Transcript Chapter 3: Reconciling Nationalistic Loyaltys

Chapter 3: Reconciling
Nationalistic Loyalties
How do loyalties shape people’s
choices?
One synonym for loyalty is commitment – the act of
staying true to an idea, a cause, a nation, a person,
or even yourself. Loyalty can sometimes be
demonstrated publicly. For example, Sir Churchill
Winston declared his loyalty when he stated that
Britain would “never surrender” to Hitler and fascism
during World War II
Loyalty can also be low-key and not displayed
publicly. An example of this would be your loyalty to
a friend.
Other synonyms for loyalty are allegiance,
faithfulness, devotion, fidelity, steadfastness, and
attachment.
When faced with a choice, loyalty can play a role in
the decision that one makes. It can be simple
decisions or difficult ones. For example, helping a
friend in their time of need may be an easy choice.
However, if you had two friends who were running
for school president, which would you choose? How
would you choose?
Patriotism is understood as
the love for ones country.
Patriotism can be shown as a
form of loyalty to ones
country. It has inspired
people to march in a parade
or fight for their country.
Some have been inspired to
petition the Canadian
government to give Highway
401 the name Highway of
Heroes because it is the way
fallen soldiers return to
home from Afghanistan.
Highway of Heroes, Ontario
Nationalist loyalties rarely demand
extreme sacrifice, such as that made by
some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
However, they can influence our
choices.
For example, here in Fort McMurray,
there are a lot of people from
Newfoundland. They show their loyalty
by displaying the Newfoundland Flag.
Contending loyalties are loyalties that
compete with one another and choosing
between them is sometimes difficult.
While some may agree with the
renaming of highway 401 to Highway of
Heroes, they may not necessarily agree
with the war in Afghanistan.
What choices have people made to affirm nationalist
loyalties?
People often do visible things to show their
loyalty. For example, you may wear COMP
clothing to show Miner Pride, or if you are a
Toronto Maple Leafs fan, you may wear the
Toronto jersey.
People also wear the maple leaf on their
backpacks or clothes when traveling to other
parts of the world to display that they are
Canadian.
Some people use place names to affirm
their nationalist identities. The Inuit of
South Baffin Island started the South
Baffin Place Names project to record
traditional Inuktitut place names.
Europeans often ignored the traditional
names and gave the same places
European names. Iqaluit, the capital of
Nunavut, was called Frosbisher Bay by
the Europeans.
Prior to the 1930s, many Inuit used just one name to
identify themselves. Because the government found
this to be too difficult to keep track of the people,
they enforced a number system in order to keep
track of the Inuit. For years, they were referred to as
a number rather than a name.
In 1969, the number system was abolished. The
government then enforced that the Inuit were
required to have a last name as well as a first name.
One man fought this, and had his name permanently
changed back to the one he was given at birth:
Kiviaq.
Cultural Pluralism is people from many nations living
together in one country.
This allows for respect of cultural differences;
Ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups live
together in harmony.
Canada is a prime example of this. Many people
immigrate to Canada because of our reputation of
cultural pluralism.
Canada was the first country to adopt
multiculturalism as an official government policy. It is
called the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988.
This allows for immigrants to keep their traditions,
languages and religions when they move to Canada.
Some people have difficulties
expressing the loyalties when they have
moved to a new country.
When immigrants first arrive in Canada,
they are concerned about fitting in and
do not express their loyalties.
As time passes however, they begin to
feel more comfortable and may express
their loyalties. For example, during the
Olympics, Chinese Canadians may cheer
for the Chinese team.
Canadians are divided on how much
immigrants should try to fit into
Canadian culture.
Reasonable accommodation is a legal
and constitutional concept that requires
Canadian public institutions to adapt to
religious and cultural practices of
minorities as long as they do not violate
other rights and freedoms.
In 1988 for example, Beltej Singh
Dhillon challenged RCMP traditions.
In 1988 for example, Beltej
Singh Dhillon challenged
RCMP traditions.
The RCMP wanted him to cut
his hair, shave his beard and
wear a Stetson hat.
Dhillon argued that wearing
a turban is a religious duty
for Sikh men and that he
was forced between serving
his religion and serving his
country.
In 1990, the country agreed
that his request was
reasonable and Dhillon
became a RCMP officer.
Ever since Confederation, people have
disagreed on the idea of reasonable
accommodation.
Some people believe that reasonable
accommodation doesn’t allow for a
shared identity and belonging.
Stephen Harper states that “Canada’s
diversity, properly nurtured, is our
greatest strength.”
As well, the Department of Canadian Heritage
states “It is in building a peaceful,
harmonious society that diversity plays its
most dynamic role. It challenges Canadians
to adapt and relate to one another despite
our differences, which encourages
understanding, flexibility and compromise.
This makes us resilient – able to
accommodate different points of view and
see different ways to solve problems.”
In 2007, reasonable
accommodation became an
issue in Quebec. Some
minority communities were
concerned about the lack of
accommodation.
In 2007, Asmahan Mansour
was not allowed to play in a
soccer game because she
was wearing a hijab.
The referee made the call
deeming it unsafe. Premier
Jean Charest agreed with
this ruling.
Many people believed that
this was an example of
failing to accommodate to
minority groups.
How can nationalist loyalties create conflict?
Sometimes, people can be loyal to more than
one nation and their nationalist loyalties can
exist without conflict.
For example, a new Canadian citizen may feel
strong loyalties to Canada, but also follow the
news from their country of origin.
However, nationalistic loyalties are not always
compatible. Their goals may conflict.
For example, a Québécois may have strong loyalties
to Quebec and to Canada. If they are questioned
about Quebec sovereignty, they may have a difficult
choice to make. To not separate or to separate?
In 1995, a referendum was held, asking the people of
Quebec whether or not they wanted to separate from
Canada.
93.5% of the population voted in the referendum.
50.52 % voted no, that they did not want to
separate. 49.42% voted to separate.
In 2006, a poll of Québécois found that support for
staying in Canada has risen.
Those who wanted to separate from Canada are
called sovereignists. Those who wanted to stay with
Canada are federalists.
An example, while
plenty of Canadians
celebrate July 1st as
Canada Day, July 1st
is Memorial Day for
those in
Newfoundland. It is
a day to remember
those of the First
Newfoundland
Regiment that died
July 1, 1916 in the
Battle of Somme.
Contending loyalties can also lead to conflict
between peoples.
Conflict can arise when two peoples want to
establish their nation in the same territory.
If they cannot resolve their conflicting
loyalties, the result may be violence.
An example of two groups who cannot solve
their conflicting loyalties are the Palestinians
and the Israelis. Both want control over the
same territory which has religious, historical,
spiritual, cultural and geographic significance.
How have people reconciled contending
nationalist loyalties?
Reconciliation is the coming to terms with the
past or mending a broken relationship. It can
help resolve differences and bring people
together once again.
If two contending nations cannot be
reconciled, it can lead to political struggles
and even to war.
What is an Canadian example of conflict
between two contending nations?
In the past, Canadian governments tried to
force First Nations, Metis, and Inuit to
abandon their culture and traditions and to fit
in with mainstream society.
Over the past few decades, this has begun to
change, and the Canadian governments have
begun to recognize Aboriginal and treaty
rights.
These rights are now put into the Canadian
constitution.
However, there are still many groups that
continue to control their own destiny.
Oka Crisis:
In 1990, a group of Mohawks on the
Kanesatake (near Oka, Quebec)reserve set
up a roadblock and a camp to stop the
expansion of a golf course onto Mohawk
land.
The provincial police were called in to
break up the protest. Shots were fired and
one officer was killed.
The Canadian military was called in and on
Sept 26th, the protest finally came to an
end.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:
Created in 1991 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
after the Oka Crisis.
It was made up of 7 people. 4 Aboriginal and 3
non-Aboriginal.
The final report was published in 1996 and it’s
main conclusion stated : “The main policy
direction, pursued for more that 150 years, first by
colonial then by Canadian governments, has been
wrong.”
The report also urged all Canadians to view First
Nations, Metis, and Inuit as nations with a right to
govern themselves in partnership with Canada.
Canadian Government’s Statement of Reconciliation:
In 1998, the Canadian government acknowledged that
First Nations have lived in North America for thousands
of years. It also admitted that past governments had
damaged the culture and traditions of first nations.
“The Government of Canada today formally expresses
to all Aboriginal people in Canada our profound regret
for past actions of the federal government which have
contributed to these difficult pages in the history of our
relationship together.”
Reconciliation will be a continuous process that will not
succeed if the past is repeated. Aboriginal people must
have an equal share in the political, economic, cultural,
and social life of Canada.
Land Claims:
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People said
that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people
must learn to share the land they both live in.
The government’s Statement of Reconciliation did
not mention the sharing of land or settling land
claims.
A land claim is an Aboriginal people’s claim to the
right to control the land where their traditionally
lived.
Land claims are fairly difficult to settle. There are
a large amount of reports, surveys, studies, court
cases and many years to settle land claim dispute
and many Aboriginals are tired of the long wait.