Complex Individual Identity

However, Quebec’s nationalism also helped improve French-English relations with the Bi & Bi Commission. “The official Languages act is passed, which made Canada bilingual, as a Nation. The French Canadians alienation from the rest of Canada, was growing and problematic, the commission was used in attempt to try and unify the country. It was a very Influential commission, making Canada Bilingual as a nation” (Alderson, Lauren). This quote shows how the Bi & Bi Commission which was created to make Canada bilingual, tried to improve French-English relations by placing both languages on equal footing in Canada. Finally, Quebec’s change in nationalism added tension to French-English relations because Quebec started to make decisions independently. For example, in 1961, the Quebec government started to open government offices in countries such as America and France. “When Quebec announced its intention to sign cultural and educational agreements with France’s government, the Canadian government intervened, asserting that only the federal government could enter agreements with foreign

More so, many Quebeckers were finding greater economic opportunities in the United States, which fostered concerns about the economic isolation of Quebec, which could ultimately become part of the United States and lose any form of Francophone independence: “Quebec’s economic weakness could be seen already in the flood of emigration toward the United States” (Silver 46). In this case, the underlying debate about provincial rights in the new federal government had to be addressed to ensure that Ontario did not usurp the provinces under a primarily Anglophone government. These clashing interest define how the threat of British colonialism and the economic and military aggression of the United States posed a major threat to Cartier and the Bleu Parti (Smith 43). These political negotiations defined the major efforts to unify the nation under MacDonald and Cartier’s federal plan as the two major provinces of Canada. This political culture created an opportunity to provide greater legislative and principal authority to countermand the new central government created through the Canadian

After Egypt consulted with the Soviet government to claim the Suez Canal from Britian and France and also construct the Aswan Dam; Britain, France

Not many people recognize what the Suez Crisis is, but to those who do, they all know that Lester B. Pearson played a crucial role in the neutralization of the situation. In 1956 3 , Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, thus triggering a crisis. Britain and France soon joined in a coalition along with Israel, in order to topple the Egyptian government. The invasion was halted due to pressure from the U.N. Lester B. Pearson understood that France, Britain and Israel could not all hold onto the Suez Canal without consequences, most thought of a war of some sort. He also understood that the war would cause NATO and the Commonwealth to crack under the pressure. Knowing this, Lester B. Pearson convinced the U.N. peacekeeping force in an impressive 57-0 4 fashion, thus diffusing the Suez Crisis altogether. For his contributions, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. This is a defining moment in Canadian history and is often regarded as the start to Canada’s humble and nice keeping persona and it all started because of this man.

The focus of this investigation will be “To what extend did the conflict between cultures and all they contain (languages, traditions, races) fuel the formation of the Canadian Confederation?” and will analyze how the different cultures, races, languages, and traditions fueled the formation of the Canadian confederation. There are a variety of reasons why the Canadian confederation formed, but I believe the conflict between the different cultures in Canada was a very large cause in the formation of the Confederation. I will research the specific conflicts in culture that were occurring in Canada pre-Confederation. How these conflicts affected the current government and life in Canada. Why Canadian leaders saw these conflicts as a reason to

Though the separatist movements came very close to achieving their goal, the steady actions of PM Chrétian show a change in attitude towards French Canadians in within the country. The fact that Chrétian managed to succeed in keeping Quebec from separating further proves that the perspective of cultural differences in Canada started to develop for the better. The language rights within Canada add depth to the sincere maturity and growth that Canada has experienced in the years after WWII. Some direct impacts were the immediate enactments of French policies within the federal government, and indirectly the language rights reduced tension within all of Canada and mainly Quebec. Over the years, language rights have helped the country learn to blend itself back into a bilingual nation of acceptance and diversity. Canada, during the years after WWII, managed to stop the cultural bond between the French and the English from further deteriorating and helped to repair previous bruises by accepting Quebec’s ideas and beliefs, by enacting language rights, and through Chrétian’s active attendance to maintaining the balance between French and English

The Suez crisis was a conflict that could have easily turned into a third World War. With a battle between the Israelis and Egyptians at Sinai, the British and French invasion of Egypt, and nuclear threats from the Soviet Union, all of the elements were present to escalate the conflict and pull other countries into the fray. Canada had no direct ties to the Suez crisis, in terms of control or economic interest. However, Canadian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, persuaded the UN General Assembly to send in the United Nations Emergency Force. Even though Lester B. Pearson dismayed the Commonwealth with his measures for peace, Canada was recognized for starting the first ever United Nations Peacekeeping mission.

It is a well known fact that through Canadian history, English and French Canadians did not get along very well. French and English Canadians had many differences throughout history, and as time got closer to the 21st century, situations between these two groups of people got worse and worse. Their main differences, as seen in the visual component of my CPT, were usually around times of war, when conscription was a very big topic. However, we cannot forget the post World War II situations that caused Canada to change forever. Therefore, the top three events that really caused transformations in relations of French and English Canadians were the conscription crisis of 1917, the Union Nationale of the 1930s, and the Official Languages Act of

The Suez crisis was Canada’s first peacekeeping mission. The war started on July 26, 1956. When the president of egypt, Gamal Abdel Nesser, declared the Suez Canal to be nationalized. An American and Britian company owned the Canal. Once the company said they wouldn’t help the Suez canal financially

Nationalism is an important aspect of national pride and identity for countries around the world. For example, Canada takes pride in its cultural identity, one that is claimed to be different from other ‘Western’ more ‘industrialized’ nations, such as countries in Europe, and the United States. Even though Canada currently has a national identity that differs greatly from that of other more established countries, history has dictated the way in which a particular national identity exists today. In Canada, Samuel De Champlain and the French established colonies that created a cultural clash between the French Europeans, and First-Nations Canadians within the country. However, this notion of French Canadian Nationalism isn’t necessarily embraced by all of the Canadian Population. This paper seeks to analyze important pieces of Canadian History that have contributed to a broken concept of what constitutes Canadian nationalism, with an emphasis on how historic events prevent and affect coherent Canadian Nationalism in modern society. Through the analysis of the notions and histories associated with ‘First-Nations Nationalism’, ‘Quebecois Nationalism’, and a broader ‘Anti-American’ identity embraced by many Canadians, this paper seeks to locate common ground within the culturally diverse Canadian population in order to progress toward a singular coherent

In Canadian history, nationalism and sovereignty tend to be common themes prevalent since Confederation. A well-known example of this in Quebec was during the Quiet Revolution which strengthened the need for change through Premier Lesage’s reforms and in turn, developed a strong sense of nationalism in Quebec. In contrast to beliefs that the rapid modernization of the Quiet Revolution had a positive impact on Quebec, it rather had a negative impact on Quebec and its citizens and identity. The three consequences which arose in Quebec as a result of the revolution are the encouragement of separatism, the elimination of traditional values and roles and the establishment of powerful bureaucratic control. Quebec’s attempt to be more like the

Due to the bitter rivalries of their mother countries, the two sides also had a strong feels of animosity against one another. This animosity was furthered when the French surrendered New France. This cession of French territory to the British occurred after the French and Indian Wars of the mid 18th century; specifically after the treaty of Paris in February 20th of 1763. The essential annexation brought about much anger within the French. This was illustrated during the highlights of the Patriote movement (the rebellions of 1837 and 1838) and the secession of New France to become British. These events, along with prior rivalry with Britain and its colonies brought forth a substantial amount of Francophone nationalism. Though the rebellion was also caused by famine and poverty on some level, it was the strong French nationalism was the spark that brought about Canada’s first “civil war.”

In 1956, Gemal Abdul Nassir announced that he wanted the nationalization of the Suez Canal. This canal has been operated by Britain and France since the 18th century and due to this, tensions rose between Egypt, Britain and France. Israel regarded Gemal Abdul Nassir as a threat to its national security and due to this it was easy for Britain and France to convince Israel in the invasion of Egypt and the overthrowing of its president. Israel invaded Sinai Peninsula, Britain and France landed their troops later on the pretence of separating the fighting parties. This was the start of the Suez crisis. The USA condemned their actions and forced the three parties to withdraw and this made it possible

Suez Crisis - A military attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel, beginning on 29 October 1956, with the intention to occupy the Sinai Peninsula and to take over the Suez Canal. The attack followed Egypt's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam. Although the Israeli invasion of the Sinai was successful, the US and USSR forced it to retreat. Even so, Israel managed to re-open the Straits of Tiran and pacified its southern

The Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national