Week 8 T2 women and WW2
comment on these primary sources by women during ww2
Updates from tamyers Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
tamyers
-
tamyers
Week 6 T2 Wall
In 1919 social class united people in a struggle against the state. What identity today do you think would unify Canadians for change?
-
jbachynski
In the graphic novel ‘Mayday’, the struggle between state and citizens on the issue of workers rights was persistent throughout the late 19th century and into the late 20th century. The economic atmosphere contributed to how these struggles played out throughout history. During the depression, jobs were scarce and resources were limited which increased the need for workers’ protest. Eventually the war opened up the job market in new ways, but the loss of lives after the war created new problems.
I think that economic issues and class struggles are still evident in Canadian culture. Perhaps we are not suffering the same disparity gap that the United States is experiencing, but Canada is still dealing with this issue. With rising tuition costs, living expenses, and less job opportunities, young Canadians are not only taking on considerable debt, but are less likely to find consistent work that recent generations have had available to them. I feel like I (and many of my peers) have come to realize that exceeding or matching the financial lifestyles that our parents’ generations have lead, may not be plausible (especially in Vancouver).
Another issue that is important to Canadians, that would spark unity for change, is the environment. In BC and Alberta specifically, environmental issues have been a hot topic for debate. Many Canadian citizens are concerned about the prospect of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, not only for its environmental repercussions but for the harm it may cause for the First Nations people and their land. Other citizens, and the Harper government suggest that the pipeline would create great job opportunities for Canadians. The Alberta oil sands also seems to be a point of tension for Canadians and the government. These issues have constantly appeared in the media, most recently with Neil Young promoting anti-oil sand opinions.
It is not necessary or realistic to think that all Canadians should have the same stance on all of these issues, but I think it is important for them to educate themselves on current Canadian issues, and engage themselves in the discussion. -
joechliu
In 1919 economy was the major theme that unified the social/working class. In the May 1, 1919 Winnipeg General Strike the metal worker initiated the strike to fight for better wages and working conditions. Soon after that on May 15, the middle classes such as the police officers, firefighters, and telephone and telegraph operators joined the working class against the state. Both social classes desired and improved economic situation and it seemed to be the only tie between the two classes. Prior to the strike the interactions between two classes were not as intimate. Each social classes shared different culture and the text books, Journey: History of Canada, indicates that the classes did not mix often between 1967-1914.
War in the 1900s united the social classes because they all had a common enemy – the Axis powers. Yet, as soon as the war was over, a distinct segregation between the classes became apparent. Unless another global war developed with two distinct sides (e.g. Axis vs Allies), however, it is not likely that the social class will unite together to challenge the state for changes. The social classes didn’t unite together to challenge the state to achieve certain goal. Not to the extent of the Winnipeg General Strike.
Economic then becomes the major factor that would unit the social classes to challenge the state for changes. Another growing factor may be environmental issues as the media emphasizes more on preserving and protecting the ecosystem (i.e. the pipeline controversies ignited a few interactions between the social classes), but the magnitude of its effect in unifying the classes is not as great as the economic factor. Political and social equality could be another factor that unite social classes, to fight against discrimination and misconducts from the states in treating ethnic related issues.
-
Nadir Surani
“May Day” is a graphic historical novel displaying the protests that started in the late 19th century and went on until the mid-20th century about a struggle between the state and the workers, specifically in terms of wages, hours, and working conditions. Without the efforts of these workers, today’s work environment would be quite different. However, many of the issues during the 19th century that led to the May Day revolts and strikes are still with us today. For instance, we see teacher’s striking for better pay and better hours; we see mine workers fighting for safer working conditions, but fortunately every Canadian today has the right to a safe and healthy workplace and the labor movement has worked for laws and regulations that protect workers on the job.
Today, I believe that peace movements fighting for the violation for human rights unify Canadians for change. These include the International Day of Peace dedicated to world peace, specifically the absence of war and violence. As well, “Orange Day” which fights for an end to violence against women and girls, so as to ensure they have rights to justice and effective remedies for the harm suffered. Given that women and girls comprise approximately one-half of Canada’s population, I think issues related to gender equality, and protection of women’s rights work toward unifying Canadians for change.
Another issue important to Canadians, and specifically youth, that would spark unity for change is finding quality employment. Canada’s youth unemployment rate is at its historical average, the ratio between youth unemployment and the unemployment rate for older Canadians is now at a record high. With youth unemployment running at nearly 2.4 times that of Canadians aged 25 and older, one begins to see the growing challenges for younger Canadians to find lasting and meaningful work. The average post-secondary graduate is now carrying over $20,000 in student loan debt, but many graduates aren’t able to find a way to start the careers they’ve invested so much to prepare themselves for. So what can be done? According to the Financial Post, curriculum design should be directly informed by the needs of industry. In the absence of workplace training since businesses are demanding new hires have the necessary skills, the onus on teaching job skills has increasingly fallen on our universities. Significant progress has been made by these institutions to adjust to this new reality, but new graduates are still being caught in the middle.
One specific example of a way in which people can be united and share their concerns for change is through social media. For example, people post articles or events on Facebook about causes, which can spark one’s interest and increase awareness. One could think about it as a chain reaction, that person A posts something about a certain topic, person B shares it with his/her “friends” on Facebook, and person C would become more knowledgeable about the topic, and so on. One specific issue that I commonly see on Facebook and have assisted with is the issue of poverty, both locally and globally. On a local scale, I have seen different events to help those suffering from hunger in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside community, and I have also seen events like the World Partnership Walk which raises funds to reduce poverty globally.
-
lindseyaw
‘May Day: A Graphic History of Protest’ explores the roots of the workers unions, and the significance of May 1st in relation to negotiations between employers and their workers starting in the late eighteenth century in the United States and Canada. The novel argues that May Day movements have played a significant role, and still play a role in the livelihoods of workers, and their ability to negotiate for better wages and working conditions. The novel also sets up May Day events as workers versus the government in its attempt to present a complex history in a unique format.
As a whole, the format of the novel as a graphic one allows for the author and illustrator to explain and explore a large period of history, over one hundred years of May Day demonstrations and important events related to worker’s rights. It also allows the reader to visualize the ideas presented with more detail, size, and scope through its illustrations. Another aspect that is interesting is the way that quotes can be brought into the story or argument that the author is trying to make. The reader is able to put a face to the quote, or a location to the situation, making the format really unique and more interactive. The format is effective, as it allows the reader to learn about a subject in an interesting manner, but it can also allow for readers to get lost on the page, and maybe read things out of order, which can make it confusing at times. The format also allows the illustrator to create caricatures of certain historical figures, much like one would in a political cartoon, allowing for the bias and opinions of the creator to be shared through the work. For example, the illustrator does this with Pierre Trudeau when explaining the organization of May Day demonstrations in Vancouver, showing that he is the antagonist in the story of that particular time period. Overall, the graphic novel format is an interesting way of presenting information, but sometimes it is quite easy to get lost in all the detail that is being presented.
-
geenalee
The graphic novel, “Mayday” vividly presents the development and evolution of social values in Canada as thousands of Canadians mobilized throughout history in order to secure labour rights. Mayday represents the powerful nature of these sentiments which demanded for justice and how Canadians all across Canada were united through petitions, unions, and strikes against the government. Within the context of the 20th century, increased awareness and activism for the working and middle class were arguably the most immediate and pertinent and hence, dominant issues which concerned the public. As a result, this social struggle is representative of a source of collective Canadian identity.
Today, I would say that workers’ rights are still extremely relevant in unifying Canadians for change as people continue to seek employment and demand benefits. Especially with the rise of the middle class, the demand for jobs appears to remain a central issue. Also, with an increasingly educated youth population, there is more pressure for the government to accommodate their needs in entering the workforce and making a living.
However, in addition to unemployment, another identity that may unify Canadians for change may be rooted in issues concerning human rights as a whole, either abroad or in Canada. For example, a recent and continuing issue is the debate regarding gay rights in relation to the Sochi Olympics. Evidently, there has been uproar within the Canadian public as Canadians have spoken up against the Russian government for its explicit denunciation and discrimination against homosexuals. As a modern democratic nation, such values concerning human rights have become established as fundamental areas of importance for Canadians. Furthermore, on a more general level, it is safe to assume that all Canadians desire freedom and rights and thus, as a nation built upon diversity and multiculturalism, Canadians are unified through shared democratic values which continuously push for increased transparency and accountability of the government to Canadian citizens.
-
Kaitlin
Thank you, Jenny, Lindsey, Joseph, Nadir, and Geena for your thoughtful responses!
It was nice to get a mix of posts about both the question on this blog and the one Dr. Myers circulated via email last week. Your connections to current social protest movements/issues, meditations on the potential and drawbacks to the graphic novel medium, and impact of social media were all much appreciated.
Brian, Connor, Lauren, and Vinciane: what do you think?
-
-
tamyers
Week 4 T2 Wall
Contemporary Canada has been deeply affected by the War on Drugs. Yet drugs and drug law enforcement are not new. How do nation and identity factor into early 20th century Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement?
-
Nadir Surani
One of the defining elements of Canadian identity has been the country’s social policies, or collection of laws and regulations that govern how Canadians live their lives. Drugs use was associated with all sorts of social ills in early 20th century Canada, however, these outdated beliefs do not reflect contemporary research about drug use, production and markets.
Scientists now understand much more about drug use than they did. A 2007 study measuring the actual harm caused by different drugs found that alcohol was the third most harmful substance, following heroin and cocaine. Why is alcohol legal then? Interestingly, there are higher levels of use in countries, like Canada, with a “zero-tolerance” approach to illicit drugs. Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are all countries where pot use has been decriminalized, legalized or liberalized, and all have rates of child cannabis use that range from one-third to more than one-half lower than in Canada.
Despite some of the evidence described earlier, and even though Canadians seem to favor a quasi-decriminalization of drug laws (specifically marijuana), the law-and-order Conservative government of Stephen Harper does not advocate a ‘softer’ policy on drugs. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and slammed the door on the previous Liberal drug laws, arrests for pot possession have jumped 41 per cent. In those six years, police reported more than 405,000 marijuana-related arrests, almost equivalent to the populations of Regina and Saskatoon combined. The reason is that despite extensive law enforcement efforts, illicit drugs are still widely used and readily available. Annual illicit drug sales in Canada are estimated to be between $7 and $18 billion with the BC marijuana market bringing in at least $6 billion per year alone. Facts like these and the war on drugs, specifically marijuana, makes Canadians wonder why this new knowledge is not reflected in how drugs are classified and laws are enforced. A 2012 Angus-Reid poll, for example, showed Canadian support for legalization for marijuana at 57%, and other surveys have polled even higher. Not surprisingly, there’s growing consensus as reflected in the ‘war on drugs’, at least outside the Conservative offices, that it’s time to take a hard look at tossing out a marijuana prohibition that dates back to the early 20th century.
Canadian identity has never been static, or fixed. Canadians’ ideas about themselves have continued to evolve since Canada was founded. At the beginning of the 20th century, for example, more than 55 per cent of Canadians were of British heritage. As a result, the British influence was very strong. Yet, over the course of the 20th century and in the 21st, forces that promote change influenced the way Canadians think of themselves, their identity, and their country.
Similarly, nation and identity factor into Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement. And are continuously evolving as new knowledge abounds. Although Canadians do not always agree on what social justice involves, they do believe that the right to debate its meaning and to work toward achieving it, is a basic value and an important aspect of Canadian identity.
-
Kaitlin
Wow! Thanks for the contemporary take on Canadian drug policy, Nadir. How can you tie some of your findings in with the articles we read for the week? More specifically, who was profiled as using and pushing drugs in at the turn of the 20th century–and has that changed?
-
-
jbachynski
In Steve Hewitt’s article it is clear that there were reasons to enforce drug laws in the early 20th century in Canada in order to maintain a certain vision of how the country should be. Interestingly enough, drug laws also helped create and preserve a symbol that would aid in fostering this vision- the Canadian Mountie.
The Canadian government, and many of the European settlers wanted to create a pure, strong and economically thriving nation. Hewitt points out that the attitudes towards drugs were similar to that of communism, and brought from external non-Canadians. The Chinese people were seen as outsiders who did not contribute to the ideals of what Canada stood for. To the Chinese, the use of opium was not necessarily as horrible for society as the Canadian government had painted it out to be. Yvan Prkachin points out that it could have been a way to cope with the trauma of living in a foreign country. This was an opportunity to cast the Chinese in a criminal light and lead to eventual deportation. The government and other European Canadians were also concerned about the influence the Chinese drug users would have on the white women.
The Canadian Mounties played a large role in drug prosecution and helped nurture the stereotype of Chinese people as the instigators. The image of a white, strong, European man was the epitome of what Canada was trying to create as the symbol of the Mountie. The role that Canadian Mounties played in the war on drugs allowed the RCMP to survive, but also to be depicted as heroes in history.
Some of these ideas about drug use are still strong in our currently conservative government. Being from Alberta (a more conservative province) it was clear to me when I moved to Vancouver that there are a wide variety of opinions on drug use. Issues like legalizing marijuana and the establishment of safe injection sites in Vancouver are continually being debated. A Vancouver organization called Sensible BC recently attempted to have a referendum to pass The Sensible Policing Act. This act would decriminalize marijuana possession in British Columbia, but it did not go through. While the racial undertones of these issues are not necessarily as strong as they were in the 20th century, they are unfortunately still present today. Certain minority groups have been marginalized by society and law enforcement when it comes to drug use- the Vancouver downtown east side being a clear example.
-
Kaitlin
Nice work highlighting the importance of the image of the Mountie to the enforcement of drug laws in the early 20th century, Jenny! Your concluding point, about contemporary drug use, marginalized populations, and law enforcement is particularly insightful. Let’s talk more about this tomorrow.
-
-
lindseyaw
Drug use was legal before 1907 in Canada, and it was easy to find and get possession of them as well. After the anti-Asian riots of 1907 in Vancouver, drug use became illegal in Canada leading to a prominence of racist attitudes towards Asian-Canadians among Anglo-Canadians. The consequences of drugs becoming illegal in Canada mostly affected Asian-Canadians, who were then seen as a people that did not fit into the Anglo-Canadian vision of Canada was and should be culturally. In 1908, the Opium Act was passed, which made drug use illegal, including opium use, which was the most popular drug among Chinese-Canadians. The desire for Anglo-Canadian identity to be the majority in Canada played a factor in the passing of this bill, and led to what is now known as the War on Drugs. In the early twentieth century, this War on Drugs looks a lot like xenophobia, a fear of foreigners, as Canadians believed that the drug trade in Canada was run mainly by immigrants, or people of ethnic minorities, and were nervous about this possibility. The racist attitudes towards immigrants, and more specifically, Chinese-Canadians, played into numerous other pieces of anti-drug legislation, which led to surges in the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians. Along with the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians in drug related crimes, they were also blamed drug related crimes, even if they were not the people that committed them. The anti-drug legislation introduced attitudes of xenophobia and racial profiling, which led to the attempted assimilation of Asian culture in Canada.
-
Kaitlin
Lindsey, you have some great points here–especially about the xenophobic nature of anti-drug legislation in the 1920s. I’m curious, though, how you see this legislation leading to the “attempted assimilation of Asian culture” in Canada. Can you think of an example of this?
-
-
geenalee
According to Hewitt, drug use in Canada during the early 20th century was very much frowned upon as it was seen to prevent Canada from becoming a stable and prosperous society. Drug use was also condemned as an “external [menace] brought to Canada from abroad,” which can be paralleled to Canada’s hostile views toward the perceived threat of communism. Indeed, while this need to eradicate drug use reflected Canada’s desire to maintain an orderly society, it also rooted itself in rather radical and racist ways.
For instance, Canada’s radical stance towards drugs is clearly evident when looking at the type and the content of legislation which was passed during this time period in order to combat this apparent war on drugs. That is, Hewitt notes the fact that Canada’s early anti-drug legislation took the form of the various Opium Acts in the early 20th century; opium is particularly significant given that it was considered a “Chinese drug,” thus reflecting racial undertones in the laws themselves. Essentially then, Canada’s ideal identity as a stable, prosperous, orderly society and nation explicitly excluded the Chinese and only focused on the white as the dominant and pure culture; opium was targeted as the means with which to accuse the Chinese Canadian population and to eradicate the perceived Chinese menace.
As such, the Canadian Mountie emerged as the key source of Canadian identity in Canadian attitudes towards drug use and law enforcement. Indeed, given the context of the Mounties during this time of uncertainty regarding their jurisdiction and rather, the threat of their abolishment, it was seemingly crucial that they maintained their emphasis and hold on the drug problem in Canada. Moreover, they were portrayed as the image of the ideal Canadian, one that was not only a strong military figure serving for the well-being of his nation, but he was also someone that would keep the rest of the white population safe from those that were labelled as the other, that is, the Chinese. Thus, we can conclude that attitudes toward drug use and drug laws were not “pure” or “genuine” in the sense that it encompassed additional external interests other than the harms of the drugs themselves. Instead, the focus was diverted to framing the Chinese as the enemy of Canadian identity that was to be preserved and kept safe from their supposedly contaminating ways.
-
Kaitlin
Good analysis of the articles, Geena! I’m curious about what you mean about attitudes toward drug use/drug laws not being “pure” or “genuine” if they addressed “external interests” beyond the harmful properties of the drugs–can you explain what you mean in using those words?
-
-
laurenellis
Canada, in the 20th century, was a country reluctant to demographic changes. Having a population consisting of northern Europeans seemed to be the ideal national identity for many in Canada. However, the Canadian nation consisted of a much more diverse racial population. It is this hesitance towards the Chinese race that caused government and law enforcement to point the finger at the Chinese immigrants and deem them mainly responsible for the presence of drugs.
Having law enforcement focus on crimes against mainly Chinese immigrants in the name of saving white citizens created a particular image of Canadian policing. It forged this identity of a white police force that was looking out for the pure and good citizens. This positioned them as moral, ethic and powerful. With this particular identity engrained in the police force drastic distinctions were made between drug usage and law enforcement. The usage of drugs and the problems it brings were considered a national problem.
As well, it was a way to control and deport members of the Chinese population. This is because it was seen that the drugs supplied by the Chinese citizens were corrupting the white citizens. As it was affecting the white population it seemed to be important to law enforcement that there be an eradication of drug abuse and dealing.
Therefore, the preservation of a specific Canadian identity in which the white Europeans are situated as the most powerful and right impacted the lead to the presence of drug law and an overbearing enforcement of the law.-
Kaitlin
Interesting response, Lauren! I’m most struck by your final comment about the drug legislation preserving white (European) Canadians as “the most powerful and right”, and couldn’t help but think that certain white Canadians were simultaneously potential victims (who needed protection) from opium and Asian peddlers. What do you think?
-
-
joechliu
The war on drug can be seen as a mechanism employed by the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to achieve their own objectives. Mackenzie might have ignited the fuse on the war for the name of ethics and purity, but this can be seen as a smart political tactic to gain popularity and a fantastic opportunity to assimilate the Asians to become “true Canadians”. The anxiety from the middle-class that propelled the social purity movement served as the fuel for Mackenzie’s suppression motion on drug activities, which were mostly legal prior to the Anti-Asian riot in 1907.
Since drug usage, especially opium, were perceived as a symbol of corruption and feminization, many middle-classes believed it severely contradicts the national identity of Canadians being honest, productive, and masculine. In fact, using opium not only made the user “lazy”, but it also transformed a hardworking white person into a yellow-looking lower class Asian. Thus, it not only made a white individual behaved like an Asian, but it slowly altered his/her facial structure from having round eyes to almond-shaped eyes, a more prominent cheekbone that resembled malnourishment (and hence a lower status because poor people often have difficulty feeding themselves), and most importantly, the skin turned yellow after prolong exposure to opium. This greatly defied the ideology of the social purity movement of building a strong nation with masculine individuals that were tall, white, and possessed superior physical and mental attributes. Thus, the drugs exerted the opposite effect the government wish to achieve with assimilation; on the contrary, it appeared that the Whites were becoming Chinese with the usage of opium. The crackdown on drug can be seen as a tool used by the government and the middle-classes to regain control, to eliminate the Asians from spreading evil (deportation or jail) and to re-establish Canada’s national identity – a white supremacy society.
The law enforcement, especially the RCMP, exploited the anxiety and panic expressed from the public and government. The RCMP was also a clever strategist like Mackenzie – it capitalized on the fear of the public to ensure the organization’s survival. They needed a chance to secure their foundation in southern Canada and ironically the increased in drug issues became a saviour that ensured its survival. The RCMP voluntarily took the “burden” into its own hand, in the name of service to humanity, to aid the Department of Health to manage the concerns over opium. This opportunity allowed the RCMP to demonstrate its relevance not only to the government, but also to the public that their existence resembled justice and purity.
The middle-classes, Mackenzie and the government, and the RCMP all took advantage of the fear expressed by each other and used it to attain their own goal. For the middle-classes and the government, the fear of becoming Asian and losing their superior status due to opium exposure propelled them to take extreme measures to secure their “national identity”. The RCMP used this chance to solidify its presence in southern Canada. Thus the attitude towards drugs wasn’t a concern of national health and preserving national identity. The war on drug was merely a way for the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to express their insecurities and took advantage of other group’s fear to accomplish their own selfish objectives by cunningly disguising their motif, justifying that their actions guarantee a brighter future for Canada.
-
-
tamyers
Week 1 T2 Wall
Watch “Canadian, Please.” And “I am Canadian,” (Molson Beer Ad).
What do these shorts (collectively watched by 6 million) say about Canadian identity in the 21st century? What’s being sold and who’s buying?
-
Nadir Surani
The first video, “Canadian, Please” expresses pride and what it means to be a Canadian by comparing Canada to other nations and superpowers like the US and Britain. Even though Canada may not compare or be the best in everything, the singers dig into some ways to show how Canada is better off–from health care to gun control to being a multicultural nation and more. As well, the singers in their humorous tone show how Canadians have a lot to be proud of as Canadians have the largest freshwater supply, abundance of wildlife and for their contribution to various advances in medicine. Furthermore, Canadians are able to withstand the cold and frigid temperatures with a smile while being a good friend indeed.
Similarly, the second video, “I am Canadian” spoken by a patriotic Canadian, dispels most of the stereotypes of Canadians that everyone lives in an igloo and that Canadians are lumberjacks or fur traders. The video attempts to dismiss the myths that people outside of Canada have of Canadians and instead creates a sense of identity through Canadian symbols such as hockey and the beaver.
I believe that what is being sold here is the notion of Canadian identity which would predominantly be bought by Canadians but may also appeal to other nations that wish to understand the unique characteristics and condition of being Canadian, as well as the many symbols and expressions that set Canadians and Canada apart from the other countries, people and cultures of the world.
-
Kaitlin
Nadir, while you’re absolutely right to point out that Canada and Canadians have many things to be proud of as a country, we should be careful to not simply replace stereotypes about us with others (even if they are more flattering ones!). What differences do you see between the stereotypes, symbols, icons, and expressions you notice in these two videos?
-
-
geenalee
The first video, “Canadian, Please” shows how Canada differs from other countries in the 21st century and expresses a sense of what it means to be Canadian. By mentioning Britain, the United States, and Australia, the video first establishes what Canada is not, and then goes on to list all the things Canadians should be proud about (as well as hinting at why other countries should want to be friendly with Canada or in fact, become Canadians themselves). The two people are also dressed as Canadian mounted police in their red uniforms and the song lyrics touches on a wide range of things such as Canadians being able to have free healthcare, fresh water, trees, and enjoy multiculturalism.
The second video, “I Am Canadian” Molson Beer ad is also very proudly Canadian as the passionate speaker states traits of Canada that make it unique, particularly from the United States. The speaker also rules out the many stereotypes Canadians are associated with and afterwards, presents images of what he thinks Canada actually is about. The types of things that the speaker points out that are implied to define Canadian identity are similar to the things in the first video. Canadian identity then, in the 21st century, seems to largely be a compilation of a multitude of various symbols and characteristics, such as the beaver and the particular way we pronounce the letter “Z.” Given that Canadians are so diverse and multicultural as both videos acknowledge, the various symbols and characteristics are those with which the majority of Canadians can collectively recognize, appeal to, and agree with, thus uniting Canadians in this manner. I think that the videos are “selling” this sense of Canadian-ness to Canadians as well as people from other nations who may not know much about Canada. What also seems to be being sold and stressed by the videos is that Canadian identity is distinct and entirely different from the United States.
-
Kaitlin
Geena, you’ve done a nice job summarizing some of the key points of the two videos here! I’m going to push you in the same direction as Nadir and ask you to dig a little deeper into what you see as the differences between stereotypes (which usually get characterized as “bad” and “untrue”–i.e. “we don’t live in igloos”) and the (more positive, flattering) “multitude of various symbols and characteristics” which you argue unite Canadians.
Do some of those symbols and supposed characteristics function as stereotypes? For example, how do you think a Francophone living in Quebec would react to the Canadian identity being put forward in these shorts? Or a citizen living in the NWT? BC local? Newfoundlander?
-
-
lindseyaw
“Canadian, Please” and “I am Canadian” both bring up generalizations about Canadian identity and what it means to be a ‘proud’ or ‘patriotic’ Canadian. “I am Canadian” does this through a rousing speech, denying stereotypes from Americans about Canadians, and affirms Canadian identity as ‘not American’. It brings up national symbols such as the beaver, the maple leaf, and the toque, and the great amount of pride that this particular Canadian speaker has in them and therefore his identity as a Canadian. The speaker is an exaggeration of a typical Canadian, but is a reflection of what Molson Canadian believes to be essential parts of Canadian identity, and the parts of Canadian identity that are points of pride.
The “Canadian, Please” video approaches Canadian identity by presenting Canadian multiculturalism as well as typical Canadian stereotypes. It mentions Canadian institutions, such as universal healthcare, and the singers themselves are dressed up as Mounties. Much like the “I am Canadian” advertisement, the song is presenting Canadian identity as ‘not American’, but also as unlike any other country. This establishes that Canadians believe their uniqueness to be an essential part of Canadian identity and patriotism.
Both of these shorts are selling Canadian identity as unique, ‘not American’, and a nation of symbols. The “I am Canadian” advertisement is selling this idea to Canadian viewers, particularly white males, much like the one that is speaking in the video. The “Canadian, Please” video however, is trying to reach a broader audience by mentioning other countries and their symbols. It is promoting Canadian patriotism, but to a more diverse audience due to the fact that it is not a commercial for a product that is to air on television, but instead a music video that anyone can access online.
-
Kaitlin
Lindsey, great job focusing in on the intended audiences for each video, as well as the “uniqueness” of Canadian identity–and how that symbolic uniqueness can be read as “not American”. Could you expand on your comment about the target audience for the Molson ad being white males? I think your observation is potentially very revealing about “what” the “typical Canadian” looks (and by association lives & works) like: white, male, plaid-flannel wearing… Nice work!
-
-
Pierre-Marie B.
The first video “Canadian, please” sounds like a praise for Canada as a country, but also for its inhabitants and their lifestyle. The basic idea of the video is to present caracteristic elements of Canada as opposed to some of other countries such as the United States of America, Australia, China, or Britain, which are all powerful nations in today’s world. The other video “I Am Canadian” also plays on stereotypes : it defines what Canada and Canadians are not based on worldwide spread clichés, then move on to what they are with positive images: multiculturalism, free healthcare, respectful and proud people, strong hockey teams etc. By doing this, the video affirm Canadian identity as something unique and now independent from that of countries with which it has historical links.
Both video definitely target two different audiences. Firstly, it targets Canadian people to enhance their sense of national pride and belonging to a great open-minded country. Especially since Molson is a Canadian brand of beer, it is important to flatter Canadians and make them want to buy and consume products from their own country to support local economy. Then the second target is broader, it includes people from the whole world and the cited countries. It is an attempt to prove that maybe these countries have renowned touristic sites, food, money or philosophers, but Canada has nothing to be jealous of because it has as much if not more to offer. I think the “Canadian, please” video is the more effective of the two for promotting Canada worldwide for two reasons. First, it is not judgemental toward the symbols used to represent other countries, consequently it is not excluding people from these countries, and finally because it refers to things that everybody can relate to in a funny way : animals, food, nature, peace, health.
-
Kaitlin
Pierre, I am especially struck by your comment in the second paragraph about the connections between national pride & the importance of having Canadians consume “Canadian” beer/products. It got me to thinking about nationalism & identity-building as something that is marketed to both the citizens who live in that particular country, and those visiting or possibly moving to it. Have you encountered similar “advertising” any other countries?
-
-
Kaitlin
Hi L1H!
Thanks to those of you who have already responded to the videos–you’ve made some wonderful insights. We’re still waiting to hear from a few more of you & will still accept submissions for this assignment because of the mix-up of switching tutorials and blog walls. Looking forward to meeting you in person this week!
-Kaitlin
-
Kaitlin, 
lindseyaw, 
joechliu, and 3 others are discussing. 
geenalee, 
laurenellis, and 4 others are discussing. 
Pierre-Marie B., 
Nadir Surani 6:02 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Both Rotenberg and Frances talk about the changing roles of women during the war, and the expected role of women after the war was over. WW II was known as a “woman’s war” because of women’s hope for a new democratic order involving justice and kindness beyond restricted boundaries of their gender.
Before the war, mostly discussed by Rotenberg, women were driven out of their jobs and were forbidden to practice in their professions. The typical roles of women involved working in the kitchen, bearing and taking care of the children, and teaching values of the Church although these were not in line with typical teachings of being a good citizen, not stealing, and so on. It was a woman’s war because even in the kitchen, women lacked freedom and had to deal with an official who told them what to wear, or how to cook something. In terms of children, it was a woman’s war because the women wanted to bring them up in their own way, not in the Nazi fashion, what women referred to as a way of being ignorant of everything except for party doctrines. At the time, democracy was being challenged as a religious idea since it is the recognition of worth and dignity of every human life. Moving closer to the war, women decided to do whatever they needed to do to get what they wanted. Nazi restrictions in their daily lives inspired women to make a life worthy of living during the war. Women realized that though they couldn’t fight the war by being in battles or behind ammunition, they had several other resources they could tap into including factories, fields, forests, and most importantly their home and their children. As a result, there was no reason women could not change to better their lives.
According to Frances, these restrictions were overcome as women decided to fight their own war for freedom, and particularly for democracy. Thus, WW II was a watershed movement that inspired women to fill more traditionally-male jobs, volunteer, and more. By doing so, they overcame the stigma of their gender that restricted them to the kitchen, children, and the church. Observations from Frances showed that women wanted to carry on their work after war as they enjoyed working together for a purpose. Although there was some doubt according to Frances as to whether women’s lives would change after the war and after the soldiers returned, there were hundreds of prospects available for women whether it be in education, helping in the slums, or in cultural centers. The role of women in society increased and gained more respect, as they showed that they could run a home efficiently, work, and still do useful community and/or volunteer work. Thus, WW II changed women’s lives considerably and was referred to as a watershed moment in Canadian history.
jbachynski 9:48 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In this weeks readings, authors Mattie Rotenberg and Anne Frances explore WW2 as a watershed moment for Canadians through the lens of feminism. In Rotenberg’s transcript of ‘It’s A Woman’s War’ she emphasizes the sexist consequences that women would suffer if fascism was to spread internationally. Fascist regimes such as Hitler’s and Mussolini’s promoted women in traditional roles in the house, family and church. These were the roles that women would be limited to. In order to create a strong, thriving German military, women needed to continue bearing children and avoiding certain realms of society (especially the economically and politically male driven State affairs).
In Anne Frances’s piece ‘Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future’ she discusses the debate about the role of women in post-war industries (industries that women were actually leading during the war). Many of the women wanted to continue working and felt that they had succeeded during wartime in balancing domestic duties at the same time as labour duties. The perspective from these women was not only that they had become very skilled workers, but that there would be a plethora of important jobs for them to do. These jobs would include liquidating slums and raising the standards of education.
These two pieces of writing have different starting points for their arguments- the first promoting the destruction of fascism, and the second fighting for women’s labour opportunities post-war, but their common end goal of gender equality harmoniously connects them. Women in Germany had fought so hard for gender issues and had come a long way before Hitler’s regime. The fight for women at this time was to save the progress that they had made by not allowing a State driven system to erase and diminish that. For women in Canada, the watershed moment was the same during World War Two- either they would be able to rise above and continue to build on the women’s rights they had secured for themselves in the past, or allow for society to push them back down to the limited lives they lead in earlier decades. Even many Canadian women acknowledged that the democratic society had many issues, and this was the countries opportunity to start fresh and find a new way to solve societal problems such as poverty and unemployment. Ultimately, this could only be done successfully with the equal involvement of women.
geenalee 7:51 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Both Rotenberg and Frances discuss women in relation to the Second World War and how the war was not simply a political conflict between countries of differing ideologies, but a war that concerned and threatened human rights, specifically gender equality. According to both writers, women have been largely neglected by war time literature and such war time stories are not accurate for not addressing the way women were affected as well as how their place in society changed after the war.
Firstly, Rotenberg’s critique and denouncement of Nazism in relation to women is interesting as she unpacks the phrase that Nazism used to promote for women: “Kuche, Kinder, Kirche,” meaning “Kitchen, Children, and Church.” She expresses the contradictory nature of Nazism encouraging women to remain in the kitchen and yet, their freedom in the private domestic sphere is denied as inspectors have the power to observe and order women. Regarding Children, women were essentially used by the State for their reproductive abilities to produce the many soldiers that were needed for the war. Moreover, Rotenberg expresses disgust for Nazism and its tendency to associate women with the Church, while constantly preaching for the worshipping of the State as opposed to a more humane faith. In these ways, Rotenberg states that World War II not only suppressed women and took away their ability to participate in the economy, they were USED according to the needs of the States and forced to be robots. Thus, it is clear that the war was a woman’s war as they not only fought for freedom, but human dignity for all women.
In addition to Rotenberg’s noteworthy perspective on women during the war, Frances explains how World War II significantly changed women’s prospects for their future in society. Given that throughout the war, women had volunteered and worked in many crucial positions, women were basically able to prove that they were quite capable of working. Best of all, women could not only work, they could do so by also running a home efficiently. Thus, the end of the war was suspenseful as women had been familiarized with a whole new world beyond the domestic sphere and Frances’ view alludes to the many acts of social activism that women became involved with in order to consolidate their place in society. In this sense, the war was a cause of women’s growing independence and empowerment through to the 21st century.
joechliu 3:19 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
World War II is a watershed moment for Canada because not only did it became on of the richest country during World War II due to a surge of economic growth, but we also see an estimate of 1 million women being accepted into the workforce – which is the focus of the this week’s reading.
The article by Anne Frances, and Mattie Rotenberg have opposite approach from each other to the WWI, yet they are portraying the same theme – roles and opportunities for women and gender equality. Rotenberg demonstrated how Nazi German stripped away women’s freedom and their only rightful sphere belongs with the “Kitchen, Children, and the Church”; even within these spheres they do not have and freedom as they are being controlled supervised by the “Fuhrer'”. Rotenberg associated democracy with women’s freedom, freedom in “citizenship, in education, [and] in the profession”. How women needs to fight back and stand up for themselves to reclaim the democracy they deserve. Thus, for women in Nazi Germany and elsewhere in the world, this is as much of a War for “peace” as it is a woman’s war for freedom, opportunities, and justice.
Frances, on the contrary, saw WWII as a milestone Canadian women. It is when women have rediscovered themselves and their potential; “they now know that they can work together […] that women cannot work in a team belongs to” an old myths – in fact, they “enjoy working together”. WWII is the time where women gain more independence, social status, and more importantly, WWII provided Canadian women the chances to secure their spot in the workforce. By planning how to improve social issues such as improving the slum situation and maintaining recreational center, they can make their community a better place in the post-war era.
lindseyaw 4:45 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Rotenberg and Frances both argue that the role of women in the Second World War was very significant, and that the work of these women should continue into a post Second World War society, and that their roles should change from prewar, and their roles should be more equal to men’s roles. Frances argues that women will most likely get tired of their volunteering jobs, hoping for more interesting work, perhaps work that is generally men’s work, and their role as a citizen of Canadian society should be recognized by the type of work that they do.
Rotenberg discusses the importance of the roles that women play in numerous sectors of society, arguing that the larger roles available to these women during the Second World War will help to solve general societal issues after the war. These issues include poverty and injustice, and that the desire to solve these issues should not be put aside after the war, arguing that these women have the key to a better democracy and society and that women are the key to solving these issues. Rotenberg states that women are the best resource, and that they can make a better society for everyone, without asking their husbands for permission. The way that a society can lift its spirits and morale is through its women if they have larger roles, and hold influential and more professions in society. Much like Rotenberg, Frances also argues that after the war, women could play a significant role in improving society and solving social issues.
Kaitlin 3:40 pm on March 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice work here, L1H! You’ve all caught on to the importance of gender to understanding Rotenberg and Frances’ pieces, and pull some good ideas out of both sources. Thank you all for a great discussion yesterday, where we brainstormed ways to interrogate primary sources and discussed the way that different analytic lenses (i.e. that of social/economic class) can shift or complicate readings of sources. Keep up the good work!