Source 1
A nation is a group of individuals. The many nations we define ourselves a part of define who we are and the nations we are a part are affected by our individuality. No two people from the same ethnic origin are the same just the same as no two anglophones are the same or no two Canadians are the same. I agree with Pierre Trudeau statement. In Canada, which is a civic nation, the strength of our nations is in appreciating everyone's differences and creating/adapting an identity based on these differences. Among many other attributes, the belief of open-mindedness is what unites us. Canada as a nation is more than just political borders and a government. Canada is more than a mosaic of the Quebecois, Metis, LGBT, Jehovah Witness and
…show more content…
Knowledge is found easily with a quick search on the internet and the online community is abundant. It's easy to connect to people. When the second source presumes that, "Modern nationalism in the vast majority of cases points to a deep, almost spiritual connection between the land and people," I was confused. In which way is does living in a modern world create connections between people and land? I understand that a long, long time ago people were at the mercy of the land, and this created nations. For example, Tibet. After I thought about it, we still are at the mercy of the land. No matter how many other ways there are to form nations, having a connected to land is inevitable. No political boundaries, languages, ethnic backgrounds or anything will be able to control the land. Where one lives shapes their identity whether they like it or not. Living somewhere there is snow will shape you and connect you to those around you. At least for me, nothing found on my phone or computer will give me the warmth of belonging as the feeling of being …show more content…
Is it something of paper, such as a passport or visa, or a feeling? Is it something we find from our surroundings or an almost instinctual connection to our heritage? If one were to attempt to determine which of the above three sources is "right", they would be moving away from what nation is. Through the Social Studies lessons, I've learned about ethnic vs. civil nations, geographic, political, linguistic nations, but I truly believe that a group of people cannot be defined as a nation based on anything but a sense of connection, conscious or unconscious. Because when all is said and done, and analyzed and scrutinized, a nation is above all a group of people who share a consciousness of belonging and acceptance based on similarity; however this sensation is brought about. Whose to say that people united because they're fans of the Harry Potter book series are less of a nation than those united by ethnic origin. Like Pierre Trudeau said, "I’ve always believed that a state was better if it included many ethnic groups and governed them all, not as groups but as individuals." These individuals are not the same. Between two of them, there might no similarities except that they feel connected to each other through the country they live in. Just as the same goes for two people who live on opposite sides of the world, yet feeling connected through their shared heritage. As the second source pointed out, people may form a nation based on a deep spirituality related
Although Quebec is in Canada, a majority of Quebecers do not identify with the national identity of Canada. Both societies create a sense of identity as well as nationalism (Hiller, 295). Hiller mentions two approaches to assessing Canadian identity; the unitary approach and the segmentalist approach (Hiller, 277). The unitary approach suggests that society consists of people who regardless of their ethnic back ground, identify as belonging to the national society, while the segmentalist approach concentrates on groups and communities that share racial, linguistic, occupational, or cultural similarities (Hiller, 28). While most Anglophones are more unitary or pan-Canadian, Quebec heavily identifies with the segmentalist approach. This dissimilarity of identity perspective may be problematic for the country, at the same time however, it can also be viewed as a struggle where contradictory parties find a way to compromise and reshape Canadian society together (Hiller, 277). Canada’s former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau made it his objective to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. In 1969 Trudeau’s government implemented Bill C-120, otherwise known as the Official Language act, which made French an...
Canada has become a superior nation thru, perseverance, courage and even care as they persevered thru many dark battles, and made sure they all came thru together as a unit other than individuals. Their courage made there fighting 100% stronger as they wouldn’t back down to any task and they weren’t afraid to lose their life to help a fellow friend and country out. Care played a major aspect in each Canadian heart. There cared about Britain so they weren’t to go help them when they declared war, they helped other troops with their emotional problems and lastly they even cared a little about there enemies as they are the same person, however the only thing separating them is there culture. Canadians contributed in many ways to help our country's great efforts in the First World War.
The Dual Nation Theory took its heading starting in 1960, with the beginning of the sovereignty movement (Gorman, Robert F. 2008. 2018-2020). It truly took off, however, with the Quiet Revolution, where the idea of “maîtres chez nous” and the shift from being a distinct part of Canada to Quebec being a nation in its own right begins to take hold. Québécois nationalism defined Confederation as being an agreement between two peoples: the French and the English. “Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and civil law tradition” (Chotalia, 1993). This is significant to mention because this is the theory that ultimately leads to the Three Nation Theory.
According to citizen and immigration Canada statistics, (Immigrating to Canada, 2009), each year, Canada welcomes more than 200,000 new immigrants. It creates a diverse of multiple nationalities. Most immigrants from Europe or their descendants have religious backgrounds which respect universal fraternity. Also the multiculturalism makes Canada a "melting pot" for every member in the "pot". People respect each other and live together peacefully. People with different backgrounds live together peacefully without discrimination.
The country that we have come to call Canada has been created through the unity of several
Conflict between Canada and the First Nations has been going on since the Europeans first arrived. After their arrival the First Nations way of life was hindered severely; The Europeans brought many diseases that the Aboriginal people were unfamiliar with and had no resistance to, or cure for. “By the 16th century about 80% of Canada's Native population had died from the various diseases (Renneboog, 5).” The Europeans also came to Canada with the intentions of taking all of the land for themselves, disregarding the people who occupied the land before them. Over time the Europeans had manipulated the First Nations to their will and the Aboriginals were discriminated for their different complexion, culture, customs, and way of life. But between the years 1945 and 2010 there have been many changes involving interactions with the First Nations people. Some changes were good, but most of them were bad. Canada does not deserve to be known as a nation that demonstrates equality because it has not given the First Nations people equal rights to their land, it was discriminatory to their culture and way of life, and it has denied them of a safe and legitimate education.
Multiculturalism policy was first adopted in Canada in 1971, which reaffirms the dignity and value of all its citizens regardless of ethnic origins, race, religious affiliations, or language. Part of this policy, Canada confirms the rights of all the aboriginals along with the recognition of two official languages. Indeed, multiculturalism has great importance since its main purpose is to give equal treatment to all the citizens (Daniel, 2010). It ensures that all individual citizens could still maintain their identities, and have pride with their ancestry. Through this initiative, the Canadian government was able to give their citizens a feeling of self-confidence, making them more open to their diverse cultures. The multiculturalism policy
Many people across the globe argue that nationalism within Canada is simply not feasible. It is said that we as a people, differ so greatly with our diverse cultures, religions, and backgrounds that we cannot come together and exist together as a strong, united nation. In his book, Lament for a Nation, George Grant tells the reader that “…as Canadians we attempted a ridiculous task in trying to build a conservative nation in the age of progress, on a continent we share with the most dynamic nation on earth. The current history is against us.” (1965) Originally directed towards the Bomarc Missile Crisis, the book argues that whatever nationalism Canada had was destroyed by globalization as well as the powerful American sphere of influence. Although it is true that the book was initially written as a response to the events that took place in the late 1950s, many of the points are still valid today.
...ans and the British settlers. So, why are we forcing ourselves to define what a “Canadian” truly is, when Canada has never been a country with one prevalent cultural group? But this is not to say that Canada will never be a unified country. South Africa is an example of the unification of a country that has torn itself apart by apartheid policies. Nelson Mandela dedicated his life to this struggle, seeking equality for all races, finally achieving his goal in 1995. If Mandela unified a country that was deeply racist and apartheid for such a long time, who are we to say that we cannot someday unify a country simply divided because of deferential to authority and differing arrangements of party systems? Canada and its citizens will one day realize the many deeper things they hold in common that unify them, which will help us in making strides towards true unification.
“ Canada 's national obsession seems to be its own identity.” For many years Canada has feared the increasing influence of its North American neighbors on its culture - the United States . It has become a matter of growing concern for the people of power and influence in Canada to maintain their separate cultural identity and to promote their own cultural norms. Gaetan Tremblay presents his views on this topic and does this from the perspective of a person living and working in Quebec.
The first thing we should examine is what exactly is meant by “strong national identity”. A very good example of strong national identity is the U.S.. I doubt there is a man on this planet who is not familiar with the U.S.. People immediately recognize their flag, and most people can tell you quite a bit about them. The same is true of Canada, and what do they know of Canada? In 1995 U.S. President Bill Clinton stated his view of Canada in a speech where he declared, “Canada has shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion and tradition with innovation, in your efforts to provide health care to all your citizens, to treat senior citizens with the dignity and respect they deserve...”(Canada Today 9). We were also rated first in the UN’s 1992 “Human Development Index” (9).
Multiculturalism is a significant fabric of Canadian society that defines its unique identity among the rest of the world. Enactment of the Canadian multicultural policy (1971) affirmed government position and recognition of multiculturalism as a vital element of Canada. It is imperative to understand that multiculturalism is a static concept that keeps changing overtime and has a multidimensional entity. Canadians have always and will continue to revise the concept of multiculturalism to suit the ever expanding needs of Canadian society. In this paper, I will evaluate the reasons behind Canada’s adoption of multicultural policy and assess whether the policy should be maintained or not. I will defend the thesis that Canada’s multiculturalism
Mordecai Richler. These writers are not meant to represent any ethnic group as a whole,
Growing up with a diverse community makes you realize that Canada is growing and slowly becoming a Multicultural society. Multiculturalism as stated in the textbook, is defined as allowing and accepting different cultures and providing them encouragement and support to keep their culture and diverse traditions (Mintz et al. 2015, 34). In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adapt the official policy of multiculturalism. (Government of Canada. “Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship” 2012). Canada grants all residents of Canadian citizens regardless of their “racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation”. (Government of Canada. “Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship”
Utilitarianism is “a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies.” (Utilitarian, 2017) which essentially means that this looks past one’s own personal interests and toward the interests of others. Bentham also had his own “Principle of Utility” which focuses on the role of pain and pleasure in human life, approves or disapproves of an action depending on the negative or positive outcome and the amount of pain or pleasure, generally speaking this means the consequences of one’s actions, making pain equal to negative or evil actions or consequences, and pleasure