Club Car

For my radio review, I listened to three different locations, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, and St. Johns. First off, all three played back to back bad music consisting of blues, depressing country, jazz, 40s music, some interesting piano music, and finally I was fortunate enough to catch the one positive song they played (Boogie At Midnight). Lipset’s book stating that Canadians are decedents from losers and that they have a loser mentality has possibly made my listening biased. This is because all the songs, except one, were sad, depressing, suicidal, or a combination of the three. This also may have been because these stations played mostly blues and jazz music.
St. Johns was playing a part from an audio story about Italian immigrants in Canada before or during World War Two called “Little Italies.” It was a love story about a mother-to-be talking to her close male friend. Her boyfriend/father-to-her-child ends up dying in combat in East Africa. Once she finds this out, they talk about feeling the effects of socialism around them in Montreal and the influence of Mussolini back in their homeland.
After listening to “Little Italies,” a lady talked about the story behind the short clip that was played. Next, they played CBC hourly news which seemed very un-biased. For instance, the half dozen times I heard it, they would simply state the latest update on casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan. Government funding for energy efficient people, government funding for national parks, a 26 murder man case, Canadian support for Palestinian people to return to their homeland, and finally the latest news in the NFL was the basic report each time I heard it.
All in all, the announcers almost always had stereotypical Canadian accents and their music was generally sad. However, the news I heard seemed un-biased, unlike news you hear on American radio stations, with those I feel I have to take each announcement with a grain of salt.

If anyone knows of any up-beat music, rock, or heavy metal stations in Canada, let me know. Because so far I have the impression that Canadian music stinks.

The first lecture started off talking about the “First Nations.” These were the people already living in Canada when Europeans showed up. We also talked about how they were categorized. Canada was divided into six different regions where people lived. The difference between each of these was language, what they ate, and what resources were available to them. For instance, you cannot fish for cod in the middle of the prairie as much as you might want to.
The next part of the lecture involved how the Europeans treated and dealt with the First Nations peoples. They set up reservations where they could live, and had ways of moving them if they didn’t want to go willingly.
Although Canada would never be the same for the First Nations peoples, they didn’t come out of the situation empty handed. Through their groups that were formed, they have found a new place and power in the workings of the government.
One of the things I found to be very interesting was the topic of nature vs. nurture. This is basically what we’re dealing with when we talk about the six regional peoples in Canada. It would be in someone’s nature to fish that lived on the eastern coast of Canada. If, by crazy chance, a person from the central plains were abducted and forced to live on the eastern coast, they would not be a natural at fishing. Yes they will learn eventually, but it is somewhat sad how this works. Where you grow up highly influences what kind of person you become.

On another note:
Having grown up within twenty-five minutes of the Canadian border, I was exposed to a lot of music from Canada. If anyone likes good rock music, you should check out: A. Finger 11, B. the Trews, C. Matthew Good Band.

Canada also has the best toffee bars (Macintosh’s) and coffee bars (Coffee Crisp)!

Disc 2 of Corner Gas provides for some different and more unique views of Canadian life. There is an episode titled Hero Sandwich where Lacey develops a new sandwich called The Ruby. At first she loves how it is so popular, but then doesn’t like it so much when it becomes the only thing everyone orders. There is also a crackdown on jaywalking, and there are many tickets issued. The cops joke that the only people that would be able to get away with jaywalking would be Jean Claude Van Dam or some other famous actors. In other episodes there are topics that include a new security camera in the Corner Gas, the need (or no need) for a stop light in Dog River, Bingo Night, and an American tourist. Again in this disc seems to have more shows about common and everyday items just as the first disc did.

This disc was pretty good because there are references to American television and movie stars. To me, this shows something that most Canadians do not want to admit. That is, sometimes they either wish they were more American or that they have already taken in many of the American cultures. There are repeated references to how the cops watch Law and Order and other television characteristics that are American based. This shows that they are a little more Americanized than they might have thought. However, when The Ruby sandwich becomes such a hit, Lacey is happy. Eventually it makes her upset because it is the only thing that people want. In the United States, trends like this occur all the time and we think nothing of it. In Canada, this doesn’t occur as often, and if/when it does there is often mixed reactions because it is something that Canadians are not as familiar with.

For anyone that wants a good Geography class, especially about the United States and Canada, you should check out Geog 262 - Geography of North America. It is offered every fall, and is taught by Douglas Munski from UND (it is an Interactive Video Network Class). It is a great supplemental course to this one.

The movie Black Robe, directed by Bruce Beresford is a the story of a Jesuit, Father Laforgue who is traveling from Quebec, along with a companion Daniel and a hired band of Algonquin Indians to take him to a distant mission in a Huron village. Along this trek, Father Laforgue faced many a journey that had him straining to hold on to his faith, trying to befriend the native people and just trying to not be broken.
This movie gave the account of what many Jesuit went through during their time of being in New France. The flashbacks that Father Laforgue had to back when he was in France gave him the idea of savages, while seeing a Father, who had previously been in New France, with his face scarred and fingers cut off. This scene gave the idea of what the French would have of the Native Americans in New France. On the opposite end, the Native Americans that these blackrobes were demons and that they wanted to take the souls of their people. The stunning sequence of scenes that stuck me as an important part of the movie, was when the Algonquin Indians left Father Laforgue and were on their way to their winter ground, the pride and honor that Chomina made him turn around and come back for Father Laforgue, only to have his wife and youngest daughter killed, being captured and mortally wounded, just to save Father Laforgue.
The movie was visually stunning, with the beautiful landscape of the North American terrain and a dynamic story line that kept the story rolling at a good pace. It’s a little graphic at times, but the movie was of a great quality, I would recommend it.
Caitlin S.

I came across this article on FoxNews.com and thought it was interesting. Click on Canadian Press to link to a more detailed article on the same issue:

Article from FoxNews.com:
Canadian Town of Herouxville Posts Controversial 'Norms' For Immigrants, Like 'No Stoning'
Attention immigrants, the town of Herouxville in Quebec has a message for you: no stoning women, and no pouring acid on them either.
According to the Canadian Press, the town's council recently passed rules targeting immigrants to make sure there are no misunderstandings about the culture they're joining.
According to reports, the rural town of about 1,300 recently adopted a declaration of "norms" that would-be immigrants need to know if they plan on settling there.
Among the "norms:" kids can't bring weapons to school — no ceremonial daggers used by Sikhs or others. It's also all right for boys and girls to swim together in the same pool. Also, female police officers are empowered to arrest people, and are also allowed to drive, dance and make their own decisions.
Andre Drouin, one of the members of the town council, reportedly said the rules aren't meant to be anti-immigrant. "We're telling people who we are," Drouin said.
According to the reports, B'nai Brith Quebec called the declaration "anti-ethnic backlash," and a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Montreal called the measure insulting and full of stereotypes.
Drouin reportedly insists that Herouxville welcomes immigrants, despite having just one immigrant family.
The declaration is posted on the town's website.
Since passing the "norms," the town council has reportedly received some 2,000 emails, mostly in support of the measure.

They do it in Fargo: http://www.fmcurling.org/

Lecture one discussed the First Nations--those people who inhabited Canada before the arrival of Europeans. Though we discussed these people based on "cultural areas," Professor Isern pointed out that this is somewhat of an antiquated categorization as one' s environment does not dictate their being. These groups possessed starkly different life-ways in all areas including diet, burial rituals and organization. Some of these groupings--such as the Plateau people--are quite a stretch in that generalities are difficult to define amongst these tribes. These categories, of course, did not exist until the coming of European explorers and settlers who felt the Linnaean need to put everything in order. European contact was devastating to the aboriginal Canadians through the rampant spread of disease, but, in contrast to the United States, there was very little warfare between the government and the tribes. Early Indian Policy in Canada was typified by the establishment of reserves (reservations) followed by a policy of enfranchisement (assimilation). Though it took some time, eventually the native peoples of Canada were able to come together and form The First Nations; this group holds substantial political power and is intimately involved in government affairs. One important difference between the Canadian and US Indian policies is the recognition of the Metis as having a separate identity, which is not the case in the States. Though there exists a Canadian myth that their policies have been far more humane than American, we were asked to take a critical look at that cultural ideal and decide for ourselves.
Having only studied, for the most part, Native Americans in the US, I was very interested in this lecture. It is important for me to remember that at one time these peoples (both in US and Canada) had no borders to consider, no policies to which they must adhere. I also appreciate the very existential approach of critically examining the categories in which peoples of the First Nations are placed. To think of an environment as a controlling factor of human development and culture is a bit ridiculous--if that were the case how would H. erectus have travelled Out of Africa in the first place? Not to mention H. sapiens... Anyhow, to believe that people are defined by the climate they inhabit is odd, though I never really considered it so before this course; so, cheers to that! I'm really looking forward to delving into the Metis more as well--I've looked into the group a bit, but only in relation to the Chippewa. I think that it is important to note the differences between Canadian and US policy regarding aboriginal peoples, but we need not sugar-coat the Canadian side. As was pointed out in class, other than using great physical force, the policies are very similar including phases of enfranchisement and termination that led to a loss of identity on both sides of the border. In recent years, since the Assembly of the First Nations, it is obvious to me that Canada is far ahead of the United States in bridging the gap between cultures.

Now available fom Jen: C.R.A.Z.Y., the DVD, and Season 3 of Corner Gas, DVD set.

 The first lecture focused on the “First Nations” of Canadian society,
which translates to the name the aboriginals have chosen to call
themselves. It also focused on identifying and explaining the differences
and similarities of the various cultural groups in Canada including: the
Woodland, Southeastern Ontario, Plains, Plateau, Pacific Coast, and
Mackenzie/Yukon Basin peoples. It also went into some detail about
European interaction in Canada during the Age of Exploration.
       I found the distinctions between the different cultural groups to be the
most enjoyable because I had always heard of different groups here and
there but never really knew any facts about them. I had never heard what
distinguishes them from one another or how they are told apart. Also, I
had to create an diorama of the Woodland people and fourth grade, so that
in itself made it a bit more interesting for me. I also remember my 7th
grade Geography teacher talking about the creation of Nunavet in 1999 and
how it was important for the re-shaping of Canadian territory to fit
different people's needs.
       I found the different distinctions interesting to learn about, but I was
wondering more how the different nations interacted with one another if
they did at all. Maybe they kind of kept to themselves and traded when
necessary, but I felt there was more to be explained as far as the
different nations interacting with one another whether it be violent,
friendly, or neutral.

The disc 1 of Corner Gas: Season 2 is pretty interesting. The episodes are all about random topics about people in the small town of Dog River. The sense of smell, lost and found junk along the road, phobias, and wedding are some of the topics that are super "important" in Dog River. The citizens always have something going on at the Ruby Diner and at the Corner Gas, and it always ends up involving all of the main people in the city. Each person seems to add something to each situation that makes the situation more and more unique, and this in turn makes the show unique.

As this is the first time that I have seen the show, I didn't know what to expect. However, I was pleasantly surprised with how "laid back" the show is. There is no fast paced topics or ideas that are of enormous magnitude. There are just small and random topics that could occur in any Canadian (and American) plains town. I think that is part of the reason that this show has caught on so well. As Janet Wright (Wanda) said in the special features, this is a wholesome and good quality family show that has caught on because there are not others like it out there right now. This also adds to its appeal.

Check out the show at www.cornergas.com. It is very interesting and worth while.

Lecture one was about Canada's Indians. Terminology was defined. There are a lot of differences between Canada's terminology and our own. One similarity is the vernacular usage or the term Indian. Canada's proper term is First Nations as opposed to our Native American. Our reservations are Canada's reserves. What we would call assimilation, Canada called enfranchisement. Canada recognizes and acknowledges mixed blood peoples called Metis, while we have no seperate name for mixed bloods.
There are six geographical regions of Canada that define the type of people that live there. It is unfair to say that because you are from somewhere you are just like everyone else, however the way of life for people in the same region would be similar. If you live on the Atlantic coast you would probably be eating cod rather than buffalo. In the different regions, people have different staple foods and different methods of getting that food. The housing was different throughout the different regions and they practiced different cultural customs. There were also different modes of transportation, or lack of transporting.
We covered European contact and the effects it had for Indians. European diseases killed a large amount of the population. Europeans thought that because Indians were falling ill and many not surviving illness, that they were biologically superior. They tried to force the Indians to live as they did. The Indians joined together to govern themselves as their creator willed them to, not the Europeans creator.
I think I now know more about Canada's Indians than America's Indians.

I just thought I'd let people know that there's an article involving the Inuit in today's Fargo Moorhead Forum (A5) involving the affect of melting glaciars on their subsistence. The writers don't specifically mention Canadian Inuits, but the picture supporting the article is taken in the Hudson Bad. Let's face it, especially being on the same continent and since most of Inuits are directly North of us, we automatically assume Eskimos in Canada.

Lecture one included a brief description of the First Nations of Canada. First Nations is a term many Aboriginal peoples have chosen to call themselves. It replaces the term Indian, like we use in the United States. I believe Lipset may be pointing to something when he says, "Although native people have been treated badly on both sides of the border, Canadians have shown them more respect than have Americans." In my opinion, this isn't true at all. It's just another myth of Canadian Culture to tell themselves they're higher. Scholarly revisionists’ examinations of conditions on Indian reserves indicate Canada's government has treated natives just as poorly if not worse than the United States of America.
These First Nations are extremely diverse depending on where you look. Landscape caused adaptation in the case of these peoples. If you look at the west coast, you will find much different people than those found in Ontario, or in northern Canada (Inuits).
When Europeans contancted these people, much the same as in America, the result was catastrophic. Not so much from fighting, but from disease. Sources indicate over 3/4 of the population of these tribes were wiped out. That fact jumped out at me. I can't image 3/4 of the United States of America being simply erased like they didn't exist. Can you image the consequences of future generations?
One major difference I found in Canadian Natives compared to that of the United States is their power in government. Now, if you look at the numbers, natives comprise close to a million people in Canada. These people were granted the territory of Nunavut, which is hardly useful to Canadian government anyway except for the resources (Nunavut has a joint authority with Canada for resource development), and given a say in government since they're officially a province of Canada. Things may be looked at differently here in the U.S. if we were to have natives in the House and Senate don't you think? And if there was to be on state devoted entirely to Native Americans?

Lecture one included a brief introduction to the material. Then it focused on the first nations and the culture groups. After the first nation section the issues of European contact and Indian Policy was discussed. And finally the Inuit Métis and the return of the native people were discussed.
There are six different groups of Indians in Canada, the woodland, plains, plateau, pacific coast, South East Ontario and the McKenzie basin. For each group their lifestyles were given such as if they were nomadic or semi-nomadic. Their food supply was discussed and the social and political organizations were talked about briefly. Following the introduction to the different types of native peoples was the issues concerning the first contact with European peoples.
Europeans came to the new world along with missionaries bringing a foreign religion to the Indians. The Europeans also brought disease that the Indian population had no tolerance to. Some various Indian organizations were mentioned as well.
The lecture was concluded with a discussion on the Métis, the Inuit and the aboriginal people in a modern world. I found the discussion on the first European contact to be the most interesting for me because I has already taken a few classes that had dealt with that so it was a nice refresher.
One thing I would have liked to hear more about was the actual tribes themselves. I know that would be very hard to do because there were so many of them, but I was interested in that and we seemed to breeze through it. Maybe that would be a good thing for me to review further with a book review of something or that sort.

In the familiar story adapted from Lucy Maud Montgomery's novel, Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert, an elderly sister and brother, send a request to adopt a boy. By mistake, a talkative and imaginative girl arrives, and so begins the silly mishaps and adventures of Anne Shirley in the small town of Avonlea. Anne's spirit wins the hearts of the Cuthberts, most of the town of Avonlea (excluding the Pyes), and the handsome Gilbert Blythe. Anne matures into a young lady and acclaimed scholar. Unfortunately the death of Matthew Cuthbert leads Anne to reject a full scholarship to college in order to take care of Marilla and keep Green Gables, which leads into the second book and film.
This film is somewhat enjoyable, but many things bother me. For the most part the filmmakers follow the book, but changes small and large occur, most notably in the added romantic interactions with Gilbert Blythe. The movie tends to be a bit too sappy. The quiet, serious, and soft-spoken melodrama as Megan Follows portrays in Anne adds to this. But Follows does play the adult Anne well. It won several awards, so take my criticism lightly.
I did not know Anne of Green Gables was set in Canada till I finally read it two years ago. It's the Canadian Pollyanna. The setting and interactions seem the same as they would be in a New England coastal area in the US. A little Canadian politics is mentioned with the prime minister and with a few Avonlea residents being "Grits." This film is important because Anne of Green Gables is one of Canada's claims to fame. She's iconic to the country. Anyone who has read this book or seen the film will not think of PEI without the little red headed girl also coming to mind.

I've re-posted my statement on dual submission of research papers in the blog framed into my home page.

Lecture 1 discussed the various "first nations" of Canada and the various relationships and views that they have and that other Canadians have about them. Geography and language were very important in the success (or failure) of these tribes. As we saw, these tribes adapted their survival techniques (bison stampedes on the plains, longhouses in southeastern Ontario) and then when the Europeans made contact the techniques changed again to trade and material possession.

The interesting points for myself included the evolutions of Indian Policy throughout Canada. I did not realize that Canada treated their Indians with as close similarity as the United States. Also, I think it is unusual that the Canadian Government has a description for their Mixed Bloods. This is odd because there are other groups that could possibly be described as mixed bloods but aren't called Metis.

I question why it is that the United States Government receives such a bad perception about their Indian treatment but Canada doesn't even though they treated the Indians just as bad.

Just thought I'd let everybody know I ate some Icelandic Cod this past Friday night and it was amazing. That is all for now

Lecture one focused on Canada's First Nations. First Nations is the Canadian term for what Americans call Native Americans. The connotation of First Nations and Native Americans is different. First Nations implies that every Canadian is an immigrant, but some got there first. The term Native American means that Indians have always been here. The First Nations of Canada are divided into six groups based on enviroment. Grouping people based on enviroment is very limiting. This way of categorizing implies that Indians were controlled by their surroundings which is untrue.

There was also a lot of focus given to the similarities and differences between Canadian and American Indian policies. In many ways the two countries policies have paralleled each other. An example of this would be the assimilation policy undertaken in both countries. Even though the policies are similar there are some big difference like First Nations holding more political influence in Canada and the Canadian governments recognition of the Metis. First Nations in Canada has more political clout than their American counterpart simply because they are a more significant part of the Canadian population. The American government does not recognize the Metis as a distinct people. It would be interesting to see how many Native Americans would be qualified as Metis if the US government recognized them.

For those of you whose tastes in film run to the documentary, there are two videos listed on the film page you may want to check out. First, there is Born Hutterite, from the National Film Board of Canada. This is a fascinating and rather critical look at the life of Hutterite colonies in Canada and the US. Second, there is The Mennonites of Manitoba, from Prairie Public Television. This is a sound documentary, not too critical of Mennonite ways (see the list of funders), featuring award-winning historian Royden Loewen quite a bit, and including a cameo appearance by the author of our third text, Gerhard Ens. Both films are available for check-out from NDSU Libraries.

I was looking up canadian military actions and comparing them to US actions when I found a couple different clips. The clip I have linked to is pretty standard; it is a canadian unit raiding a Taliban haven with lots of gunfire, explosions, and canadians. Nothing really stands out as far as actions or battlefield conduct, but at the end pay attention to what the guy says. It seemed really stereotypical. http://militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=61

Hey everybody
I just wanted to let everyone know about a very funny canadian reality show. It's called Kenny vs. Spenny. It's a reality show that involves two best friends with very different personalities. In the show Kenny and Spenny compete in silly competitions like who can last the longest without talking or the first one to laugh loses, and one of my favorites who can stay homeless the longest. I don't know how you could show that it has merit of this class but none the less it is a very funny show.
you can find almost every episode on www.peekvid.com
hope y0u enjoy

Evan Thompson

Lecture One gave background on the native peoples of Canada (First Nations). We studied these people based upon where they live in Canada. These people are quite diverse, ranging from those who inhabited the plains, to the Inuit in the far north, to woodland peoples. The question coming from this classification of peoples by the environment of their homes is troublesome, because it leaves open the discussion of what gives these people their unique identify. An example would be “do the woods make the woodland people, or do the people make the woods to shape their own needs”. I agree that a peoples identity should not be completely based on their home environment as the only influence that gives them a unique identity. Natives in Canada have been able to survive attempts by the Canadian governments to assimilate them, and are in somewhat of a better position with their government than natives in America. They managed their position because they were able to come together as First Nations, and become a government for themselves.
This lecture was very informative about natives in Canada, but it made me wonder more about natives America. I find it fascinating that natives in Canada have organized themselves in a sort of government for themselves. This makes me wonder if there have been attempts of this in the United States. All of this information on First Nations in Canada makes me put it in perspective by comparing it to similar actions in the United States. It gives a perspective of two countries in similar situations, and how they handled the situations. Viewing the contrasts of these countries enables me learn more about them both.

I found that learning about the First Nations in Canada was quite interesting. Just like the United States, Canada has a diverse assortment of Indian tribes who live a wide variety of lifestyles. While I have studied different Indian tribes in the past, the Inuit usually got put on the back burner and didn’t get covered too extensively. Because of this, I found the portions on the Inuit and Nunavut to be refreshing. Also, learning about the different hunting methods was the most fascinating aspect of the lecture, especially the buffalo drops and using snowshoes to get to caribou stuck in the snow.

While learning about the policies that Canada’s government had regarding Indians was very similar to that of the United States, it was also interesting to learn about the effects of European contact. I had heard that Europeans had brought diseases that the Indians suffered from, but I didn’t realize that havoc was so widespread and killed so many people when the Jesuit missionaries exposed the Indians to foreign diseases like smallpox.

Finally, when learning about the Métis, I really got to wondering what it would be like if the United States had a recognized mixed-blood ethnicity. I went to high school in Sisseton, SD, which is on an Indian reservation. Based on the heritage of many of the Native Americans that I knew, I'd say that If there were a Métis-like group in the United States, there would most likely be just as many mixed-bloods as full-bloods. As the lecture indicated, there are many parallels between the United States and Canada’s Indian affairs policies; I’m curious as to why the United States doesn’t recognize a mixed-blood ethnicity like Canada does.

Men with brooms is a delightful but predictable Canadian film about the sport of curling. The movie starts when Chris Cutter and three other teammates including a drug dealer, mortuary worker, and a bit of a goofball all return to the small Canadian town in which they grew up and participated in curling. They returned for the funeral of their curling coach who had passed away retrieving a curling stone from the lake. With his last video request the old coach tells his old players that they should try and make one last attempt at the golden broom which is a prestigious curling competition in their hometown. He also wants them to use the stone which he retrieved from the lake and in which he had his ashes placed. The team once again band together to do as their coach asked. But they had been away from the game for a long time and it seemed as if they lost their touch. After losing to a team of old men they go to Chris Cutter’s father for help. Chris’s father is played by Leslie Nielsen and he is an old pro of the game. He coaches and trains the four men to be better curlers. Going into the competition they are the underdogs and severely lose their first match against the favorites lead by the famous curler “the juggernaut”. They somehow mount a comeback and make into the finals. **SPOILER** In the end with two unbelievable shots made by Cutter they win the competition and make their deceased coach proud.
That is just a short summary of the movie. It is a deeper movie than that involving old fiancés, jealousy, paternal issues, sibling rivalry and debt collectors. Overall I liked the movie; it wasn’t what I expected because it was nothing like some of the other movies Leslie Nielsen has been in. But it was good.
The background of the movie was very Canadian. Every opportunity was taken to show forests, thousands of beavers (which I didn’t quite understand) and lots of other things that just scream CANADA. I think this movie would be good for students in our Canada class because it is light, funny and involves one of the most popular sports of the country.

Evan Thompson

This lecture started out by describing the 6 different Indian culture groups (or First Nations) that inhabited the land within the Canadian borders prior to European contact. For the most part all of these groups were very diverse; living in different areas, speaking different languages, having different customs. Then the Europeans arrived and changed everything for the First Nations peoples. The Europeans had a sense of entitlement to the land they had just arrived to, and decided that if the Indians were to continue to live there, they were going to have to assimilate to the newly arrived European culture and rules; no more ancient customs were to be tolerated. This led to laws being passed that would ensure the European agenda would dominate and the Indians would comply. Finally after being pushed around long enough, the First Nations peoples joined together and declared that they could govern themselves as the Creator has given them the right to. Thus, the Assembly of First Nations was formed.
What surprised me most was how the Europeans impacted the Indian world. They brought disease, claimed their lands, forced drastic changes upon them, and basically tried to rid the environment of them. Laws were actually made telling the Indians that they are no longer allowed to practice their traditions/customs and they have to assimilate into the lifestyle of the white Canadians. Treaties soon followed that declared that the Indians were no longer allowed to live in their homes and they tried to push them out. Who gave them the right to decide all these things?
The First Nations finally realized that the only way to make themselves heard was to ban together and make themselves into numbers that could not be ignored. They had already lost so many members of their tribes, (from disease, war, etc.) that if they did not want to altogether disappear, they would need to work with each other and take back some space for themselves away from the Europeans. Ultimately they were successful in this, but it is ironic that the Europeans were victorious in pushing the Native people around when there were much more of them and they compromised when the numbers were much fewer.
Everything the Europeans brought with them was foreign. Looking at all this from the First Nations' perspective, you can only imagine how confused they were at the arrival of the Europeans. They basically bulldozed over the land, taking control of everything that did not belong to them and they did not have a right to. What a way to start interactions with the native people of the land you are trying to occupy.

We were introduced to the First Nations in our first lecture of the semester. Natives are called different terms by different people and contexts. Mixed bloods have their own name and distinguished people group. And there are six different commonly thought of native cultural groups distinguished by location. Then we get into European contact. Jesuit missionaries did their best to convert the natives, and other white men tried to figure out what in the world to do with them, bringing about policy after policy. Reserves were first established in 1830. The Indian Act of 1876 involved native enfranchisement. It was believed the natives would become Canadians, especially with the use of boarding schools. But as the natives did not forsake their traditions, the Indian Act of 1951 legalized their rituals. And by 1969, assimilation was ceased and self-determination began evolving into the First Nations by 1982.
It's interesting and debatable how Europeans define natives by their region, but don't Americans do that to Americans as well? Sometimes I classify Americans in regions, and so did the Beach Boys in "California Girls." Land itself does shape people to an extent when you have to survive on it without modern conveniences. I find it difficult knowing what to call Indians at times. I miss calling Inuits Eskimos, mostly because I like the way the latter sounds. I find "In-u-it" hard to get out of my mouth. Are terms really that offensive to people? Maybe not to most, but at leaset a few speak out. Native affairs are much more prominent in Canada than America, but since many live on reserves and secluded places like Nunavut, is their presence much felt by the Canadians of European descent?

The movie Gaz Bar Blues, written and directed by Louis Bélanger, has a reoccurring aspect for most of the Canadian movies and television shows that I have only begun to watch. Its main setting is at a gas station. This movie however similar in the setting as the television shows like Corner Gas, has more of a serious edge to it.
The story centralized about the Brochu family, with Francois known as the “Boss” and his sons and daughter, dealing with running the small gas station that is constantly being robbed, from thieves and from the ‘regulars’ that will come everyday and sit and constantly give a piece of their mind. The dark little spots of the movie include Francois dealing with his Parkinson’s disease and the having his older sons leave him to pursue their dreams, along with dealing with the cheats and thieves that frequented the gas station, really gave to the seriousness of dealing with the evolving country and new technological advances that were killing off the smaller own businesses. But it wasn’t all the dark tones of the film that made it good. The dry humor that was weaved into the movie was excellent. Dealing with thieves by putting them in the freezer and seeing how the family survived even though the obstacles that were in their way I thought really added to the movie.

I thought that this film was excellent. There were very intense emotional scenes that captured your heart and put you into the sense of what these characters were feeling throughout the movie was fantastic. I would recommend this film to watch, it gives a good perspective of life in Canada, especially in the French speaking Quebec.

Caitlin S.

I was surfing youtube and I found some cool footage that I thought would be pertinent to the class. If any of you ever get a chance to visit Cape Breton Island, off the northern tip of Nova Scotia, you should definetely check out its thriving Celtic music scene. I was there this past summer and besides being one of the most beautiful places on earth it also carries on one of the worlds great musical traditions.

Here is a clip of world-renoun musician Natalie MacMaster doing what she does best:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8FBC0zwlrLg

And here is a clip of Dwayne Cote who is equally impressive:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wgp-3aK_E0Q

Enjoy!

The film Mon Oncle Antoine by Claude Juntra was a compelling tale about a boy, an orphan named Benoit who goes to live with a foster family in a small mining village in Quebec. It is filled with dark overtones with bits of humor, and it takes a unique look at the life of a boy who doesn't know his place in the world. All the while dealing with problems and changes that all boys his age go through. He is coming to age sexually and has a weird experience with a woman in the store. He looks to his uncle Antoine as his mentor, and Antoine does take him under his wing to an extent. Antoine, among other things is the town's ubdertaker which immediatly gives him creepy credibility, he also love the sause. When Benoit and Antoine go to retrieve a body of a boy in a distant town is when the movie takes a crazy turn. They end up losing the body in a sleigh accident, and it really made when feel like this movie is kind of like Donnie Darko. However, the movie is pretty slow so you have time to recover from the dramatics to enjoy the unique style of humor.
I really liked the movie, and it was very well done. I can't believe I had never heard of it before. It aws not as good as the Black Robe, but I definitley recommend it for others to review. The director ndoes a good job of presenting the lifestyle that he knew growing up.

Lecture One dealt exclusively with the broad history of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It is important to note that in Canada those people whom Americans would refer to as "native" are officially defined as "First Nations" to make the distinction that no group of people is native to the North American continent in the anthropological sense. Dr. Isern stressed three main points in the lecture, which were the diversity of native peoples, distinctive aspects of Canadian Native policy, and the fact that Native affairs carry more weight in Canada than in the United States. A distinct aspect of Canadian native policy is the official recognition of the Metis, people that are of both European and First Nations heritage. Although, Dr. Isern and myself both have problems with trying to define a group of people by the environment in which they live, the survey nature of the course forces us to examine First Nations in such a manner. As a result, we examined the six regional classifications of Canada's First Nations. From there we traced the effects of the first European-Native contact that brought disease and warfare (because of trade relations) to Canada's original peoples. We also delved into the evolution of Indian policy in Canada that sought at first to assimilate the First Nations into European-style society but later worked to terminate any signs of Native culture by removing special status to the tribes. The lecture finished on Tuesday with Dr. Isern discussing the formation of the territory of Nunavut as the homeland for Canada's Inuit peoples.
One of the areas of the lecture that I found most interesting was Dr. Isern's theory on how the acquisition of horses and firearms affected the crystalization of gender roles and allowed for the arrival of "Buffalo Culture." I also think that the designation of the Metis as a distinctive people is quite interesting and wonder how American Native policy would differ if the idea had been implemented here. Maybe our policy would be radically different.

Lecture One dealt exclusively with the broad history of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It is important to note that in Canada those people whom Americans would refer to as "native" are officially defined as "First Nations" to make the distinction that no group of people is native to the North American continent in the anthropological sense. Dr. Isern stressed three main points in the lecture, which were the diversity of native peoples, distinctive aspects of Canadian Native policy, and the fact that Native affairs carry more weight in Canada than in the United States. A distinct aspect of Canadian native policy is the official recognition of the Metis, people that are of both European and First Nations heritage. Although, Dr. Isern and myself both have problems with trying to define a group of people by the environment in which they live, the survey nature of the course forces us to examine First Nations in such a manner. As a result, we examined the six regional classifications of Canada's First Nations. From there we traced the effects of the first European-Native contact that brought disease and warfare (because of trade relations) to Canada's original peoples. We also delved into the evolution of Indian policy in Canada that sought at first to assimilate the First Nations into European-style society but later worked to terminate any signs of Native culture by removing special status to the tribes. The lecture finished on Tuesday with Dr. Isern discussing the formation of the territory of Nunavut as the homeland for Canada's Inuit peoples.
One of the areas of the lecture that I found most interesting was Dr. Isern's theory on how the acquisition of horses and firearms affected the crystalization of gender roles and allowed for the arrival of "Buffalo Culture." I also think that the designation of the Metis as a distinctive people is quite interesting and wonder how American Native policy would differ if the idea had been implemented here. Maybe our policy would be radically different.

In lecture one Dr. Isern began by comparing European terms like Indian and Eskimo to the Canadien terms of First Nations and Inuit. Its interesting that the Metis are officially recognized in Canada. I bet that French trappers were sought after by other colonials to tell them stories of the wilderness and the Indians they encountered. We then learned about federal relocation policies and that the good treatment of the Indians was in part a myth.
The Woodland people consisted of eight Algonquin speaking tribes who used the forest and streams for resources, and they used snowshoes and the birch bark cnoe. A clan based people that survived through hunting and fishing. The Southeastern Ontario tribes spoke Iroquoin, lived in settled villages, and had a farm based economy. Warfare was a way of social advancement and ritual. The feast of the dead is a very unique custom. Did the movie The Last of the Mohicans accurately portray the Huron?
The Plains people had a variety of languages. They were highly mobile, and the horse greatly changed them in the ways of warfare and hunting. The Sun Dance was their biggest spiritual ritual. Dr. Isern descibed the Plateau people as a classification of convenience in British Columbia. Salmon was the cornerstone of their diet.
The Pacific people put great influence on the extended family. They were a maritime culture and were headed by a chief. How much importance did they put on the extended family. They traded oil, and the salmon was their sacred animal. The Mackenzie and Yukon Basins were a mobile people who hunted the moose and the caribou. It would be interesting to know more about their ice fishing techniques.
The lecure conclude with the effects of diseases like smallpox, the evolution of the Indian policy, and a brief talk abou the Oka crisis. We were also briefed on some things we will be talking more about in later lectures.

It seems as though many people are not too confident on their knowledge of Canada. Especially the history of Canada before it became the nation we know it to be today. From migration paths up to present day independence and isolation on reserves, the First Nations, once a glorious people, is now being forgotten with a new people living on their native lands. They were a very diverse people and the First Nations were comprised up of many other tribes, each had their individual traits and languages, most depending on their geographical location.
I did not know there were so many different tribes and diverse languages. The evidence from archeological dig sites support the notions of broad cultures many different locations. It almost seems like the European continent, with all the countries, different customs, and languages. Even though some would do battle from time to time, they would still trade and this could be found throughout the country by finding similar metals and other items in different tribes.
A rather large misconception I had lay around the population of the First Nations. I was taught, and I think society taught, that there were not near as many natives in the country as history gives credit to. The scarce areas left showing large populations point to a well organized people, with regard to social status and rule. Some areas even provide evidence to show tens of thousands lived quite well together. Now, think of how many natives were here when the colonies started to form. Then, think of how many were here before then. Especially to think that if 60-90% had been killed either by disease or fighting before colonization, there would have been a civilization rivaling most European civilized areas. If not more civilized, the native people seemed to have a way of life that respected life and others, even when the earliest travelers came to their lands.
Also, they proved to be a very intelligent people. Their knowledge in geometry and astronomy can be seen in some of their earlier establishments showing they were quite intelligent. They knew the areas they lived in well and were able to live with nature instead of destroying what was naturally capable of producing enough to live on.
To me, it seems the native peoples had a foothold on humanity that was quite more appreciated than the European nations that brought them disease and a culture quite insignificant to theirs.

In the first lecture, we discussed a variety of Native Indians that shaped the idea of the Assembly of First Nations. The different cultures of people gave us the idea of a different way of life for these people dependent of the location of which they lived. We also talked about the evolution of the Assembly of First Nations, about the Indian Policies about making land for white settlers and sending young Indians to boarding schools and how in later years Indians were able to regain the ability to practice more traditional ways of life.

The part that I really was interested about in this lecture was how different the cultures were. None of the six different culture groups all spoke the same language, but usually there was a language or two that some of the cultures all knew and spoke. The Woodland people had more portable means of living, using snowshoes and canoes to travel, while the Southeastern Ontario were farmers that lived in a place permanently. The Plains people are the Indians that most of Americans (or at least me) consider the average Indian. They had more of a nomadic way of life, following the source of food. Once they were able to be horses, it changed the way the Plains people hunted and lived. The Plateau people lived in the present province of British Columbia, with the main source of food was salmon, and you cannot really generalize anything about these people. The chief position was a family thing, and power within the tribe was given to people that were close relation to the chief and his family. The Mackenzie and Yukon people lived more in the Arctic area of Canada and lived mostly on moose and ice fishing. I was really interested in how these all these people could be so different in the beginning and through time they became more united to fight for land and rights within the Canadian world and government. In the declaration of the Assembly of First Nations they state that "The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self-determination."

The first lecture focused on three main areas of Canadian history. The first portion of the lecture was on the six different areas of the first nations. They are the Woodland, Southeastern Ontario, Plains, Plateau, Pacific Coast and the Mackenzie and Yukon Basin peoples. The second area of the lecture dealt with European contact and Indian policy in Canada. Lastly we discussed the importance of the separate culture of the Metis and Inuit in Canada.
I found it interesting how there are so many different first nations of Canada. Each area lives in a distinct geographic region which influences their way of life. One thing I did not know before this lecture is that United States and Canadian polices regarding Indians or the First Nations often happened around the same time .Both countries established reservations or reserves at the same time. Also the First Nations have more of an influence in national government than the Native Americans do in the United States. I also find it intriguing that the Metis, or mixed blood people of Canada, get special status in their own country. This is something that the United States does not have in place. I was not aware of the distinct culture of the Inuit, and that they now have a separate area in Canada to call their home.
Overall I found this lecture to be very informative. I was able to discover differences between Canada and the United States right away. One of those is the fact that Canada has First Nations, and the United States has Native Americans. As I mentioned earlier, another big difference is the status the mixed blood people of Canada receive compared to the non-existent status of the mixed blood people of the United States.

In lecture one, the First Nations were discussed. A brief over view was given on each of the main groups of people and their way of living. A main point which was brought up was the differences, not only among themselves, but to their American counterparts.
The topic of the similarities and contrasts between Canada and America’s governing systems was most intriguing. It was interesting to see how on the surface the two seemed to mirror each other in policies, yet so different when one dove deeper and looked closely at the policies of each. Where America chose to use military force with their natives, Canada chose a less violent approach which ultimately led to the same result. I have always been interested in the First Nations or Native Americans depending on how you view them. I have relatives with Native ancestry and I always wanted to learn the similarities and differences between the different tribes and nations. I view the different tribes as one would view Europe, each country has its similarities and to some may appear the same, but at the same time, they have their own ways of governing themselves, customs, cultures, languages, and general ways of life.
A lingering question in my mind would be how does one group of people feel that it is right and okay to reduce another group of people to a state of poverty and shame? To me this goes hand in hand with slavery. To degrade, impoverish, deliberately sicken, and steal from people because they have a different way of life sickens me.
I would have liked to learn about each nation in a little more detail. I realize that there is probably another class specifically for this topic and that there probably isn’t enough time in the semester to do this, but it would have been more interesting for me.

In this lecture, Dr. Isern gave us an introduction on the different culture groups that populate Canada. Woodland peoples who utilized portable dwellings and were clan-based. Southeastern Ontario peoples who farmed based in permanent villages. Households were headed by the women, as gender roles were critical in their culture. The Plains peoples utilized fairs in order to trade goods with other tribes and, because of this, their grassland mobility was important. The acquisition of horses was also big in how they hunted, as the chase was integral in their culture. Plateau peoples were based in what is now British Columbia and depended on salmon as their chief source of food. The Pacific peoples valued their extended family, as their society was strictly heirarchial, headed by the chief, with slaves and captured indians at the bottom. Like the Plateau people, they depended on the sea for sustenance. Tribes in the Yukon Territories were recognized as hunters of the tundra and forests. Utilized the snowshoe and canoe for mobility in their area, which they hunted for caribou and moose. I never realized how many different groups of people were spread out in Canada and I was intrigued by their different methods of life. I now understand why some of the areas in Winnipeg are named after the native peoples. For example, the Assiniboine Downs horse racing track in Winnipeg. I never put the two and two together before hearing this and I think it is interesting. The issue of European contact was also discussed, and I was wondering if it would be much different from the European contact with indians here in the United States. Rival fur companies were competing for settlements along crucial trade routes in order to be the ones to do business with the native peoples. Because of this, the natives were opened up to disease and this took its toll on them. Smallpox and other diseases ravaged the population, with many of the younger generations dying off, leaving the elderly to continue the family. The evolution of indian policy was also influential, as the Canadian government passed the White Paper in 1969 which encouraged termination and assimilation. Some groups fought this and were determined to not leave their homeland. One such instance was the Oka crisis in which the Oka people blockaded a construction project and were dispersed by the local authorities. The issue of the Metis is also an integral part of Canadian culture, as these mixed-blood people continued to struggle with European contact. All in all, I felt that this lecture helped me come to terms with the basics of the foundations in Canadian culture and I look forward to learning more about its history.

First Nations refers to the aboriginal people in Canada. To compare what they would be in the American we would call them Native Americans but both countries still use the vernacular term of "Indians." The First Nations lecture went on to talk about the Metis who were finally recognized as a people in 1867. The Metis are referred to as "mixed-blooded" people who have both European and Indian decent. We also discussed the six culture groups in Canada that were classified by term called "environmental determination." The six cultures were the Woodland, Southwestern Ontario, Plains, Plateau, Pacific coast and Mackenzi and Yucon Basin. Some of the six cultures had an advantage over the other like the plains people were able to acquire horses which changed their way of life including hunting and traveling. The lecture wrapped up with the European treatment of Indians, which wasn't the greatest, and the Indian policies which evolved into the Assembly of First Nations.

What I though was interesting about the lecture was when the Europeans made first contact with the Indians and how that contact affected the Indians. I wasn't surprised that the Europeans brought diseases with them and infected the Indians. What I was so surprised about was the amount of the population of Indians that were wiped out due to diseases and how it left so many native children orphans because the biggest disease, smallpox, killed mainly the natives of middle-age. Not only were they dying of diseases the Indians were also being forced by the Europeans to assimilate (or their word for it was Enfranchise) and they were losing their land to white settlers. All this treatment towards the Indians is almost exactly how the Americans treated their natives but Canada’s treatment for the Indians improved faster than American's. What also was interesting was the recognition of the Metis as a people in Canada because in America we would never recognize half Native American and half Europeans as a single group of people.

The main focus of lecture one deals with natives of Canada more commonly known as today as First Nations. As lecture has it they are the Inuit and the Metis, but it is not that simple. There are six different cultural groups that make up First Nations peoples and they are recognized by their environment. It is difficult to define them any other way simply because the contrasts between them are so great. There are people from the Woodlands, the Pacific, the McKenzie and Yukon Basins, the Plateau, the Plains, and Southeast Ontario. The important thing to take from each of these geographically defined groups is that they played the hand they were dealt. They would rely on native trees to make canoes and snow shoes, and they would make their clothing from different hides. Some would spend time fishing, or running large numbers of Bison off of a cliff. Things did change when Europeans made their way to the country. One advantage that Plains peoples had was from acquiring horses. It ultimately changed the way that they hunted their prey. One of the disadvantages to the European contact was in fact the European Contact. They brought with them diseases that natives had never seen before which decimated many of these groups of people. The other main point of this lecture was how the Canadian Government dealt with these groups. I will agree with Lipset on this one that they were treated badly on both sides of the border, but Canadians do show them much more respect than we do. This is evident in the Assembly of First Nations in 1969 and Nunavut in 1999. Although Canada tried to assimilate the natives it was only a matter of time before they were recognized as a part of their "mosaic" society. As a side note to that in the first chapter of "Homeland to Hinterland" it was actually to the benefit of the Metis to engage in marital relations with Europeans in order to achieve a greater trade and social status.

I would just like to take a minute to give my two cents on the idea that the Canadian and American Governments were derrived from the Revolution. It is almost like everyone that was on the continent at the time was walking down the same road until it came to a fork. To the left it asked you were sick of your form of government and if you would like more liberty and independence to head this direction, and to the right it asked if you were really satisifed with the way the government was working, or if politics isn't your thing then head this direction. One way you know exactly what to expect, and the other way could be a crap shoot, but you know that it won't be what it was. This choice that everyone made while these countries were in their infancies seemed to hurt one more than the other. Lipset points out that America is recognized for its government and its major military victories. Each year we celebrate days like July 4th, days that are not found on a Canadian calendar. One of Canada's flaws is that it has a hard time in trying to define a national identity. That choice to go above or below the 49th parallel is probably one of the main reasons for it. Everyone that chose to move above the line basically signed up to live in "New Britain," whereas everyone that decided to stay was part of the new democracy. It is really hard to fault a country for that choice that they made some time ago. I suppose that if the United States had developed a similar form of government we would be in the same boat, but it all seems to be linked to those that made that decision. To help Canadian's identify with this they could name one of their Canadian football teams the Northern 49ers.

This has got to be one of the most crucial moments in the history of the Canadian Parliament. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7bkaMAyZAM

I watched my first little clip of "Corner Gas" on Youtube. I must say that it is pretty good. I like the little jokes that the put into the script that don't need to go for the big laughs. What I think is a difference from this show and shows that are in the United States is that there isn't a live studio audience that laughs at the shows while they are being shot. I think that it makes for a better viewing when your watching it at home. The quirky jokes are hiliarious and it's a good show to watch for a little comedy in your life.

Caitlin S.

I watched the movie One Warm Line, the Legacy of Stan Rogers, which was about his music and the role that it played throughout the verious regions of Canada. Within the movie, a person said that even if Stan Rogers never once plowed a field that if he sang a song about farming he became a farmer or even if he had never caught a fish, if he sang about fishing he became a fisherman because he would sing with such passion and emotion that it made him into whatever he sang about. Stan Rogers was admired by many Canadians because of his desire and emphasis about Canada and features of Canada in his music. He died from an accident with an airplane, and this, although tragic, helped to make his music and viewd more desired by other Canadians.

This movie is old (1989), but if you watch it it will make you realize that there are few singers/songwriters/musicians in the United States today that sing with the American passion like how Stan Rogers has done with Canada. I can think of John Cougar Mellencamp, but not many others that have done this here in the U.S. This movie shows that Canadians cherish other Canadians and what they do to uplift each other, which is in important aspect of Canadian culture. Because of this, this type of music in Canada had continued to be successful and probably will be for a while to come.

I found this first lecture extremely interesting. While both Canada and America were very similar when it came to their Indian policies its easy to see that in the future the relations between Canadian Indians with their European neighbors will be very different then those of their American counterparts. This can definitely be seen in the establishment of the Assembly Of First Nations. Another interesting topic was the treatment of the Metis. Before this point I never put much thought into the mix-bloods in America. I have a feeling if i grew up in Canada not only would I know about Metis I would have a much better understanding of the mix-blood culture. The part of the lecture I found the most interesting was in fact the first part. While I understand professor Isern's hesitation in organizing natives based solely on their geographic location I don't think it can be disregarded entirely as a form of organization. An Indian from the Pacific region is not fundamentally different then one from the plains or the plateau. Everything from the mode of transportation to the food they ate was different and was directly affected by their location. The plateau peoples primary food source was salmon, where as the plains people's was bison. Both salmon and bison have cultural significance for both sets of tribes. Also the use of horse's for travel is much more prevalent in the plains then in the forests of the plateaus, while on the pacific coast a young Salish boy would probably learn how to paddle a canoe before they could ride a horse. It is obvious that geography played a large role in shaping tribes and their cultures. That is not to say if a tribe moved from one location to another they could not adapt to their new surroundings, but they would most certainly have to adapt.

Labels: Enter away message text here.

just a quick side note...
I get the idea throughout Continental Divide that Lipset thinks Americans don't trust government. He says it's due to their nature of generally being liberal rebels traced back to the Revolution, but from what I know the whole keeping an eye on government didn't become big until Watergate. Am I wrong to question his ideology or does anybody else see the same thing as questionable?

I recently watched the first episode of the show "Corner Gas" which was created by Brent Butt and also stars as Brent Leory as the owner of the gas station. The story takes place in a Saskatchewan town called Dog River. The characters that are introduced are Brent Leory and his assistant Hank. Along with the cast is Brent's dominating Mother Emma and dim-witted Father Oscar. The main focus of the episode was about the new coffee shop that was in the process of renovation and the town's people were anxiously waiting for the shop to be open so that good coffee would be served again in the town. Once the coffee shop opened to the public by the new owner Lacey, who was the niece of the former owner who died, Hank was not happy with the changes Lacey had made and begins to protest and boycott the shop. The solution was solved by Brent the same way he's always handled situations with Hank when they were younger, he beats him over the head with his poster.

Brent's humor relates to how he handles most situations in his life, casually without much stress and sarcastically. Take for example the pressure his father who is trying to make Brent not rent videos to customers. Instead of Brent arguing with his father about how beneficial renting videos will be for the store Brent just mocks his father's ideas. I would also like to compare this episode to what I've read in Lipset's text, Continental Divide in Lipset's book he says that women are the controlling factor in Canadian family life and in this show Brent's mother Emma really portray that character of a mother who can direct the family. I really like this show. I have a Canadian friend who has said a lot of good things about Corner Gas so I will continue watching and will be commenting on it as this class continues.

The lecture on the First Nations of Canada was a very interesting one. The main points focused on the diversity of the native peoples of Canada, Canadian native policies, and the importance of the native affairs that took place in Canada.
The lecture started out with the Métis, or the mixed blood peoples of Canada. One of the major things here is that they are actually recognized as a separate people in the Canadian constitution, while they are not formally recognized separately here in America.
The other groups of the First Nations are grouped by the region that they live in. This has been a major issue of controversy as it shows the natives as reacting to that land that they live in rather than acting to make the land that they live in work for them. The six groups are the Woodland, Southeastern Ontario, Plains, Plateau, Pacific Coast, and the Mackenzie and Yukon Basins. These groups are all very distinct with the ways that they live. They all have different food sources, ranging from buffalo to fish. Some move around while others stay put. They have different lodgings. Also, they all have different languages.
The Native policy that Canada has had is very similar to that of the United States. In 1830, they established for reserves that they would force the natives to move onto, much like the reservation system of America. Then, in 1857, they moved toward the policy of enfranchisement, or assimilation. They tore families apart and sent the kids to boarding schools. They had numbered treaties that took the land from the native peoples, also known as wardship. In 1951, an act was passed that restored certain cultural rights to the natives, but these were retracted in 1969 when the white paper repealed the act and moved toward assimilation again. The natives eventually started to practice self-determination, fighting the government about the treaty claims, and the Oka crisis. Theses all led to the rise of what is known today as the First Nations.

I just watched the "Corner Gas" last night! I watched all the episodes I could find on youtube.com, sadly in six minuet section... with some sections gone MIA. I really liked the episode with the cell phones. It was entertaining how Sergeant Davis and Brent have this "fight" about which cell phone is smaller. The part in the car where Davis is rambling on about how he thinks his cell phone is average and how people get unrealistic ideas about how small a cell phone should be from the media amused me. I originally thought that the series would be interesting but not something I would love to watch, but I am hooked. Is there anywhere here to rent it? or will I have to start my very own collection via online shopping?
Oh and on a side note...I get really excited about T.V. media because I never had T.V. while I was growing up and I still don't have cable, so I am a little out of the loop on shows and whatnot. Also this was my first experience with youtube.com and wow does that site have tons of random stuff on it. I can imagine that could take up days of time just looking around the site.

Hi everybody I'm Matt Miller ,took awhile I've been sick.

Just finished reading the February 2007 issue of The Walrus. Coincidentally, it features a splendid article on the history of and controversy over Indian residential schools in Canada. It details the background to the $1.9 billion class-action settlement voted by Parliament to settle claims brought by persons abused in the residential school system. It's an amazing article for a national-interest magazine. Here, too, is the website for the agency set up to handle the settlement process: Indian Residential Schools Canada

Hey. My name is Dallas Carlson and I'm from Cavalier, ND. I'm a Junior here at NDSU majoring in Theatre Arts Performance (yes it is a major) and minoring in History. This will be my third class with Professor Isern. I can't wait to read everyone's thoughts.

~Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party!
Robin Williams

Hey. I'm Dallas Carlson and I'm from Cavalier, ND. I'm a Junior here at NDSU and I'm majoring in Theatre Arts Performance (yes it is a real major) and minoring in History. This will be my third class with Professor Isern. I'm looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts.

~Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party!
Robin Williams

After reading the book review on the Continental Divide I'm not really looking forward to reading the book. Jen, if your reading this I was wondering if you could bring me something else to review next class. If you get a chance. Thanks.

The movie Black Robe by director Bruce Beresford was a welcome change from the movies we had to review in the Australia and New Zealand class, it was actually good. I sincerely recommend this movie for people to watch and review.
Its about a Jesuit missionary, Father Laforge, who along with his companion Daniel set out on a perilous journey from a protected French settlement to a Huron mission. They are escorted by a small band of Algonquins who quickly suspect the priest as being a demon, especially after he tries to demonstrate reading and writing to them. The Algonquins are quickly turned off with the idea of the Christian afterlife when they learn that they won't be able to smoke or have women. The movie takes a very violent turn when they are captured and tortured by the Iroquois. The Iriquois chief was played by the same actor that played the warrior chief that hunted for people to be sacrificed in the recent Mel Gibson movie Apocalypto. He is a real intimidating character, but a few escape and they finally reach the Huron mission. Father Laforge makes the last leg of the journey by himself only to find that the Huron village was being ravaged by disease (probably smallpox) and had been decimated. The Huron killed the priest that was already there because of this. Father Laforge eventually convinces them to be baptised which they reluctantly do.
The film had some great backdrop shots of the Canadien wilderness in the fall and winter months. It also showed that Europeans were not the only cruel ones back in those days. Rival tribes would torture prisoners in a very terrible way in order for other groups to fear them.
The movie is extremely violent and at times can be extremly creepy, especially thye medicine man. The movie displayed the good and bad of bothe the Christianity and Native religions at the time. It was a good movie and I hope a lot of people get a chance to review it. If you get it watch it as soon as possible and return it so more people get a chance to report on it.

Checking In.

Hello, everyone. My name is Alice. I am majoring in history. An old friend of mine called Canada "America's hat."

Hey Brock, looks like you're a little late on the Vikings prediction, but hopefully you'll be right in the others, good luck in the semester

Seymour Martin Lipset presents a lot of information in trying to define the Canadian identity in his book, "Continental Divide." Amidst the overburden of facts and statistics he was able to present information that was enlightening in trying to identify Canada. Some of it seemed to be helpful, some hurtful, and some of it was contradictory.
Probably the most hurtful information Lipset stated could be found on page 67 when he describes Canada as having a, "Loser syndrome." Look at many of the nationalities that make up the country. English, French, and Scots are all defeated peoples, the English by the Americans, and the French and Scots by the English. This is a hard thing for many of Americans to stomach, and Lipset identified that. Americans cannot deal with failure and a lot of that is in part to the political and economic systems that are in place-democracy and capitalism. It is the need for success that makes each of those systems work, and to Lipset he almost seemed upset by it because that is the only way that the United States is defined. America is most notably known for its government, its constitution, and military conquest, all of which is lost in Canadian society. Their conservative attitude towards everything including literature and motion pictures sets them apart from the U.S. Their literary work tries to de-emphasize violence and competition whereas the U.S. tries to emphasize it. One thing that Lipset noticed was their comedic style. I thought it was funny when he stated that Canadians were the butt of Canadian jokes and that Canadians were the butt of American jokes, and that it was not to often that Americans would go out of the way to bash themselves.
One positive note that Lipest described was the idea of a "mosaic" society. In Canada there is little push and much recognition of culturally individual peoples, whereas in America there is a stronger push for assimilation even though we deny it. The fact is inevitable that we cannot survive politically and economically if everyone does not speak English. Canada, while identifying two languages (French and English) does not try force its residents to speak either of them. Their government, while odd, is a positive. While maintaining a parliamentary system there is a division between provinces and the crown, a division not clearly seen sometimes in our own society. This is where Lipset gets contradictory of himself. He states that the U.S. is most notably defined for its government and economic systems, but did he not just describe the same instance here? One line to support that can be found on page 201. It states that if you were to give a political sociologist from Mars a list of Canadian election results that they would probably tell you that society is full of unresolved tensions and that the government is on the brink of political collapse, but it’s not. Whatever they are doing up there seems to be working well for them which would boast this awkward governmental style as part of their identity. After reading this text I would like to offer my two cents in defining Canada's identity. They are a mosaic of conservative peaceful peoples that are deferential to government while maintaining a lassiez-faire attitude towards many aspects of everyday life.

I listened to radio Newfoundland and CBC Vancouver last night, to see what type of music and news they had. On Newfoundland radio, most of the songs had to do with the ocean and how the sea affects the people. It was mostly folk songs but they also mixed in some contemporary stuff. What I thought was interesting about this was the fact that each song seemed to be influenced by a geographic location in the area. One song talked about the Atlantic and how it could be dangerous, another one discussed the beauty of the coastlines, etc. On CBC Vancouver, I listened to a local radio station and they discussed some recent headlines in their city. A big story was the charging of a former Tae Kwon Do instructor of sexually assaulting three students. All in all, I found it very interesting to listen to these stations and I will for sure be listening in again over the course of the semester.

Matt Spielman

Hi there I'm Brock Carlson, and I think the Twins will win the World Series, the Vikes will win the Super Bowl, the Wild will win the Cup, and the T-Wolves will win five more games this year.

Later today, or at least soon, I'll pass to Jen my files of the The Walrus, a Canadian magazine of features & commentary, for the use of anyone interested. I'm hanging on to the most recent issue because I'm still reading it. Just finished a lovely article about the election of Stephane Dion as leader of the Liberal Party. I guess I like it because it sings my song--arguing that the Liberal Party, currently out of power, is in search of a better story to tell in order to define itself and Canada: "There was much talk of narrative in the Liberal camp. . . . The Liberals hadn't needed a story for some time, borne as they were by benevolent historical forces, by their populist appeal to everyman, and by the splintering of the conservative vote. But now the Conservatives had a narrative. 'Mr. Harper's [Conservative Prime Minister Stephan Harper's] narrative is a bad story for Canada,' Ignatieff [unsuccessful candidate for Liberal leadership] said. 'Beating Mr. Harper means defeating his narrative.'"

Howdy, im Stephen.

Hi. I'm Monnie Knapp and I am an anthropology major with a minors in history and english. I decided to take this course because I realize just how little I really know about Canada and would like to remedy the situation. Another reason, I suppose, is my current obsession with the Canadian TV program "Trailer Park Boys." If anyone is interested in an incredibly funny but decidedly vulger comedy, this show is something you should check out.

Hello, I am Kurt Easterday. I am a history and social science education major in my 4th year.

Hi, my name is Mark Casler. I am a senior and a political science major and a history minor.

Hey,

My name is Pat Miller and I am a History/Philosophy major and I thought this class sounded interesting. I really have nothing else to say.

Bye,

Pat

Hello,

i am going to move to canada, so i thought this class would be appropriate.

bye,

Donald Goldammer

I just watched the first episode of the hit Canadian television series "Corner Gas." The show is set in the small Saskatchewan town of Dog River where the characters live a quiet, rural lifestyle. Like all good sitcoms, the comedic genius of the situation comes from the good-hearted verbal jousts that the characters carry out in every scene. The main characters of "Corner Gas" of are: Brent Leroy (played by creator Brent Butt), his bumbling friend Hank Yarbo, the gas station assistant Wanda Dollard, and Brent's ridiculously laughable parents Oscar and Emma Leroy. The town's two hilarious police officers are Sergeant Davis Quinton and Constable Karen Pelly. Rounding out the main cast, and one of the major player's in the first episode, is town newcomer Lacey Burrows.
The beginning of the episode is just a peek into the sharp-witted comedy that ensues. In the very first scene an out-of-towner stops to fill up his tank and comments on how flat Saskatchewan is and how there is nothing to see. Hank responds with "there's lots to see, nothing to block your view." Brent follows sarcastically by saying that he "could have sworn that there was a big mountain range...juttin' up into the sky, all purple and majestic." At first it makes the viewer wonder if these small-town people are really that naive but one soon realizes that the sequence is dripping with pure sarcasm.
The episode cheerfully goes through a variety of scenes including, but not limited to: the officers arguing over which one of the two police cruiser's is "car one" and which is "car two," "egging" the local newspaper for an inaccurate article, and Hank picketing the coffee shop because the walls were painted pink in the remodeling process. The show's only weakness, which ironically may even add to its charm, is that it is definetely low budget. Besides being very entertaining, the main strength of Corner Gas is that it successfully demonstrates the small town values of rural Saskatchewan through (or perhaps "of") wit and humor. This humor demonstrates to us (American students of Canadian history) a method in which Canadians define themselves by highlighting some of the comical absurdities of everday Canadian life.

Hey Everybody! I was looking at some of the suggestions for film reviews and I decided to see if any of them were posted on youtube.com. Here is the URL to an episode of the top rated Canadian sitcom "Corner Gas" entitled "Ruby Reborn:" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B76DD4CA6E5C85C0. You can click "play all" in the right hand corner and it will play through continuously. There are many other episodes of this show on youtube also, you just have to do some digging...

The calendar for the course now is posted and linked at left. Take a look and see if anything seems amiss. Likely I'll post some revised lecture study pages before I see you in class. There are lots of other things to get into order, too, so I'll keep you posted. The course is undergoing considerable revision this semester.

Hello, my name is Billy Harris, and I am a history ed major(senior).

Hello my fellow bloggers. My name is Willy Devorak. This is my fifth year at NDSU. I am majoring in Political Science with a History minor. I took this class not only to fullfill my minor requirements but also to learn a little more about our friends to the north.

Hi my name is Scott Doheny and I'm a 4th year student. My major is Pre-pharmacy and I'm taking History of Canada because I just have an interest in knowing Canada's history...and I needed another class to be full time.

Hello, I'm Emily Eidsmoe. I'm glad I get the opportunity to take this class. I know very little about Canada. One day I hope to explore Canada in the winter time, snowshoeing and dogsledding as far north as possible.

I'm also president of History Club and Phi Alpha Theta. If you are interested in either of those, let me know!

All right, I see some of you are introducing yourselves in the weblog, that's great. Everyone else, if you haven't yet activated your membership, please do so. You should have received an e-mail about this; if not, or if you're having a problem with it, contact Jen Wilkie: wilkie@plainsfolk.com

Once you're activated, then go ahead and post an introduction of yourself, OK?

Thanks--see you next Tuesday.

Hi. My name is Jaclynn Wallette. I'm not a history major or minor. I'm taking the course because I am interested in Canada and it's relationship to the US and others. I have many Canadian friends, and I look forward to discussing the topics covered in this course with them.

Finally on the home stretch. My name is Erik Walker and this is my fifth year here at NDSU. I am majoring in architecture and I will be part of the first class to graduate with a Masters of Architecture. Barring major disaster I will be graduating in May with that degree and, if all goes well, a Bachelors of History as well. But for now it's time to do work.

My name is Josiah Lilligren and hopefully this will be my last semester as an undergraduate (yippy skippy). Not sure where to begin, but I was born in Chicago and over the years have gradually moved out from the urban bustle to a more rural area near Sandstone, Minnesota. As for my interests, I enjoy a good book here or there but my favorites will always be in either philosophy or history (Eric Hoffer's True Believer is a must read or if you're lucky get your hands on Between the Devil and Dragon also).

For the sake of not sounding too much like a personal ad, I'll leave you with quote from Eric Hoffer to ponder:

"In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that