Comments: this paper was quite well written, and presented some good support.
SS 20-1 Final Exam
Separation, a term meaning ‘the state of lacking unity. In Canada, one of our main examples of this term involves our province of Quebec and it’s (some citizens’) hope to no longer be apart of Canada. Denied so far, it is unknown if the future holds an opportunity for Quebec to be it’s own country and free of Canadian control in any such way. The real question however still stands, is this really beneficial for the citizens of Quebec and the province as a whole.
Source one visually displays unity. In two corners a Quebec symbol is displayed and in the other two a Canadian maple leaf is shown. Though very different in color and clearly distinctive the two make one shield and I believe that that does truly show Quebec as a part of Canada. On the other hand however, it is quite obviously broken up into separates. I believe the main point of this source is to show that Canadians are accepting of Quebeckers and have no desire to be separated from one of their provinces and the people we have grown to adapt and love.
Source two shows a bold example of these adaptions Canadian has made to show off its diversity. The ballet shown has one simple thing in common- bilingualism. Displayed are two ways of common ways of saying the word “No” in Canada. In both French, Non and English, No. Canada has made services available for all citizens in English and French if they so choose. In this situation, I do not believe that Quebec is benefiting from being away from Canada in any such way. Our government is so tolerant of our current countries (country’s) diversity and accepting of many cultures but mainly our own French population.
Source three relates directly to the government. Part of the Quebec sovereignty is not only, physically being called another country but deals with the government no longer being able to have control over Quebec. There are mixed opinions about this. Some feel as though Quebec should completely have its own government and others feel aspects of their government should still be linked to the Canadian system. In this picture, we see the Prime Minister, poking a stick at a bee’s nest on a Quebec tree. The main idea of this is that the Canadian government perhaps pokes its way into Quebec and perhaps attempts to be to involved. In any situation, when pushed to much a group have the tendency to be annoyed. So, would a government separation from Canada be beneficial for Quebec? Why not! Any place that has the means and ability to be self-governed, I feel should. It truly shows independence and strength. Provincial governments should have more control over their provinces as individuals because it is easier to display their needs and make proposals to the Federal government on what would best benefit the people living in any given place.
All three sources discuss Quebec sovereignty. Each person will have a very different opinion about Quebec no longer being a part of our country. I feel as though Canadians as a whole have accepted the French language and wishes of Quebeckers and do not feel that it is necessary for them to separate. I can relate to Quebeckers perhaps feeling like aliens or out of place in our country because they do have a very diverse culture starting by their language. It is extremely important that the Canadian government continue to treat Quebec equally even though they would rather be separated and continue to promote their language and wishes in the greatest way possible to Canadians and surrounding countries.
Identity is shaped by numerous aspects and comes in multiple different forms. Who you are personally though impacted by a nation will shape your life in this world. There are many outside influences and boundaries that will play a huge role in the identity of any person or place. I do not feel that nation should be the shape of identity though it is an unavoidable cause of beliefs and values.
Source one is very general. As quoted, “They are a people, but...men dwell together” this quote is very bold and places people into one group or shows collective identity. The author talks about similarities, like speaking the same language. He states that you are bond (bound?) to people who speak a similar language to you because you understand one another. This has so much truth to it and does shape collective identity of a nation in one of the most obvious ways possible. The source then discusses internal boundaries or the individual beliefs and values of a people which directly link to external boundaries or the place that a person dwells. Every human is an individual but by dwelling in a sertant (certain) place you are also classed in a group. I am Chanelle. I am Canadian. A lot of stereotypes come out of Nation forming your identity. For example, the film Canadian Bacon- about Americans attempting to destroy the CN tower, in a humorous way make fun of Canada in many ways and are surprised to find that we don’t all live in igloos and enjoy maple syrup! This source ends by stating that we are all people before anything. We are all individuals before any Nation can affect our personal identity.
Source two has a slightly different approach on identity. “[Nation] is an imagined political community.” This particular author feels as though we do not truly know the individual identity of those with one common similarity- location. I get the feeling that this source is trying to say that we are all bound by where we dwell and the stereotypes of who we are, however we all have our own personality identity that is not very strongly influenced by those around us. Benedict Anderson feels as though we all are a community though we are often ignorant to that identity and much more individual. Toward the end of the source the author says, “regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.” This proves how diverse a community can be and still be bound though we may not be quite as aware of those around us. This proves that nation should not have a huge impact on any person’s identity.
Both sources prove that in some way, Nation- where you are and who you are around will always affect identity. This however works two ways. The people in a place will affect the stereotypes of a Nation. Typical ideas about anything develop with reason. As a ridiculously bold prejudice example: Canada is very cold, is it surprising that people believe we may live in igloos? Pressure from those around a person will have an affect on who you are. Every belief, value and opinion is justified by a situation that gave the person bias to believe as they do.
Nation should not impact identity as much as it does however it always will. People, being judgmental and good at assuming will always link a person to their nation and just the opposite. In the world that we live in it makes it hard for people to express their own identity and are often pulled into opinions of those around them. Nation shouldn’t but will always have a large degree of impact on the identity of anything and everyone.