Interpretation of Sources



Download 18.2 Kb.
Page1/2
Date03.04.2021
Size18.2 Kb.
  1   2

Carmen Halliday

2011-01-24

Social 20-1 Final


ONE:

Interpretation of Sources

4/5

Identification of Relationships

4/5

Communication

5/5

Total:

13/15

Comments: a good response. Your analysis of Source 2 was unusual, but you gave valid reasons for your position.

TWO:

Exploration of Issue

2/3

Defence of Position

8/10

Evidence

8/10

Grammar/Correctness

1/2

Total:

19/25

TOTAL: 32/40

Assignment 1.

Source One shows a crest in which both the Canadian and Quebec “symbols” are apparent. At first you get the impression that both Canadian and Quebec loyalties are equal; meaning that Quebec is interested in being a PART of the nation of Canada. However after you look at it more closely you see that there is an extra Fleur-de-lis on the top of the crest, implying that the provincial loyalty is more important than federal loyalty. Although Quebec is a part of Canada, the province is more interested in achieving self-determination for themselves, than they are in achieving national interests. This crest is almost like a wolf in sheep clothing. At first you assume that Quebec is loyal to Canada; but once you analyze it, you see that Quebec is loyal to Quebec first and foremost.

Source Two is a picture of Referendum ballots that have been rejected. At the top of the source it says “what do these rejected ballots have in common?” All of the ballots that are shown, are those of which the voter has voted “No” for the referendum. The source is implying that Quebec wanted to secede from Canada so bad, that most of the rejected ballots were those that were voting “No”. It makes me think that the counters were either “Pro Referendum”, or asked to reject more ballots that weren’t in support of the Referendum. Although I hate to have that “conspiracy” outlook on things, this source is implying it, and I believe it. If there was even just a few more “NO” ballots that were rejected, it may have resulted in the separation of Quebec from Canada, because the vote was so close.

Source Three is implying that Steven Harper is “Poking the beehive” when it comes to Quebec. He is standing there, using a stick to poke a beehive that is hanging from a tree in which the leafs are Fleur-de-lis. The source is saying that Steven Harper is actually addressing the issue of Quebec and the separation motives in which they have. I feel like a lot of our past Prime Ministers have tried to ignore it on purpose because it is a “Beehive” so to speak. No one wants to make Quebec mad, because they will threaten to separate. And Steven Harper is saying “Who cares, National interest before provincial interest.”



Source Response.

The sources used are in relation to the issue of Quebec, and the threat of separation. Quebec is an important part of our Country. A lot of our history is based out of and on Quebec. I am proud to have Quebec in my roots and love the fact that I am able to say that I am a part of this country. However, I am first and foremost proud to be a Canadian. Although I am not from Quebec, and maybe don’t fully understand the pride in being a bilingual, Quebec citizen, I still am a Canadian, and can still have an opinion on something that is going on in my country.

I am proud to be from Alberta, and I have a special place in my heart for this province, however, Canada is my nation, and my loyalty would reside within Canada more than just Alberta. Being an Albertan I see a lot of things that are wrong in the Feudal system. I sometimes feel as if Alberta is treated unfairly, especially with issues regarding Quebec. I’m sure a lot of Albertans feel the same; yet never once has there been an issue of separation regarding Alberta. Just because we are not happy with something, does not give us the right to say we want to separate.

Every time Quebec is not happy with something the government says, or does, they place a threat of separation on the table. Although I am proud of Canada’s bilingual, and French history, and base; I don’t feel it is appropriate, or acceptable for Quebec to be able to have that sort of control, or right to even place something like that on the table. As a country, and a democratic country none the less, there needs to be unity, and a desire for unity. Just the fact the Quebec has a “Quebecois” party, shows the arrogance, and the authority they feel they have over the government; which in return causes disunity among the country. The whole country sees Quebec as the black sheep of the country because they have made themselves to be the victims; when in all actuality, they are the ones who wanted to separate in the first place.

Although I do not want Quebec to separate from Canada, I feel as if the next time there is an issue with separation, and there clearly still is because the Quebecois party is still in full swing, Canada should allow them to separate. If Quebec does not want to be a part of one of the most powerful countries in the world, then they shouldn’t have to be. If they were allowed to separate, they should be given the guidelines that state Quebec could no longer use Canadian currency, no longer have any sort of funding by Canada, no longer have the ability to use any of the resources Canada has to offer, and no longer have the right to be Canadian citizens. I feel this might turn a lot of people off of the idea.

Canada is a strong and significant country. Part of what makes Canada what it is today, is Quebec. I hate to see a country divided because of something like this. I hope this issue is resolved in the near future, and if that means that Quebec is given an ultimatum, then so be it.






Share with your friends:
  1   2




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page