Quebec 's Strong National Identity Essay

the First Nations were criticized and judged for moving to Canada and keeping their own cultural beliefs. The natives held onto their religion and culture because it was a part of them and their past and they also would not give it up willingly because they have been through too much to give up. “The federal government and most non-native Canadians believed that life for the First Nations people would be greatly improved if they gave up their culture and became part of mainstream, Christian Canadian”(Freeman-Shaw, Hastings-Winner 38). Canadian society was so full of itself that they considered everyone else and their culture to be less than their own. The Canadians thought everyone would be happier if they shared to same religion and beliefs

Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.

One of the most contentious issues in Canada's history is that of the Metis. Some people feel this unique group of people does not deserve any sort of recognition, whereas others believe their unique history and culture is something to be recognized and cherished. The history of the Metis people is filled with struggle; not only struggles against other powers, but also a struggle for self-identification. Despite strong opposition, the Metis people of Canada have matured as a political force and have taken great strides towards being recognized as a unique people.

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

Canada’s identity comes in many shapes and forms. Multiculturalism has been adopted and is at the forefront of Canadian identity. Following the Second World War, Canada’s multiculturalism policies became more acceptable and even successful in, not only accepting, but inviting multiple ethnic cultures in. In contrast to other countries, multiculturalism adaptation works for the Canadian culture. Canadian policies on multiculturalism have shifted over the past few decades; policies are now implemented for integration, not discrimination.

Although Canada can be defined as a nation state, its vast landscape means many people are faced with different views and mindsets. Source one simply shows the differences within the nation of Canada. Eastern and Western Canada, because of their geographical differences, can be faced with contending loyalties when it comes to some nations aspects of life. Different lifestyles under the same set of government creates a physiological barrier between a nation. The source also shows the differences in Quebec nationalism compared to the rest of Canada. Some groups like the FLQ or the Front for Liberation of Quebec are known for their extremist views of Quebec nationalism. The small group called the FLQ was active in the 1960’s and 1970’s and they

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

First Nation Peoples within Canada have been facing many injustices in their homeland since the dawn of colonization. The most unraveling point to First Nation assimilation was the formation of the consequential Indian Act and residential schools resulting in a stir of adversity. As racist ideologies within Canada developed, upheaval against such treatment was undertaken as First Nation communities fought back against government land claims and eradication of treaty rights. In attempt to make amends, proper compensations from the injustices within residential schools have been released and the key for the future is allowing First Nation self-government. Ideals with the intent of ultimate assimilation have been standardized unto First Nation

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

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

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

The concept of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is an idea that has been kicking around for some time, but just what does it mean and what are its broader implications? This paper will examine the origins of the term, what it means, and its historical context. It will then examine rival interpretations of federalism. The essay will conclude with an in-depth examination of the concept's involvement with the failed constitutional accords and the failed Quebec succession attempts.

One of the most contentious issues in Canada’s history is that of the Metis. Some people feel this unique group of people does not deserve any sort of recognition, whereas others believe their unique history and culture is something to be recognized and cherished. The history of the Metis people is filled with struggle; not only struggles against other powers, but also a struggle for self-identification. Despite strong opposition, the Metis people of Canada have matured as a political force and have taken great strides towards being recognized as a unique people.

Finally in 1867, the United Canadas joined two other British Colonies, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to form the Dominion of Canada (McRoberts 1991, 413). French-Canadians continued to fight against assimilation and received autonomous privileges with exclusive jurisdiction over matters regarding its cultural distinctiveness***. Thus, the Francophone language and culture has always been at the forefront of Quebec priorities. Since Confederation, Quebec nationalist have felt that the Francophone language and culture has been at risk of assimilation by the rest of Canada. As a result, Quebec nationalism is fundamentally rooted in the preservation of the Francophone language and culture (Guiberneau 2006, 52). Political leaders in Quebec continuously urge for the recognition that Canada is composed of two nations or cultures (McRoberts 1991, 413). Prior to confederation Quebec enjoyed numerous autonomous privileges. Unfortunately, post-confederation Quebec did not enjoy as many autonomous privileges because Canada was created as a relatively centralized federation (Beland and Lecours 2007, 406). A centralized federation not only took several of these autonomous powers away from Quebec, but it also threatened the Francophone language and culture (Beland and Lecours 2007, 406). With this said, Quebec nationalism has placed a great deal of pressure on the federal government to decentralize, giving more powers to provincial governments.

While the rest of Canada employs the concept of multiculturalism, Quebec emphasizes on another theory: interculturalism, or the notion of support in cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures. In the province, the word multiculturalism announces pejorative meanings. This was due, in part, to the fact that “a federal commission which was charged several years ago with the task of developing policies for Canada, based on its bicultural and bilingual character emerged with a recommendation that Canada think of itself as a multicultural and bilingual country.3”. Francophones, on the other hand, felt that this concept placed them at the same level as minority ethnic groups, thus erasing their thoughts of being seen as one of the country's founding nations.