate, with the functioning of society as a whole. For instance, the notion of the team, can be paralleled to society as being a group of citizens working together with a common goal in mind: to prosper and live harmoniously. Likewise, team sports are motivated by the goal to win the game, and to work together efficiently in order to reach this goal. Moreover, different players have different positions and responsibilities, which are all vital to the success of the game. This can then be paralleled to society where every individual plays some part in contributing to its economy, culture, politics, and social interests. As well, the structure of team sports is fundamentally influenced by discipline, order, efficiency, social hierarchy, and innovation. Such qualities in the context of team sports have an interdependent relationship with the way citizens perceive what justice is, and their views on how to behave in society. In other words, by playing team sports, these qualities are reinforced in people’s daily lives as it makes more sense to adhere to such expectations as they become normalized.
Team sports can be considered to be a reflection of governmentality. Governmentality is the way that a state governs the population of the people it is governing over, deciding how power will be conducted, and how it is to be dispersed among the people. The way that team sports work, is that everyone on the team works together, and generally there is a leader among the people that decides how the team will work, much like the way a government does. The leader decides how the team will work depending on the people that the team is made up of, similar to the way government works. The government has to work with its citizens in order to figure out the proper way to exercise and disperse power. Team sports involve teamwork, as well as multiple other skills that would be considered important values and are promoted by the leader of the team and then by the rest of the teammates. In a governmental situation, the government works to ensure that the values that it wants to promote are shared by the citizens, and that the citizens are willing to share these values with everyone else. If the citizens share these values, society becomes more efficient. Much like the government, when the values that the team wants to share are shared, the team becomes more efficient and successful. In this sense, team sports can be considered as a reflection of governmentality, and show the type of values that citizens and people want to share with one another.
I absolutely think that sports are absolutely a part of governmentality. Sports organizations are structured into essentially a political system. However, the “Prime Minister” position is one that depends on the organization itself. In a community organization, this is most usually the President, who chairs meetings, works with treasurers and coaches, and oversees the running of the organization. In a national sporting organization, such as the NFL, often Presidents and owners of the company have little to no knowledge of what happens within the sport and are rarely involved in anything that is monetary. A trickle down effect from head coach to assistant coach to captain to different player leaders (e.g. defensive leader, special teams, etc) in the “hierarchy” on the team.
As mentioned by a couple classmates, values are also inherently a part of governmentality, and also play a large role in a successful team setting. A team without shared values falls apart, as does a government (Ex. Conservative vs NDP). Canadian sports are very linked to the government through funding when players become “carded” and play for their country.
GENERAL COMMENTS: Some of you made insightful links between team sports and govern mentality, but not all of you 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.
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
Canada is what people would say is the land of freedom where we can express who we are, our culture, and identity. This multicultural country has many different aspects to it shaped by all the different types of people within, whether its race or just who you are. When I think Canada, the first thing’s that come to mind is…hockey and cold weather. We are known for having a great love of hockey and with that, cold weather, but what many don’t know is that our land’s first inhabitants were First Nation’s people. I think that storyline was running throughout this term on many topics talked about. For example, fur trade was a big part of history and how it has shaped the relationship between settlers and Aboriginal peoples. As more settlers came into Canada, more land had to be given up to them (economic reasons also), so through history much has been shaped by what has occurred in the past. Most changes have been positive, while others are negative. Relating this back to Aboriginals, the relationship between settlers (aka non-Indigenous people today) and Indigenous people don’t exactly have a good relationship b/c of the corruption in our government history. Although, other positive things that have come about are things such as the TRC and simply, recognition of the issues in society. So I think it was important that Indigenous people was mentioned to such a great degree during this term, especially the articles by Arthur J. Ray and Van Kirk
(Last blog!)
Canada is a country that was formed on the culture of multiple different groups including Indigenous peoples, the British, and the French. The route to confederation started with European contact with Indigenous peoples, and the relationships that were formed between the groups because of the fur trade. The fur trade therefore becomes an important storyline of Canadian identity being established. As settlers started arriving to Canada, different colonies started forming, and relationships between the groups changed. The formation of the colonies led to a focus on the relationship between the British and French settlers, and the changing dynamics as the French became a minority group even though they were a majority group before the British took over their colony.
Another main storyline leading to confederation in 1867 was the want for responsible government from each British North American colony, including West or Upper Canada, East or Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies. The reformation of these colonies and their governmental systems represented a change in the way that the colonies worked and wanted to work, which would eventually streamline itself into confederation. Therefore, Canada is a nation whose history contains the stories of many groups of people and their struggles and successes in reaching certain governmental systems, economic systems and religious freedoms. The stories of these Canadians show that the nation that exists today exists because of the meeting of cultural groups dating to hundreds of years ago, and how they decided to work together to create a nation in which all groups are represented in one way or another.
lala, 
mosachoff, and 8 others are discussing. 
jonathangeorge, 
Wesley Livermore, and 6 others are discussing. 
geenalee, 
lindseyaw, and 3 others are discussing. 
FribaRezayee235, and 5 others are discussing. 
Pierre-Marie B., and 4 others are discussing. 
mwaldron, 
Susanna Chan are discussing.
Nadir Surani 11:18 am on September 5, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is the world’s second largest country by area, after Russia, but Canada’s population (approximately 35 million), at slightly less than that of the state of California (approximately 38 million), is small by comparison. Regardless of its population size, Canada plays an important role in the world’s economy and is one of the largest trading partners of the United States.
Canada is often referred to as the ‘land of immigrants’ and this applies to my heritage as well. Although I was born in Vancouver, B.C. (one of the ten provinces in Canada) and have lived here all my life, my parents emigrated from Kenya and their ancestors from India. As such, immigration has played an integral part in the development of multiculturalism within Canada. With its scenery and mild climate, Vancouver is one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities in Canada with over fifty percent of its population speaking a first language other than English, including Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, and other dialects.
As beautiful as Canada and the province of British Columbia we live in is, the way Canada developed into a country is very interesting as it has not been spared from conflicts of cultural assimilation, conflicts between the English and French, and more. From the Canadian Confederation in 1867, the forging of the nation through the two World Wars, and its development as an independent nation, the history of Canada is fascinating. Even though I am a born Canadian, I have little knowledge about the history of Canada, so I am eager to learn about the development and evolution, which has led to the present-day Canada.
schan 6:08 pm on September 6, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a country in North America that is 146 years old. It is a country of freedom, respect, diversity, and a continuously growing market. With the vast amount of land/area in Canada, it is known as one of the most beautiful places on earth. Our country is unique in a way that there are many languages spoken here (French and English being the main ones), everyone has a different culture, and come from all around the world! Each and everyday, you can learn something new about this country. Canada consists of 10 provinces that are all unique and special in their own way. When the question “What is Canada known for?” I think the most well known things our country is known for include: hockey, snow, wilderness, kind people, mountains, etc. Canada has much to offer for everyone no matter where your from. That is why so many immigrants come here to start a new life. This country is known for “great new beginnings” for many, and that’s what makes our country so wonderful.
Canadian history is how our country came about. Our country is inhabited by many Aboriginal people that own much of this land, and they play an important role in our laws. Others that helped shape Canada include the French, and veterans from events such as World War II. Our country wouldn’t be the way it is today without historical events that changed legislation, laws, etc. Canada is known as one of the most liveable countries for its climate, outdoors, opportunities, and much more! I am looking forward to learning more about my home, Canada!
Wesley Livermore 9:53 am on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a fantastic country filled with a fantastic population. Whether it is the Rocky mountains out west or the french speaking culture in Quebec, Canada has it all. Being the second largest country in total area, Canada spreads all that area out in only ten provinces and three territories. The population is not even the size of the State of California, but ask any Canadian and we will tell you we don’t care if we are the size of California. Canada thrives on living differently than any other country or state in the world. Canada not only accepts differences, but rather embraces them. Our history tells the story of why Canada is so multicultural, and when push comes to shove we can hold our own. Canada’s history is about the growth of new land and many cultures coming together to make one.
Athletically Canada does extremely well in skiing and most of all beloved hockey. Hockey brings many Canadians together during International tournaments and separates many when it comes to the National Hockey league when each others teams play. All in a loving way, of course…Most of the time. When people discriminate based on some ones beloved NHL team it can be taken too far and is much too immature if you ask me. Everyone knows Canada’s team is the Maple Leafs! GO LEAFS GO!
Pierre-Marie B. 1:18 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Located in North America, Canada is widely known for being one the largest countries in the world, it is ranked in the second place after Russia, it spreads between the Pacific Ocean to the West and the Atlantic Ocean to the East. The country shares borders with the United States of America in the South and in the northwestern part with Alaska. Canada is divided in three territories and ten provinces, they are all mostly bilingual but English prevails over French except in the province of Québec which is mainly and officially French speaking. The capital is Ottawa in Ontario.
I come from France and unfortunately I don’t know much about the history of Canada although there are special links between these two countries. Of course some of the basics, for instance that it was discovered by a French explorer called Jacques Cartier and that the city of Quebec was founded by another famous Frenchman, Samuel Champlain. When the first settlers arrived the country was inhabited by native tribes. Then there were times of war between the multiple colonies, the French and Indian Wars.
As far as I am concerned, many popular beliefs about Canada and Canadians have turned out to be true since I arrived : people are friendly, very polite and willing to help whether or not they know you. They are also really concerned about environment and health, consequently it is shown through the landscape and in the nature. I have the feeling that the sense of belonging is very important here in Canada, almost every person I have talked with seemed so proud of their hometown. Now I’m discovering what a real campus is and the way of life which goes with it.
lindseyaw 2:01 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a nation of multiculturalism, and takes great pride in its diversity. Canada has a relatively small population for its physical size, and most of the population lives very close to the American border. It is made up of ten provinces and three territories, and a Federal government, which is based in Canada’s capital, Ottawa, Ontario. Canada’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, making Canada a commonwealth nation. From sea to sea to sea, there is a lot of environmental diversity, from the Rocky Mountains, the Canadian Shield, to the tundra in the territories. Canada is also known for its great amount of natural resources, such as fresh water, oil, and forests. Canada is also known for its universal health care, and its legacy of peacekeeping with the United Nations.
Canadian history is about the contact between different groups from different cultures and backgrounds, and how this contact created a unique nation and government. I think that as a country, Canada is unique, as it embraces the different backgrounds of its people and protects their rights and freedoms. Although Canada now defines itself as a multicultural nation, Canada’s history contains many negative narratives when it comes to its treatment of Indigenous peoples, as well as immigrant groups over the years. Canada’s history is important because it deals with history that still affects people today. The issues, such as colonialism and assimilation, occurred in the past, but are still relevant and continue to create dialogue between many groups of people across Canada and with the government. Therefore, Canada’s history is a very relevant topic to discuss in the modern day, because it defines the nation in so many different ways.
geenalee 3:20 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is an extremely unique country. While it is the second largest country in the world geographically, Canada is also classified as a significantly young country which has a much smaller population in contrast to other nations, including its superpower southern neighbor, the United States. With that said, Canada is popularly known as a diverse and multicultural nation due to its population being primarily dominated by immigrants from different parts of the world. Despite different ethnic and religious backgrounds, people are united through their Canadian citizenship. Moreover, Canada’s reputation as a democratic and peaceful nation further reinforces its international image as a welcoming and friendly country. Thus, Canada has become a globally desirable place to live, a place where people can depend on to be safe, as well as being acknowledged and accepted for their differences.
As for Canadian history, I believe it is simply about the process of different groups of people coming together to live as Canadians. Indeed, this process included many challenges which Canada as a nation had to overcome. For instance, the conflict between European immigrants and the First Nations people has been ongoing throughout Canadian history and still to the present day. The conflict between English Canadians and French Canadians is also extremely significant. Moreover, early generations of other ethnic groups also found it difficult to live peacefully when the Canadian government discriminated against them at times. Unfortunately, such struggles were seemingly inevitable due to the heterogeneous nature of Canada. Different groups of people had different interests, which almost always came into conflict with each other. I find it fascinating how much Canada has developed as a modern nation where people live, for the most part, harmoniously, and I feel that exploring Canadian history is key in understanding Canada’s distinct identity in the contemporary world.
chliane 4:46 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a country made up of a plethora of different cultures. Our multiculturalism, and particularly our embrace of the wide variety of peoples may be what defines us most. Our sense of nationalism comes from our shared rights as Canadian citizens, and not from shared traditions and backgrounds. Being part of the ‘new world,’ Canada’s history and modern culture grew out of those that had been carried over from the ‘old world’ after its discovery, including everything from Europe to Asia and beyond. As a country of immigrants, we are also seen as a place for new beginnings and fresh starts. My parents came here to find better education and a healthy place to raise kids, which is what many others come to do.
In Canada we have relatively high living standards, being very large in terms of area and having a very small population density. This means lots of uninhabited space and parks all over the country. Our amazing forests and majestic views attract thousands of tourists every year, which makes up a large part of our economy. Our environment is something Canadians take great pride in. Canada is full of natural resources, some of which have been exploited. The fight to save our land and the wildlife that lives on it is all part of our history. Our interactions with the natives takes up a great deal of our history as well, and they are major players in the battle for the land.
The many cultures and the physical geography are all part of the history that has shaped Canada into what it is today. Canada’s multiculturalism and vast, rich landscape made a great impact on our world today, which is why the history of Canada is so important to study.
jonathangeorge 4:50 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
My preconceptions of Canada is that it is a country that is very young in age and is very rich in natural resources also with a wide diversity of multi-culturalism. The country is so vast in area that it is the second biggest country in the world. It is divided into ten provinces and three territories it also has two languages that are spoken here English and French. It is a society that is based on the freedoms and rights that every single human should be allonlywed to life their life and have an equal opportunity to be successful in todays world. The unique thing about this great land is that it is so beautiful and a great place to live that a lot of people from other countries have a strong desire to become Canadian citizens which in turn makes this a super friendly place to live. Canada is a young, wild and free country.
When it comes to Canadian history it seems to me that there are a lot of things that are not told or taught to us in the school system which are what really made this country what it is and how the world sees us as Canadians. From what I remember in high school is that the British Empire was where decisions where made about how the country was developed and governed. The history about our great country is what I would say totally white washed just because you only hear and learn about the good things that made this country what it is and all the dark and horrible events that took place were just swept under the rug never to be talked about. I think and believe that all the history books and classes in the schools should be rewritten and revamped the whole story should be shared and told the good, the bad, and the ugly.
mosachoff 4:58 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a developed country located in Northern North America. Its 9,984,670 km2 constitute the world’s second largest country by area. The country is economically sound by standards of GDP, owning the 11th largest economy in the world. The Confederation of Canada took place 146 where three former British colonies were united into one Country, Canada, within the British Empire. The history of Canada however extends past the formation of the country we know today and even past early exploration within European exploration of the continent over a thousand years ago. Canada’s history can be described as a story of immigration and acted as a frontier beginning with the first people to enter North America over the land bridge in the Bearing Strait. As early human beings entered Canada they made their homes and formed the bands of First Nations that exist in Canada today. Canada became a frontier again as people explored it and harvested its various resources at the beginning of Colonization of North America. After Canada became a nation, it became a destination for immigrants to come from Europe to start a new life and escape plight in Europe. In modern Canada, multiculturalism is a product of continuing influx immigrants from around the world. Canada remains a diverse country culturally and ethnically as people search for a better life.
Tina Loo 10:52 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Can you edit your post and insert your name? I’ve no idea who you are…. Thanks!
lala 11:01 pm on September 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Connor Easton
Canada is despite being the second largest country in the world by landmass, a very small country. The population of Canada is relatively small, and a significant percentage of the population choose to live very close to the US border. Although the idea of a large country may give the idea of a diversified group of cultures who can connect on very few norms and ideas, this claim would only be half correct. I believe Canada has a diverse population from many cultures, but has been very successful in connecting these varying cultures across the country through the common love for such a great country. The liberal freedoms of this nation are what many people and nations around the world sought for. I believe this is the reason Canada has such high immigration numbers in comparison to other countries. In essence Canada is about interconnected diversity.
Canada’s history in a way can be described as a nations journey through racial, economic, and gender discrimination towards a fair and equal future. Many of the events in Canadian history may not be wars or national disasters (in comparison to other nations’ histories) but rather conflicts within the nation due to our inherent diversity from the day Europeans first settled into the lands of the Maritime Provinces and Quebec. The diversity was unnatural during the past, even between the French and the English. To include the relations of these colonies to the First Natives was a level of diversity that was unparalleled in those times. However, Canada was not always the welcoming nation it is today, and had a large number of issues with prejudice towards the Natives, and even the English oppression over the French in the 1700’s
Tina Loo 10:18 am on September 14, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I’m going to write some general comments here about your Week 1 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; 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….
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.
Good job everyone!