Sir John A. Macdonald’s Aryan Canada "Let us be French, let us be English, but most importantly let us be Canadian"
Nowhere in that quote, said by John himself, did he mention other races, other languages, and most importantly, the culture and languages of non white people at the time.
"May the europeans rise up above the lesser folks, to form a beautiful, new nation."
That's how I think he should have said it. To get his message out clearly, and to state his thoughts on the idea of other races being in his country. The matter i'm addressing is if Sir John A. Macdonald should have his name\image removed from the public space, and where is is meant to stay (private matters, and government facilities). The importance of this controversy is tremendous. Especially because he was the first prime minister of Canada, I feel as if he set an example for the future leaders and important people of Canada. The Impacts his actions left on people regardless of race were, and still are huge. Without John A, Canada would not be a thing, or at least be like it is today. He led the nation to confederation, and did wonderful things for the country, not all the citizens, and not in the most humane of ways. John had a vision for Canada: a pure country, and his definition of pure would be white (caucasian). Going by racial standard back in the 1800’s,
…show more content…
A system founded by the canadian government, and taught by the christian church. Aboriginal children were taken away from their tribes and families to remote locations where they are taught european ways, languages, and had to practice christianity. “Turn them white” is a term that well sums it up. The idea was to assimilate the indigenous culture from Canada. What it actually was, was complete destruction of their culture ie. taking them away from their homes and families, and never being able to practice their language or culture again. Many children died trying to
The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31, and the conflict still is left unresolved until this day.
Lastly, Sir John A. Macdonald’s large significance in Canadian history has a lot to do with his belief for confederation, and his effort to bring Canada together as a country. Macdonald joined the Great Coalition as the leader of the Conservative party in Canada West. Furthermore, during the conferences leading up to confederation, Macdonald fought for a joined Canada. Additionally, he helped convince leaders of the separate colonies in Canada to unite together. By doing this, he helped establish the country that we know today and made
In fact the place of Sir John A. Macdonald in this country was so large & so absorbing that it is almost impossible to conceive that the politics of this country, will continue without him. His loss overwhelms us. (Swainson, 149)
He has been called a prophet, a traitor, a martyr, a visionary and a madman, but whatever one thinks of him, Louis Riel, remains one of the most controversial figures in Canadian history. Does this man who has continued to haunt Canadian history for more than a century after his execution, deserve all of those descriptions? After reading three different interpretations of the rebellions, it is still difficult to decide which is closer to the truth. All three authors retold the Metis history and although they differ on crucial issues, there was agreement on the basic facts. The primary difference amongst the three authors was whether the Canadian and Manitoban governments acted in good faith in carrying out the terms of the Manitoba Act, whether John A. MacDonald purposely deceived the Metis as to what Canada’s intentions were with respect to the Canada-Metis Agreement and to what extent were there deceptions in the administration of the Metis land grants. How these three historians attempt to encapsulate Riel’s life, accomplishments, and mistakes is very different. How they attempt to separate fact from fiction and decide whether Riel was justified in his actions against the government is written from three very different perspectives. Where their sympathies lie, how subjective they are and how they interpret the facts is quite evident, but there are many sides to history and every side must be examined if a fair judgment is to be made.
According to conservative conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among competing social groups defined by class, race, and gender. Conflict occurs when groups compete over power and resources. (Tepperman, Albanese & Curtis 2012. pg. 167) The dominant group will exploit the minority by creating rules for success in their society, while denying the minority opportunities for such success, thereby ensuring that they continue to monopolize power and privilege. (Crossman.n.d) This paradigm was well presented throughout the film. The European settlers in Canada viewed the natives as obstacles in their quest of expansion by conquering resources and land. They feared that the aboriginal practices and beliefs will disrupt the cohesion of their own society. The Canadian government adopted the method of residential schools for aboriginal children for in an attempt to assimilate the future generations. The children were stripped of their native culture,...
“ We aspire not to equality but to domination. The country of a foreign race must become once again a country of serfs, of agricultural laborers, or industrial workers. It is not a question of eliminating the inequalities among men but of widening them and making them into law.”
“To kill the Indian in the child,” was the prime objective of residential schools (“About the Commission”). With the establishment of residential schools in the 1880s, attending these educational facilities used to be an option (Miller, “Residential Schools”). However, it was not until the government’s time consuming attempts of annihilating the Aboriginal Canadians that, in 1920, residential schools became the new solution to the “Indian problem.” (PMC) From 1920 to 1996, around one hundred fifty thousand Aboriginal Canadians were forcibly removed from their homes to attend residential schools (CBC News). Aboriginal children were isolated from their parents and their communities to rid them of any cultural influence (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Parents who refrained from sending their children to these educational facilities faced the consequence of being arrested (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Upon the Aboriginal children’s arrival into the residential schools, they were stripped of their culture in the government’s attempt to assimilate these children into the predominately white religion, Christianity, and to transition them into the moderating society (Miller, “Residential Schools”). With the closing of residential schools in 1996, these educational facilities left Aboriginal Canadians with lasting negative intergenerational impacts (Miller, “Residential Schools”). The Aboriginals lost their identity, are affected economically, and suffer socially from their experiences.
Harold Cardinal made a bold statement in his book, The Unjust Society, in 1969 about the history of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. His entire book is, in fact, a jab at Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s idea of ‘the just society’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made great assumptions about First Nations people by declaring that Aboriginal people should be happy about no longer being described as Indian. His goal was to rid Canada of Indians by assimilating them into the Canadian framework. Considered by many as a progressive policy, Trudeau’s white paper demonstrates just how accurate the following statement made by Harold Cardinal at the beginning of his book is : “The history of Canada’s Indians is a shameful chronicle of the white man’s disinterest,
The government’s goal of the Residential School System was to remove and isolate the children from their families and their culture in order to assimilate the Indigenous race to the dominant new Canadian culture. What the citizens did not know about was the
...to identity with at least one of the countries predominate languages, English or French, dictated the degree in which they could participate in Canadian life. According to the Commission, this participation was real under two conditions: “that both societies, the French-speaking as well as the English-speaking, accept[ed] newcomers much more rapidly than they have done in the past; and that the two societies willingly allow other groups to preserve and enrich, if they so desire, the cultural values they prize[d]” (RCBB Book 1 xxv). It creates an interesting take on the acceptance of those “othered” groups, as change was necessary not only on the part of the minorities but also from Canada’s French and English-speakers. The Commissions work remains focused on language and culture, more so than ethnicity amongst a bilingual, bicultural and “othered” Canadian society.
“Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”
Organizing a topic as diverse as Canadian history into periods is challenging. Canadian history spans hundreds of years, covers events from varying points of views, and contains dimensions of culture, theme, and politics. To understand how to organize history logically into periods, it is helpful to refer to Canadian history sources.
A century ago, Canada was under control by the British Empire. The battles we fought the treaties we signed and the disputes we solved all helped us gain independence from our mother country “Britain”. Canadians fought a long battle protecting others, and from these battles we gained our peaceful reputation and our independence from Britain. Canada became a nation on July, 1st 1867. Although we were an independent country, our affairs and treaties were all still signed by Britain. In the next years Canada would establish its own government, and lead its own affairs. Many important events led to Canada’s independence, one of the earliest signals that Canada wanted to establish autonomy was the Chanak affair of 1921. In addition the battle of Normandy, which occurred on June 6 1944, contributed to the autonomy of Canada. The Suez Canal Crisis, which took place in the year 1956, earned Canada a place in the media spotlight, displaying Canada as a peaceful country that deserves the right to be independent. One of the final steps that aided with Canada’s independence from Britain was the Canada Act of 1982. Independence from Britain steadily increased throughout the 20th century because of political decisions made in Canada.
A role model can be looked up upon and imitated. Many would argue that Sir John
The quote discussed shows a well-spoken example of how we came together to reach one goal, which was to become a better nation. His quote says,