Week 8 T2 women and WW2
comment on these primary sources by women during ww2
Updates from March, 2014 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
-
-
admin
Week 1 Wall
Vancouver 2010 Olympic Street Party
What is Canada?
To give us all an idea of our preconceptions coming into the course, write your blog entry on what you think Canada is and what the storyline(s) of Canadian history are; i.e. “Canada is ….” And “Canadian history is about ….” – you fill in the blanks!
-
Nadir Surani
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Can you edit your post and insert your name? I’ve no idea who you are…. Thanks!
-
-
lala
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
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!
-
-
admin
Week 2 Wall
Multiculturalism by Talayeh Saghatchian, 2006
The idea of Canada as a multicultural nation is relatively new. But is it, given what you’ve learned in lecture so far?
-
lala
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.
-
Susanna Chan
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.
-
Nadir Surani
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.
-
Tina Loo
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.
-
-
lindseyaw
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. -
Pierre-Marie B.
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.
-
geenalee
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.
-
Wesley Livermore
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. -
jonathangeorge
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.
-
Tina Loo
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.
-
-
Tina Loo
Comments on your posts for Week 2:
Just so you know, I will offer general comments on the blog entries most weeks. Some weeks I will comment on each student’s blog (I can’t do that every week so I am rotating among the 5 tutorial sections).In general, you all did reasonably well. I would remind you that the blogs are meant to get you to reflect on the lectures, so I expect you to draw on them directly in writing your entry.
Most of you appreciated that the place that became Canada was multicultural from the start in that it was home to many different nations and cultures; in other words, as many of you noted last week, what distinguished the place that became Canada was its diversity, which was there even before Canada existed!
However, 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….
-
-
admin
Week 6 Wall
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
-
Nadir Surani
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).
-
Susanna Chan
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
-
Pierre-Marie B.
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.
-
Tina Loo
What about the backwards sloping supply curve part of my question? Does it apply to you?
-
-
lindseyaw
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.
-
Tina Loo
I think you’re getting at something important by trying to understand how “economic behaviour” is different in different cultures!
-
-
geenalee
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.
-
Tina Loo
Great answer Geena!
-
-
Tina Loo
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….
-
-
admin
Week 4 Wall
Communication across cultures is tricky. Do you have an experience of how you successfully or unsuccessfully negotiated a cultural boundary? Did you work out a “middle ground”? How?
Lost in translation.
Photo credit: John M. Unsworth, 2009-
lala
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. -
Nadir Surani
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.
-
Susanna Chan
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.
-
Pierre-Marie B.
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.
-
geenalee
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.
-
FribaRezayee235
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.
-
lindseyaw
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.
-
Tina Loo
Some general comments on Week 4 :
Many people in the class brought up the fact that UBC is a very multicultural campus in a culturally diverse city, so that learning how to accommodate oneself to differences is something we have to do all the time. There were some great examples of how people react to differences – everything ranging from reacting with unease, frustration, and sometimes with aggression and bullying to making an effort to learn and adapt, whether through trying new foods, learning new words, figuring out new customs, or sharing (whether it be food or a love of football).
Your stories led me to think that the key to making a middle ground is a mutual interest and commitment in doing so. The French and Indigenous nations that met at Montreal really wanted the same thing – trade and above all, peace – to the extent they were willing to be hostages in the “enemy’s” camp. Most of us don’t engaged in treaty negotiations, but we do have to find a way to get along in the midst of different cultures, and doing so successfully seems to be premised on an ability to get beyond our fears and to be open to new experiences, to let go, to a certain extent, of some of the ways we do things. This begins by recognizing that the way we do things, the things we think are “normal” aren’t necessarily seen that way by everyone!
-
-
admin
Week 7 Wall
What factors shaped the limits of accommodation in British North America in the early 1800s?
-
Nadir Surani
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.
-
Susanna Chan
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.
-
lindseyaw
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.
-
geenalee
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.
-
Pierre-Marie B.
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.
-
Wesley Livermore
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.
-
Tina Loo
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.
-
-
admin
Week 5 Wall
Given what you’ve learned this week about the politics of representation, what ideological purposes does the image below fulfill?
Mort du Montcalm, Marc-Aurèle de Foy Suzor-Coté, 1902
-
Nadir Surani
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.
-
Tina Loo
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!!!
-
-
Susanna Chan
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.
-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
lindseyaw
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.
-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
mwaldron
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.-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
geenalee
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.
-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
doraleung
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.
-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
Pierre-Marie B.
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.
-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
Wesley Livermore
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.-
Tina Loo
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?
-
-
Tina Loo
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).
-
Kaitlin, 
lindseyaw, 
joechliu, and 3 others are discussing. 
geenalee, 
laurenellis, and 4 others are discussing. 
Pierre-Marie B., 
lala, 
mosachoff, and 8 others are discussing. 
jonathangeorge, 
Wesley Livermore, and 6 others are discussing. 
FribaRezayee235, and 5 others are discussing. 
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!