Club Car

I just read a couple of articles in both the April 2007 and February 2007 issues of the magazine The Walrus. The Walrus seems to be a magazine similar to Time or Newsweek but with more human interest stories then topical ones. The magazine covers general topics, everything from reporters embedding into army units, to the poor quality of education on Indian Reservations, to Pine Beetles to the High Tech industry and its effect on people today. These general human interest stories seem to be written in a somewhat laid back style and directed to the general public. I think sometimes articles in American magazines maybe written to a specific elite portion of the population. There are a lot of articles in those magazines about money management, politics, or the economy. All things that may not be of interest to the average citizen. The Walrus on the other hand seemed to have articles that concerned everyone, if they're not necessarily affected by the article, but it was at least somewhat interesting to them. As a college student, the pine beetles effect on logging towns in Canada obviously doesn't really play a large role in my life, however when i read the article it was still very interesting to me. I feel like in a TIME magazine article this would not have happened.
The one article i found the most interesting personally was the one about news reports straining to stay objective while embedded in Canadian army units in Afghanistan. The article was eye-opening as it must be hard for them to remain objective when they depend on the soldiers to keep them safe. It may be my opinion but i think its shared by many that the media is extremely liberal and we may sometimes get a distorted view of the war. Because of this feeling it always seemed that a reporter in an army unit was simply a silent observer writing what he or she wanted to. However, this article really showed the true dynamic of their relation ship. Another thing i found interesting was the fact that not until the very end of the article did the author ever mention anything about the United States being involved in the war. I found this peculiar since we seem to be leading the charge there, but from this writing one might think Canada was acting alone, and if not alone most certainly America isn't there. This i think, shows a true Canadian pride and desire for separation from the United States. That is to say, they don't want it to seem that they are doing everything the U.S. is doing just because the U.S. is doing it. They have their own reasons and their own army that they are controlling. They are thinking and acting on their own.

Black Robe takes place in Quebec in the early 1600s, and deals with the quest of a Jesuit Priest, Father LaForge, travelling over a thousand miles from Quebec to a Huron village to convert the Natives and spread French culture across New France. Father LaForge has with him a hired band of Algonquin Indians to guide him through the lands. This was really a well put together movie because it made you think. Father LaForge was trained in France, and living over there gave him a completely different picture and concept of what New France was. At the same time, the Natives had a completely different concept of what Europeans were really like. The key here is that in Europe, these Native Americans were portrayed as savages, and in Native cultures, the Natives saw these missionaries as coming to take away their way of life and soul. Obviously, each believed their own way was the best.
There are many problems the group faces along the way to the Huron village, and each one seems worse than the last. Father LaForge, beginning to question his faith, is eventually befriended by his guides, who call him a demon. After a witch doctor confirms he is indeed a demon, they abandon him completely. Father LaForge eventually makes it to this Huron village, but European disease beat him there. The Natives there do eventually convert to Christianity hoping that it will save their lives and village altogether.
I found some conflict in the movie to make little or no sense to me. Daniel, Father LaForge’s closest guide, argues that his religion makes more sense than Christianity. To me, an uneducated 17th century man such as Daniel could have an opinion, and stick up for his culture’s beliefs, but probably wouldn’t argue such a thing, at least the way he did. The movie did, however, highlight the difficulty in such a thing, converting different Native peoples to one universal faith, with language, culture, and core beliefs all coming into play.

Lecture 8 was about the evolution of Quebec's role in Canadian confederation and the state of the country's Francophone population. In 1891, one-fifth of the Canadian population were native French speakers but many of them did not move west when the prairies were opened for settlement. There are a variety of resons for this, one being that the need to preserve Quebec culture in the presence of a large English majority led to many Quebecois staying in their own province. Many Francophones also moved directly south into large American cities like Boston and New York where work was readily available. Near the turn of the twentieth century laws were passed by other provinces to limit the amount of French that could be spoken in schools. When Duplesse came to power in Quebec he set in motion a variety of reforms that would be known as the "Quiet Revolution." The revolutions goal was mold Quebec into more of a nation state where, unlike its previous history, the province would be a secular society, free from church domination. Many Quebecois leaders wrote-off Francophone populations outside of Quebec in the 1960s because the need to foster French identity inside of the province was more urgent. When Trudeau came to power the Quiet Revolution had become more aggressive and Premier Levesque began to pursue soveriengty. The Parti Quebecois was a strong party by the 1970s and was able to capture the government in 1976. The Parti made French the only publicly displayable language in the province. With the failure of the Meech Lake meeting, the Bloc Quebecois was formed to pursue sovereignty. It was defeated in a 1995 referendum by less than one percent.


I find the existence of Quebec to be very interesting. Most Western nations have nothing like it and its existence has been both a boon to Canadian multiculturalism and an impediment to national solidarity. I think that it will be interesting to see what happens to the idea of Quebec sovereignty over the coming years as it might resurface as a major Canadian issue. I would like to know more about the Quebec perception of First Nations peoples and if it differs any from that of Anglophone Canadians. Also, do they share the same socialist monarchy beliefs in government that are present in the UK and Anglo-Canada or are they more politically compatible with France?

I read the December/Jaunary 2006 and the July/August 2006 issues of the Walrus. This is a magazine that is intended for educated Canadians who want to learn abit more about different aspects of Canada and the world. It is similar to Newsweek in the US. It has columnists, feature stories on Canada and other areas of the world, an arts and culture section, and lastly they always include some form of fiction or in one of the issues I read, memoirs. I enjoyed reading these two issues more than I thought I would. In the December issue I read there were several stories I found to intriguing. First of all in each issue there is a section titled 'Field Notes". This contains short news reports of events happening in other countries. I found the story "The Greater Goal" to be pretty cool. This was about soccer players in Freetown, Siera Leone who are amputees. It told about how playing soccer has helped their rehabilitaion as well as their economic and family situations. There was also an essay "America the Beautiful". Don Gilmour tells story after story about different experiences he has had while traveling throughout the US. He also disscusses the relationship between Canada and US (it isn't so perfect after all), and how the US is not as wonderful as everyone thinks it is. In the July issue I found the story " The Long Walk of the Kuchi" fascinating. It described the lifestyles of the Kuchi, a nomadic people, living in Afghanistan and also mentioned how they have been treated by the Afghanistan government. Both issues did have issues relevant to Canada as well. The December issue had a column on a mans attempt to learn ice skating for the first time at 62. Throughout the article it became clear how much hockey really is a national pastime for Canadians. In the other issue I read there was an article questioning whether the Canadian government had overstepped its boundries it trying to prevent terrorism. This described the torture of one Canadian man held in Syria. The article talked about the US's terrorism legislatures and how Canada was perhaps creating similar legislature due to pressure from the US.

During “The French Fact” lecture, we learned that Anglo and French Canada relations have been strained over the years. The straining of relations has evidently carried on into the current generation of young people in Canada. In early 2004, Conan O’Brien decided to do his show “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” in Toronto for a week. During this time, one of his shows had a comedy sketch featuring a character named “Triumph the Insult Comic Dog,” who was a puppet who went around Quebec City talking to Canadians and insulting them. When one couple confirmed they were French Canadian separatists, the grouchy puppet said, "Listen closely. Hear that? It's the sound of no one giving a," followed by an expletive bleep. This sketch became controversial for Conan as it was loudly decried by members of the Canadian Parliament as Canadian taxpayer money partially funded the trip.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-02-17-conan-insults-canadians_x.htm

Lecture 8 is titled a Socialist Monarchy and is about the governmental approaches of Canada's political parties, the creation of the welfare state, and multiculturalism. The lesson began with a mention of Lipset and the differences between the U.S. and Canada. In Canada the overall welfare of society is most important as opposed to the American model where the government is best which governs least. The general Canadian consensus to the role of government is that the state is a friend, not a problem and the state can pursue both development and social justice without eliminating the individual. Saskatchewan was instrumental in the forming of the welfare state in the early 20th century because of agrarian radicalism that stressed farm cooperation and the formation of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. While the Great Deppression influenced FDR's creation of the New Deal, Canada was slower to respond (with the exception of the Wheat Board) and public welfare programs really did not get going until the 1940s. Universal health care, the sector of the welfare state that Canada is most widely known for, began in the 1940s and was nationally accepted in 1961 when Quebec approved coverage. Canadian health care ranks above the U.S. according to WHO statistics and has a higher public approval rate than its neighbors below the 48th parallel. Universities are somewhat of a hybrid between the German and English models and play a less visible role in Canadian society than thier American counterparts. Canada also funds multicultural programs to preserve the ideal of a mosaic. Multiculturalism is fundamental to Canadian identity as seen by the large immigrant population.


I had always wondered why Canadian universities do not have high-profile athletics and now I know! The existance of universal health care is also a very intriguing study because it is a manifestation of Canada's deidication to the health of society as opposed to American individualism. I would like to know more about the Socialist roots in Saskatchewan. Since the province is overwhelmingly agrarian was the movement more of the anarchist nature or were their ideals more in line with those of Marx and the urban proleteriat? Or, maybe something totally different... That seems like an interesting area to explore.

Last weekends trip to Winnipeg was a good time. I had been to Winnipeg twice before but never with the intention of visiting some of the city's most historic sites. I enjoyed the Manitoba Museum and I think that their way of presenting the province's history in a scientific/anthropological manner. Dr. Shepard's knowledge of all things Manitoba was very immpressive, to say the least. Saint Boniface was also an interesting neighborhood and seeing signs written in French made me feel like I was "really" in Canada.


I think the next time I visit the Winnipeg area I'll try to get out into the country a little bit. It would be fun to visit great to visit some of the Francophone small towns and Mennonite areas. Also, I heard from some Canadians that Lake WInnipeg on Boxer Day is supposed to be a great time. Maybe I'll have to check it out...

Pierre Berton's book Why We Act Like Canadians: A Personnal Exploration of our National Character is exactly that. An attempt by Berton through letters to his American friend "Sam" to explain why Canadians act the way they do, or more specifically why they act so differently than Americans. Berton being a winner of three Governor General Awards for non-fiction whose hometown is in Ontario seemed like a good candidate to attempt to explain this phenomenon.
Berton starts his explanation by trying to solve the puzzle of free trade. He begins by stating that no one in Canada, not even the Prime Minister himself, knows exactly what free trade is. The fear of free trade in Canada is based upon the assumption that free trade with American eventually means takeover. The greater amount of production in America would flood the Canadian markets with American goods and would help both economies, but support for free trade eroded and Canadians came to grips with the fact they they are willing to pay a few dollars more to live in a small, peaceable, and less cutthroat nation. Berton next point was one that our class has mentioned many times but the difference between peace order and good government, versus our american life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This point is proven by Berton through examples of the Canadian versus the American west. The Klondike gold rush that is a huge part of both American and Canadian history has two distinct sides, one American with its rule by the people and make-shift governments with the power to hang men, and another side Canadian, that always turned back to its government for rule and order. This order almost always was maintained by the Royal Mounted Police the focus of Berton's next point, how the power of the Mounties was totally different than that of the western lawmen, but in some ways totally superior. The use of force was frowned upon by Canadians and this was reflected by the mounties almost complete lack of violence, yet unlike their American cousins the Mounties are a unending symbol of strength on the Canadian frontier that to this day is a symbol of Canada's love of peace and strong government. Berton's next point of difference was the Canadian Loyalty to their British mother. In America we saw Britian as our overbearing rulers but in Canada Britian is seen as the source of power that is needed to run a strong country, this is why during the revolution many "tories" traveled north where they didnt have to oppose the British Government or be outcasts. The next difference Berton points to is the multicultural aspects of Canadian culture. The example Berton gives is how Canadian gentleman often wore kilts to parties. This showed a subliminal support for the Scottish immigrants that came to Canada, with their quiet, sober, hardworking ways that have become an ideal in the nation which prides itself on being less flashy but with more substance underneath the flash. The last example Berton points to is the harsh climate and topography of Canada. The cold and barren landscape that is a source of pride and identity for the entire nation of Canada. Berton states that even in the biggest cities of Canada, the wilderness is always tapping at the door which accounts for the closed door and often more private nature of the Canadian people. The shield with its jagged rocks and nearly totally barren landscape has finally become a source of pride for Canadians in the current day and age of airplanes and cars that allow people to travel across it. Before what was a barrier that few could cross is now the topic of art and books and a part of what makes the nations people distinctly Canadian.
This book helped drive home alot of points i feel we have learned throughout this class. Canadians although outwardly similar are distinctly different from Americans and they take pride in that. From the very beginning of both nations two paths were set that diverged for many different reasons and have created two totally different government, social , and religious systems. These different systems have changed the people that live within them to the point that in a social setting a person with even a slightly discerning eye could tell the difference between the two. One story of Berton's stood out to me as one that explains the book, the quintessential difference between our two peoples, and basically this entire class. Berton's daughter had a well traveled Swiss landlady who once remarked that she could always tell a Canadian from an American, "because an American acts as if he is at home wherever he goes, a Canadian always acts as a guest."

This book basically recaps what we have covered in class. The book begins by describing how that to most Americans, Canada is merely a blank spot on the map north of the 49th parallel. Burt also says that Canadians know much more about Americans than vice versa. The book begins with the settlement of New France by Samuel Champlain. Burt goes on to claim that the colony was ignored by France, and somewhat neglected. Next he moves on to describe the fall of New France into British hands. During the American Revolution, Burt describes that Canada missed falling into American hands several times. Next it focuses on the fur trade, and describes the competition between the North-West Company and Hudson’s Bay. Burt claims that the North West Company was behind the Seven Oaks Massacre in an effort to destroy the Selkirk Colony. He writes that the Metis were persuaded by the company to raid the colony. Whether that’s true or not make the massacre a bit more interesting. The book moves on to describe the growth of British North America, and the creation of the Dominion. The Dominion was created to basically keep the US from annexing any part of western Canada. Next it describes how Canada is governed, and then how the national railroad served to unite the country. The book ends with a description on how Canada managed to survive the Great Depression, and how they have stood in foreign affairs.
This book interested me because it was written during World War II, to educate Americans about their northern ally. One interesting thing I found in the book was that Canada actually declared war on Germany all by itself in World War II. I thought that all of the British Empire just joined Britain blindly in whatever it did. Another interesting fact was that the British Parliament had the right, under the British North America Act, to veto any act the Canadian Parliament passes. That probably played into the decision to create their own constitution in the 1980s.

Lecture 9 talked about the history of Quebec. I was quite surprised by the things that transpired during this lecture. The beginning sections talked about the clash and conflict of the two langugaes and cultures: French and English. It is true that the country had 2 national languages. This is sort of a sign of trouble and a cry for help in my opinion. You can't really have two languages or even currency for that matter because it causes people to pick between the two. If we had dollars and pounds as our currency, you could bet that there would be places that would take favoritism upon one form of currency. I would be inclined to choose between the two as well. This is what happened in Quebec with their languages. The area that hit home the worst was in the public schools. Imagine being a teacher and having to teach two langugaes. My mom teaches 1st grade and some kids need more help with one language. Now imagine two. Nightmare. Hench the language frontier. In the US, we had adopted an anti-foreign language attitude towards all things that came from other countries. This attitude was slowly starting to drift north. In 1916, Canada did away with multilingual schools. This was sort of a part of the Quiet Revolution that would soon come. The whole attitude and feeling that was going on was that of trying to find the happy-medium in a place where the majority of the population was French, and the majority of the countries around them were not. This Quiet Revolution really opened up a lot of people's eyes toward how Quebec viewed themselves and how they wanted to be viewed. What really surprised me was the 200 bombings that took place. This is Canada we are talking about! Never thought I would see anyone do that and to that extent. Once again, this was a fun lecture and a little more informative than most. I really enjoyed being outside and not getting heat stroke in the sauna.

Lecture 8 was entitled 'A Socialist Monarchy'. The lecture talked about the socialist programs and aspects of Canada, and sort of compared the US and Canada in that aspect. The lecture talked about how their is a different view of the government in both countries. Canadians think that they have one of best governments/government systems in the world, and here in the US, we live by the phrase: "That government is best which governs least." This is quite an interesting phrase. It is weird to think that we, as Americans, can up with this amazing government which has had the least amount of reforms by far, and we like to have the government keep it's nose out of our business unless things are going wrong. I guess that is just the American spirit and attitude. Just boggles my mind. This ideology sort of drifts over into the topic of health care. In Canada, they have such a different way of looking at things, and surprisingly they share the same system as England, which I found out when I was there. Basically if you are sick, you go to the doctor, maybe wait a in a long line, they help you out, then you go home. There is way less paperwork involved in Canada. I can see the good points and bad points of both sides. The bad would be the taxes that contributed toward health care. Everyone has to contribute toward health care. Let'e say you were a very healthy person who got sick, at most, maybe 1 time a year, maybe 0 times. Also, let's say this pattern continues for about 20 years. Well all that time you have been paying for other sick people and not for your-healthly-self. I guess I wouldn't want to pay as much for people I don't know. But then again, I guess it would catch up with you when you get older and have a much higher chance of being very sick. Anyway, the lecture goes on to talk about the university system in Canada. We had a biology teacher in high school who retired to go and teach/go back to school at the Univeristy of Calgary. I was kinda surprised that there was a school up there and that he would even go up there. Then I began to think about all the high schools right across the border and how we never heard any news about them be it good or bad or sportswise or anything. It justs seems like we had a 'keep out of each other's hair' type policy. All in all, another good lecture. I really enjoyed the aspects of multiculturalism when speaking about Canada.

"The Barbarian Invasions" is about the ending of the life of a college history professor named Rémy. Rémy has terminal cancer and is stationed in a Quebec hospital where he is expected to die soon. Rémy has a daughter and a son named Sébastien, Rémy and Sébastien don't get along because they are both stubborn people and each feel they have failed each other. Sébastien offers to his father a place to die in Baltimore where he won't suffer from any pain, Rémy refused saying that he'd rather die here in Canada with his friends. Sébastien does his best to make his father's last few weeks pleasant so he bribes the administration in the hospital to let him use the whole downstairs of the hospital for his father and he gathers all of Rémy’s closest friends to visit with him. Also, to make his father's pain manageable he gets the help of his father's mistress' daughter to buy him heroin. Most of the movie deals with the life Rémy has lived; as a historian, his sexual encounters and his life's work.

This movie was very good I enjoyed the way the plot unfolded and how the story ended. Rémy died the way most people would like to die, with friends and all burnt bridges extinguished. The beginning of the movie didn't paint a good picture of Canada's health care system. There were many people put outside in the hallway and there was construction going on there also so wires were hanging all over the place. Also Sébastien’s ability to bribe both the administration and union to use the bottom part of the hospital shows that they can be easily corrupted. From class I don't think that those images from the movie are in most of the minds of Canadians, since they have such a high satisfaction rating for their health care. The movie was very good and would recommend people to watch it.

Lecture 9 dealt with the Quebec issue. We talked about the history of Quebec and many of the various political issues and the different feelings that Canadians have about the issue of separation. We also talked about how voting had been turned down and defeated in the past with a Métis vote being the deciding factor that kept Quebec as a province of Canada instead of separating. There was also talk about some of the political leaders and their views and comments and how they have helped to sway decisions of voters during the separation vote(s). However, I think the most important feature that Dr. Isern discussed was the overall question of “is Canada better off with Quebec as it is right now?”

My answer to that question is yes, Canada is better with Quebec as part of its country. I understand that having citizens of the country that are not happy is not a good thing, but every country has citizens that are not happy. If Quebec were to become its own country, then Canada would be a geographically divided country, and that would not be a good thing to have. Quebec is a major part of Canada economically, historically, politically, and in many other facets, and it is important that just because they are of French heritage, they should always be part of Canada. After all, Canada prides itself on being multicultural, and if you took that away, it would drastically change the view and image of Canada, which is something that Canada does not want.

Lecture 8 talked about the socialist monarchy of Canada. The main topic that was discussed was the universal health care and the fact that Canadians believe that “the state is a friend, not a problem.” This has led to the majority of Canadians believing that their style and type of health care is the best in the world. The rural demands and class appeal is what called for this idea, and it is still working to this day. The depression was also talked about with its role in the welfare state, specifically with how it led to the progressive tax system, unemployment insurance of 1940, the unions right to organize in 1943, family allowances in 1944, and the experimentation of other crops on the plains which helped to improve and diversify the agricultural economy of the plains provinces and the rest of Canada. We also talked about the universities and how there are fewer students but lower costs. Multiculturalism in Canada is a trait that everyone has, one were everyone believes everyone else is equal, and this is shown with the official advent of multiculturalism in Canada.

I was very interested in this lecture because of the range of topics that were covered. I agree that the depression helped Canada to become more agriculturally diverse on the plains. I also was surprised to find out about the Canadian university system, but it isn’t as surprising after I think about it. However, I’m in a big disagreement about the universal health care. I would hate to have to pay for health care every time I buy something knowing that if I am not sick, my contribution goes to someone else. Furthermore, I would not like waiting for long amounts of time in order to get looked or to have a surgery.

Lecture nine called The French Fact talks about French people and how they were part if Canada’s founding people. Quebec where most the French people reside fallowed its own path to be a part of Canada in a way, although they still try to claim that they are their own country or want to be. Issues came up between the two dominate cultures the British and the French. There were points where there was turmoil. However in the end, they were able to come to agreements that make Quebec what it is today in the Canadian society. The French, having been able to keep their voice in Canada accounts for the fact that French is part of the language in Canada and that everything seems to be bilingual. Schools were a big issue in the earlier times and did cause a problem within Quebec and surrounding providences. Luckily with Bill 63 in 1969 things began to pan out and with the rise of the Part Quebecois soon the Union Nationale would fall to help with the French ideals. Things like the quite rebellion did make things a little less peaceful however things were quickly straightened out.
I am actually just reading Quebec society and found a lot of this within the book and it did help to give a little more insight into the Francophone culture within Canada. I would suggest if anyone is interested in a more in depth background of Quebec and the French rise to read this book!

This is the first time I have watched Corner Gas, and even though I hadn't seen it before, I didn't find it too difficult to follow the plot lines and the character interactions. I only watched the first three episodes of the season, but I did enjoy what I watched. The first episode I watched was "The Brent Effect". There were several things I liked about this episode, first of all it gave me a glimpse into each character so I could see who they were meant to be. Second I enjoyed the plot line about how because they were in a small town, the girls had lowered their standards on what makes a guy attractive. I found this to be funny, especially because they had Lacey convinced that Brett was really attractive and out of her league so to speak, when none of the others ladies in town thought so. The second episode was "Wedding Card". In this episode Oscar and Emma hide the fact that they eloped by making everyone believe they are not married. This is the episode where I noticed some Canadian cultural references. The first one was that Hank and Brent were fighting over a Darryl Sittler hockey rookie card. This was different from the US in that most Americans collect baseball cards instead. The second one was their reference to stag and stagette parties. This is what the Canadians call their bachelor and bachelorette parties. The third episode was "Smell of Freedom". This episode wasn't as interesting as the first two I watched, but it was entertaining in the end. The main point of this episode is that Davis regains his sense of smell, and wishes he didn't, and also that it shows that Brent isn't in touch with his town or know what his friends are like.

Overall this was a pretty good show. It didn't require thinking and was funny most of the time. There wasn't a whole lot of things that jumped out at me as Canadian cultural aspects, but there were a few like I mentioned above. It is a good show to watch when you want a little break from studying or just want to watch something funny.

MR: the Walrus

I read the May and February 2005 issues of the walrus. After I read the May issue two articles really got my attention, and I found them very interesting. The first article was one about sushi. I however, am not a huge fan of the stuff, but I have tried it. The article explained how it came to North America and it has a little history of it. I found it very helpful because it has a full page spread of a table of sushi, and it explains what everything is on it. It explains what the green wasabi is and what it is used for. It also shows some examples of a few rolls. The second article that I found interesting was one about one about documentaries and how they are taking over Hollywood. I would have to agree with this article because it does seem like there are a lot of documentaries out nowadays. The article talks about some of the more recent films and even goes back and talks about Nanook of the North. I personally enjoy documentaries if they are well done and non biased, so I especially enjoyed this article.
The February issue of the Walrus also had two articles that I found interesting. The first article I likes was one about large caskets. I found this article interesting because I am in a death and dying class this semester and it relates very well to that class. North America is getting bigger, and its people are getting bigger too. So Goliath Casket Company makes large caskets for obese people. I never thought about the need for a larger casket, but I'm sure there is a need for them. And the second article I liked was one about the history of the toothbrush. It was a short article and I’m sure it was used just for filler but I enjoyed it. It showed a pictorial timeline of the toothbrush and how it progressed. It has come along way, from bone to battery operated spinning brushes. What will the next advancement in toothbrush technology be?
I enjoy reading the Walrus because it covers such a wide variety of material and it never gets boring. I would suggest the magazine to everyone in the class.

This lecture was titled The French Fact and focused on French issues in Canada. In Canada the English and French are called the two founding peoples which makes Canada officially and unofficially multicultural. There are points of contention between the two founding peoples, including protection of the French language and the schools.

As time has passed French-Canadian have become a minority that is geographically confined. Quebec is the only province French people make up the majority. This meant that Francophones where having a hard time keeping their co-equal status.

The quiet revolution in the 1960s was a response to Quebec's people feeling more threatened by English-Canadian. Eventually there were two referendums where Quebec voted on whether to leave Canada. Both failed, the last one by a very small margin, and Canada has been kept complete.

I liked this lecture not only because it was outside, but it explained some topics discussed in the Mann book in more detail. I now have a pretty good idea about why the referendums failed and how Canada struggles with its multicultural status.

In lecture on Thursday, I thought that it was interesting that the French-Canadians are fiercly loyal to the idea that they are French in Canada, but they really don't have a lot of connections to France itself. I think that it was pretty interesting that a lot of French-Canadians are most comfortable in Canada, rather than in France.

This lecture was about the Socialist Monarchy in Canada. A lot of the lecture focused on Canadian healthcare and Canada's pride in being one of the last western democracy's that still is a welfare state. Canada has three prevailing view of the welfare state. The Tories believe that the state should serve development, the Social Democrats believe the state should take care of it citizens, and the Red Tories believe in helping those that cannot help themselves. While these view sound very much the same, they are fundamentally different.

Canada didn't become a welfare state until during WWII. This was because everything was changing so fast during the war that action had to be taken quickly and decisevely to keep everything together and functioning. Universal healthcare was finalized in 1961. The healthcare movement started in Saskatewan and is still led by them today.

Universities in Canada are similar and different to American universities. They are are mix of the English and German models. This sounded very confusing to me and seemed like it would cause a lot of extra work for students and a lot of miscommunications between colleagues.

This was an interesting lecture. I especially enjoyed learning about the difference in universities. In talking about universal healthcare it sounded like it could be an okay thing, but I'm pretty sure that I would hate it.

I watched Trailer Park Boys, Season 1. This show is about the people who live in a Canadian trailer park. Julian and Ricky are the main characters and at the start of the show they both are being released from jail. Julian goes back to his trailer, but Ricky has to live in his car. These guys are best friends and Julian is always getting Ricky out of trouble. Ricky is always trying to find some way to make a quick buck rather than honest work. Some of these ways are by growing and selling weed, stealing and making a trailer park porno that will be sold in Russia. Needless to say none of these ways get him any money and he ends up worse than where he started.
There is also the Park manager, Mr. Lahey, who used to be a cop, and he always trying to catch Ricky doing something wrong so he can get him kicked out of the trailer park. He is always patrolling the park and harassing Ricky and Julian which makes for some funny moments.
One thing that I caught onto in the 2nd episode was that Ricky's girlfriend, with whom he has a child, is named Lucy. Ricky and Lucy, like from I Love Lucy. I don't know if this is some kind of coincidence or maybe the writers like the show. Either way, I thought it was interesting.
The way this show was shot reminds me of Reno 911, a kind of comedy of errors with goofy characters and weird situations. It also is how the stereotypical trailer park life is portrayed. This makes for some entertaining television. I recommend this show for entertainment purposes, however, there is adult language and situations, so if you are easily offended don't watch.

I read the September and October 2006 issues of The Walrus. The Walrus is a general interest magazine that is targeted at mature upper class people. This magazine is very classy for lack of a better word and could be seen as a sort of higher end Newsweek.

The first article I read was on the Historian Paul Chiasson's claim that he has discovered an ancient Chinese settlement on Cape Brenton. I wish they would have put a small map of where Cape Brenton is located or at least said where it is because I have no idea. Chiasson believes that Chinese people had come and briefly settled in North America long ago. He is the only one who belives this though, as others say his so called artifacts are leftovers of mineral exploration in the late 1980s.

The next article was about an Anglophone DJ in Montreal and how he is becoming quite popular becuase he is willing to learn the French language. This DJ's show is one of the most popluar shows on the airwaves even though it is mostly in English. Listeners tune in to hear the DJ struggle when trying to speak French phrases.

The last article I looked at was about what Alberta mean to the rest of Canada and how that relasionship is working. This is a very controversial issue with some people in Alberta wanting to keep their resources to themselves while other what those resources shared with the rest of Canada.

Corner Gas is set in the small town of Dog River Saskatchewan and focuses on the lives of the very ordinary people that live there. I'll focus of my three favorite episodes of the ones that I watched. One episode focuses on how Wanda dresses for work. One day she decides to wear a skirt and suddenly Brent in putty in her hands. For me the best episode I watched was about Brent and how he takes his vacations. Brent vacations by sitting in a lawn chair 50ft from his gas station and sending postcards to his friends that say he is in very exotic locals. Everyone accepts this as normal except the recent transfer from Toroto, Lacey, who thinks Brent is mentally unbalanced. Another episode focuses on Brent in his mom and how they are trying to stop drinking coffee and knitting respectively. They have a bet with one another, and it is funny how far they will go to win. Eventually, Brent's mom caves and continues knitting because she can't stand to listen to Brent's father anymore.

My roomates and I really enjoyed watching Corner Gas. It isn't an adrenaline rush and there are absolutely no special effects in the show which makes it refreshing and different. It is also very funny and focuses of the lives of everyday people. The only thing that could be seen as bad is that there is no continuing story line from episode to episode.

I read two issues of the Walrus from March and April 2006. In an article in the March issue titled "Repress Yourself," it discusses what personal information people should share and what should be kept private. It doesn't necessarily say but it discusses how nothing is very private anymore because of blogs and reality tv. The article says to try googling phrases like "I hate my mom" and see how many things pop up. I tried that out of curiousity and it was disturbing. There was so many results saying mean things. It's hard to decide if this is a good or bad thing. It is personal information but I think for people dealing with stuff it would be nice to know you're not the only one. Another article in this issue was about pornography. It said that Ron Jeremy made over 1800 hard core films. Out of curiousity I did the math and doing one film a day that would take about five years. In the April issue, there is a fictional article about taking insurance out on your insurance policy. I found it amusing because it's kind of close to being a reality. I like the pictures and art in The Walrus. I also like the advertisements. It's different than American magazines but not so different that I don't understand. Everything within this magazine is so different. It's articles vary greatly on topics. There is a lot of art and news. Some of the advertising is really amusing.

I read First Man West- Alexander Mackenzie's Journal of His Voyage to the Pacific Coast of Canada in 1793, edited by Walter Sheppe. The book starts with a very long prologue by the editor. The author had retraced Mackenzie's route the best he could, driving across Canada in 1959. The editor says Mackenzie's journal is very difficult to follow at times because he underestimated distances and his compass was off. He also said that much of it is still difficult to travel. The editor makes notes throughout the book on what something would be called today or other notes that are helpful to understanding the journal. There are parts of the journal where Mackenzie describes directions and distances traveled that go on for a very long time. The editor put those parts in smaller print. They are hard to follow along with. Mackenzie writes an introduction to his own journal that makes it sound as if he doesn't think it's worth reading. He says he had to leave things out that would make the journal better because he was busy doing other things. I don't believe he was writing this journal to be published for leisurely reading. He is very longwinded about directions and distances traveled, weather conditions and scenery. He describes Indians as savages he must keep his eye on, although it sounds like he had nice interactions with Indians. He said he had heard the Indians gave trouble to explorers although it sounds like he didn't have any himself. He gave gifts and said he would be nice as long as the Indians deserved his niceness basically. He talks about the Indians and all the great things he does for them, gets them ready for winter hunting and acts as their doctor, as if the Indians were completely incapable of taking care of themselves before he came along. He talked about how he was a doctor but he basically used poultice for everything. There is a long epilogue after the journal that discusses the rest of Mackenzie's life. The editor discredits Mackenzie for how the journal is written. He thinks it is written too well to have been written by Mackenzie. The editor said that Lewis and Clark were far more educated and their journals were full of all kinds of mistakes. I chose to read this journal because I wanted to see if it was written in iambic pantameter, which it is not. This is not a book I would normally read leisurely but I did enjoy reading it for class. Having some background knowledge about the people and places of the time made it easier to understand and follow along.

Lecture 9 was titled The French Fact. It covered French Canada, mainly Quebec, from start to now briefly because we have discussed it somewhat and read Dream of Nation which covered this topic more thoroughly. French Canada is unique and distinct in the same way the Metis are. The Metis are of course a mix and not one or the other. French Canada is not totally loyal to France and does not want to be completely in the same category as English speaking Canada. Something I found interesting about the Francophones in Canada is that they would more likely move south rather than west to find work. We've been hearing a lot that Canadians want to stay in Canada and would only move east or west except Francophone Canadians. There was many Francophones in Manitoba but the main concentration is in Quebec. Immigrants moving to Quebec were not enthusiastic about learning French over English because if they decide to move anywhere else in Canada or the U.S. they would have to learn English then. I think it's interesting that to work for a higher level for Canada's government you must be bi-lingual. I wonder if the U.S. would ever do something like that with Spanish. I don't think that would be a bad idea but American's are stubborn and would be more likely to force others to assimilate. I think it's interesting that Manitoba was established as bi-lingual and wonder how it would be different today if it still was.

Black Robe is about the travel of one Jesuit priest to a Huron mission in the interior of Canada in 1634. Father LaForgue is a priest trained in France that has come to Quebec or New France to convert natives to Christianity. He leaves Quebec with a French young man, Daniel who speaks Algonquin, who says that he wants to come in order to become a priest, but really goes with because he likes one of the Algonquin women who is coming with Father LaForgue. Father LaForgue also has a small band of Algonquin as his guides, who have been given goods to do this. The voyage is 1500 miles by canoe. Father LaForgue is immediately nicknamed Black Robe because he is in all black. The Father has to get used to sleeping in a tent with all of the tribe and paddling the canoe for 12 hours a day. Daniel eventually ends up having a relationship with Annuka who is the daughter of the leader of the tribe. Chomina the leader of the tribe has a dream with Black Robe that he interprets as negative. He and the rest of the tribe become suspicious of Black Robe and watch him closely. On their way they meet another tribe that contains a shaman, Mestigoit, who declares Black Robe a devil and tells the tribe to abandon him. Which they all do, but Chomina feels guilty and goes back to get Black Robe. While going back to get Black Robe Chomina is attacked by a band of Iroquois. Chomina is injured in the attack and his wife is killed. Black Robe, Daniel, Annuka, her younger brother, and Chomina are taken captive and taken back the Iroquois camp. There Chominas son is killed and Black Robe has one of his fingers cut off. They manage to escape and Chomina dies soon after. They keep traveling to the Huron mission and when near there Black Robe goes on alone. There he finds one of the priests dead and the other deathly sick. Apparently an illness befell the community and the Huron blamed the priests and killed one of them. After the other priest dies, Black Robe takes charge and baptizes all of the Huron in the village. The end says that 15 years later the Huron accepted Christ and were killed by the Iroquois. The Jesuits then went back to Quebec and abandoned the Huron. I believe the movie shows how arrogant and ignorant the French were towards the Native Americans. Chomina and the rest of his tribe not only saved Black Robe’s life but if it was not for him and his tribe Black Robe would not have survived his trip into the interior of Canada. I think that Daniel showed more of a respect for the ways of the Algonquin, but I don’t know if this was because he was in love with one of them or if that was just part of it. It makes me believe though that there were mixed feelings towards the Native American for those first French settlers.

The movie is a about an actor/playwright named Daniel who decides to write a passion play about the stages of the cross. A play had been written about this before but a priest asks him to write a more updated version of it. Daniel first sets out to find his cast. The first person he chooses is Constance a part time actress, mother, and soup kitchen worker. Constance was in the original version of the play. She offers Daniel a place to live and happens to be having an affair with the priest. The second character Daniel chooses is Martin a voice over actor for porno. Next is Rene also a voice over actor but seems to be a classier one. Lastly he chooses Mireille a sexy model that breaks up with her boyfriend because he does not believe she can do the part because she will never be anything but a sex kitten type. The play takes place on the grounds of the church with Daniel playing Jesus. The play opens to great success and is highly acclaimed. The play depicts Christ’s death with Daniel adding in new archaeological information that has been discovered. In the play Daniel depicts Jesus as the son of a Roman soldier who Mary was not married to. This made the church angry and they wanted to close the production down. The cast decides to put the play on one more time. During this production Daniel is hurt and ends up dying. I believe that this play depicts the traditional way the Catholic Church still thinks and acts. It also shows that the people of Montreal are willing to have a more liberal or flexible outlook on religion. I also believe that the film reveals to an extent the inefficiencies of the Canadian health care system. This is shown when Daniel, knocked out during the last performance of the play, can’t get in to see the doctor right away because there are too many people in line ahead of him. I think the film was alright, but it seemed to be melodramatic which I believe seems to be a trend in the French Canadian films I have viewed so far.

Lecture 8 was titled A Socialist Monarchy. Two of the main topics covered in this lecture was insurance/health care and higher education. Canada's health care insurance is public, taken care of by the government. Our insurances are private and a hassle. Every citizen in Canada has access to health care and is covered by the government. Many Americans do not have health insurance and it is very expensive for them. Our government can afford it but it wouldn't work. Americans would take advantage of it, use it incorrectly and destroy that system. College in Canada has higher standards and costs less. It is more affordable but not everyone can attend because of the standards. In the U.S., almost anyone can attend college. There are enough colleges that will accept anyone who will pay the tuition. You don't even need to have money because student loans are easy to get. I think the Canadian way of higher standards and costing less for college is fair. Then people who can put in the work and deserve higher education don't have to graduate with such a huge debt as most U.S. college students. The differences in health care and higher education in Canada show the differences in our governments. Canada's government cares about taking care of it's citizens and our government cares about making some coin off of what it's citizens are dependant on. Americans like their government to do the least governing. Canadians accept their government and it takes care of them. Being an American, this frustrates me. I would rather pay more taxes and not insurance. I think that's a fair trade.

Lecture 8, "A Socialist Monarchy" is really the tale of two different governing systems between the United States and Canada. While, no government is perfect, Canada's just seems to make more sense sometimes. Their socialist monarchy, compared to our idea that the "government is best which governs least," suggests that individual care of its citizens are a major priority. It is not like this is a varying idea between political parties. Both the Social Democrats and the Red Tories have similar views in that the state should take care of its citizens and that they should help those that cannot help themselves. The only drawback to this idea is being able to get medical attention in a timely fashion. This does not seem to be a large problem for Canadians because 73% are satisfied with their health care system and because of this there are 27% more RN's. One interesting point from that slide is that the United States is first in health care spending, but they are only ranked 37th in overall quality of care. I think that has a lot to do with our pharmaceutical agencies and capitalist mentality raising the prices of prescription and OTC drugs. Going back to the statistic that there is 27% more RN's in Canada, is a good lead-in to Canada's college system. Their university model is a hybrid of the English and German systems. One thing that I do admire about this system is that the cost is less to students, and that their standards are higher. There are only two majors at NDSU that I can recall that have a high standard of admission, and that is the field of Pharmacy and Architecture. Pharmacists here have to do well in four different areas to get into their program. For Architecture it there is only one criteria for admission, but would it not be better to increase these admission standards to ensure a higher quality of work? I think that the US could learn a thing or two from Canada in the areas of health-care and higher education. Again, the idea of the "mosaic" and the "melting pot" have become a topic of discussion, and while they are of distinct importance to each nation, that topic has been exhausted.

Canada in the Making by George W. Brown is a book explaining the internal and external developments that have shaped Canada to what it is today (1950s, it's an old book). The first few chapters deal with the development of the Methodist Church. The churches in the provinces in Canada were in a disagreement over many things such as slavery, unification of an independent Canada, and relations with Britain. The main Methodist church in Upper Canada, The British Wesleyan Missionary Society led started by John Wesley, had the most influence at that time during the 1830-40s. With much disagreement going on between the Churches it was in 1833 an idea of the provinces of each churches were to join together and form a union but to be named "the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America." There was a man named Edgerton Ryerson who was apart of the Methodist Episcopal Church who was known for his controversial rhetoric. Ryerson was the editor of the Christian Guardian; he used the Guardian to publish his ideologies about the fear of having a monopoly of the Methodist church in Canada. He was considered a Rebel by the Wesleyans and an ultra-imperialist to the rebels he had made many enemies but much more supporters. Ryerson created Victoria College; he lobbied across Canada and England to raise funds in creating this college. He is well known in Canada for the establishment of an education system.

The last few chapters dealt with the question George W. Brown asks; "Have the Americas a common history." Brown, like Lipset, compares The United States to Canada with the mentality of the US gained their independence through revolution; bloodshed with Great Britain which cut off friendly ties with them for quite some time. While, on the other hand Canada has gained their independence through evolution. Which Brown explains is why Canada declared war on Germany the same time Britain did. Brown goes on to explain how Canada has matured uniquely in the whole American Hemisphere. He explains Canada differs from the US also by who we put our faith into. The US put their faith into the constitution while Canada puts its faith into elective representatives. Overall the book was pretty dry I sometimes felt myself not actually absorbing what I was reading on some chapters but the last few paragraphs were pretty interesting.

Lecture eight; A Social Monarchy, talked about the different political affiliations within Canada. Also it talked about some of the main differences between the U.S and Canada in the form or free health care. Also mentioned were some of the problems with the health care in Canada. The fact that it is free means that the demand for it becomes much greater. People find that waiting for things like operations and what not become long because no one is of any greater priority seeing that it is all government funded. However some Providence's have allowed for some private practices so that people with money can get the help they desire in a timely fashion. Also the lecture touched on the issue of multiculturalism. In Canada they spend a great deal of energy in trying to help people to keep their ethnic identity alive, for instance having a government official there during the opening of a china town within Canada. This is a huge difference between America and Canada. Its interesting that Canada chooses to relate their country population as a mosaic. I know its been the phrase melting pot for America, however as of lately I believe that we have no changed to a 'salad bowl'. This is to help to make us look like we are not assimilating the immigrant population even though we are. Canada makes a good example and I envy some of their ideals that we, here, do not hold. One other thing we talked about was the universities in Canada and the differences between the U.S ones. In Canada its much harder to attend college and fewer do than here in America.

Vertical Man/ Horizontal World written by Laurence Ricou talks about the different ways that people view the prairies. Each chapter talks about different characteristics of the prairie and how they are used especially in books or other literature, characteristic of the prairie including benign, implacable, obsessive, the internal and external prairie and the bewildering prairie. Then Ricou uses passages from other authors to make his point.
My favorite part from this book that made it memorable for me is when Ricou talks about how, keeping with his title, man being vertical always finds anything that is vertical as challenging. He contends this is why people are fascinated with the prairie. He thinks that because there are little vertical objects that people can find a sense of ease in the vastness of the horizon. And that is why it has become a popular literary setting. Being from the prairie and always having loved it I can relate to his ideals.
I liked this book much more than the last one I read. The author does a good job to keep it interesting. I liked that he also put in some of the text from what he was comparing the prairie to because since I have not read all of these books he refers to I would have had a hard time fallowing what he was getting at. One thing I disliked was sort of the same, he does compare a lot to things I am unfamiliar with and I think I lost some of the book because of that. This book talked about the Canadian prairie but other than that I didn’t see much of a correlation specific to Canada seeing that we too here are in the prairie as well.

I chose to read ­Search For a Nation, by Janet Morchain. While doing a background check on Morchain online (she happens to be a high school teacher in Ottawa), I found that this text is required for a class called – Introduction to History: Canada – at the University of Calgary. It covered many of the topics we’ve covered in class, including but not limited to: the origins of French/British problems in Canada, Métis rebellions, new problems between French and English when Britain gave Canada its independence in 1867, Louis Riel, and the Quiet Revolution. The book was written like Continental Divide in that it was a comparative view of French Canada (which she defined as more of a cultural or ideological region than a geographic one) and Anglo Canada. It covered the conflict and rivalries between these two peoples in detail. Also important to note when it was written (1967), because Quebec was about to become a hotspot for turmoil.
However, aside from that, she also included some references to America, saying not only does Canada have to deal with the ethnic and cultural issues on a day-to-day basis, but also retain their identity while constantly being threatened to absorb American economic and cultural domination.
I found when reading about Louis Riel that Morchain spoke of him with great respect and honor. So far, I’ve learned that most Canadians would. I find that sort of interesting and intriguing—when we talked about him in lecture, I got the idea that Riel was a rebel and was basically run out of Canada. Nevertheless, what I’ve found to be the case is quite the contrary.
I think Morchain wrote this book to summarize and inform readers WHY the English and French have such different views and values, but have put them together to become a stronger nation. Anyone can know of these differences, but Morchain’s quest was like that of any historian—she wanted to research and find out why these beliefs and values clashed so much, yet national unity prevailed. I think she did a great job. If I weren’t in this course, I probably wouldn’t know any background information about these things she writes about, and would have found it rather boring or confusing. However, since I knew some basic information going in, it was extremely interesting to read and learn about.

I'm really glad that I read these articles late in the semester, as I think I understand the attitude and views expressed much better than I would have earlier. The Walrus sort of reminded me of a cross between Newsweek and The New Yorker. One part of any magazine I almost always read in full is the "Letters" section, and within the issues I perused (June and July/August 2005) I was able to observe references to a lot of the underlying themes we've spoken of throughout the semester, such as: "the True North strong and free" and "peace, order and good government." The article I found most interesting was in the June issue; it was titled "Frontiers of Flavor" and discussed in detail the process of creating artificial flavors used in processed foods. I was amazed to learn that there are so many variations on artificial flavors for even a single fabricated food--6000 different derivations of strawberry for example. A bit of this article seemed to point to how closed minded and fast food addicted Americans are, and I think the statistics they report (1 in 4 American meals are eating out) definately do not reflect all US eating habits. The most interesting portion of the July/August issue was "Seven Love Letters" which featured a poem by Leonard Cohen titled "When I Went Out" and a letter by Margaret Atwood titled "Voice." These letters were predominately somber, but the intended feeling was definately communicated, the section titled "Give Up" is a particularly strange letter written to Earth by Mars. In the end, I really enjoyed The Walrus and thought it was a great mix of news, opinion and art distinctly different than a US periodical.

Lecture Nine focused on the relationship of French-Canada (mainly Quebec) within the Nation of Canada. Canada from its beginning had three founding nations England, France, and the First Nations people of Canada. This Multicultural foundation has led to many conflicts between the peoples of Canada, but unlike American conflicts there was very little bloodshed. The difficulties with this situation arise most often when the French-Canadian percentage of the population feels that its way of life is being threatened. So in response Quebec has instituted many policies to ensure that French culture, language, and religion will never completely disappear. These policies however have somewhat led to the alienation of the other minorities and provinces in Canada who want the same rights as their French-Canadian countrymen. Quebec has become in some respects the stronghold of French-Canada. With laws in place that make it illegal to hang signs in anything other than French and policies in place that allow for French-Language schools. Due to their fear of becoming a weak minority in Canada Quebec has tempted to break off from Canada with two different votes, both of which failed by a small margin.
The thing that caught my attention most about this lecture was how when Quebec wanted to leave Canada they tried to do so with all their economics ties intact. To me that seemed like having your cake and eating it too. We want to be an independant nation with control of our own affairs but we still want all the economic benefits of being a Canadian province. leave it to the french i guess.

The natue of The Walrus magazine can be compared to that of US News and World Report and Newsweek. It is an interesting magazine that covers both current, global events and humaninterest pieces. I read an article in the March 2007 edition titled: "Selling on the Sly". It discusses illegal street vendors on the streets of Istanbul, Turkey. The vendors come out when the street patrols clock out at 6:30. There has been many raids and confiscations ever since Turkey has applied for membership into the European Union. The economy has to be better monitored, and non-taxed revenue like is bought on the streets has been outlawed. However, many people have little choice. Most vendors are poor immigrants with no other source of income. I thought the article was very insightful into the lives of street workers in Instanbul.
The second article I read was in the May 2007 edition. It is titled: "Animated Discussion". It was a revealing article of a club in Tokyo's red light district. The soap box club has everything from prostitutes to child pornography. It was really discusting to hear of a place where it is alright and acceptable to be a pedophile. I cannot belive the government has not closed the place down, or that they don't care. I found that the article reveals there are organized circles in the open that fantasize about boy on boy pornography and on stage acts. Its discusting to think that these places actually exist. Why do the Japanese allow these clubs to exist? It seems to defy their cultural morals as it does ours.

My favorite part that I found interesting was the visual aspects of downtown. The old architecture was gorgeous! And some of the areas reminded me of England. I wish I could have walked around and taken it in in a leisurely pace instead of driving by.

Megan and I talked about how the American brands that are sold in Canada have maple leaves on them. It's like they want to distinguish themselves so much from their southern sister that they make something American distinctively Canadian. Why is that?

The radio program I tuned into was a Regina radio station though the "Radio one" program online found at http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/radio/. I listened to the station for about 45 minutes and when I first tuned in I caught the tail end of a news broadcast about a music video that is stirring up some controversy in the Middle East. Apparently there was a woman who blew herself up at a checkpoint in Israel killing 4 Israel soldiers and now the singer is making a hero out of her and the song is trying to lure children to follow in the same foot steps. After that program was over another one started it was done by two women and the show was called "As it Happens." Their first topic was about some confusing agreement the Canadian government had with Afghanistan officials with the transportation of Afghan detainees. The General in charge of the operation in Afghanistan had stated that he was given permission to enter Afghan run prisons and take out certain prisoners of that jail and transport them into a Canadian run POW camp. There has been no document stating that Canada has permission to do such things and this has angered the liberals in Canada saying it's not lawful for the Canadian military to enter prisons of another country without a signed agreement stating they can. The two women interviewed a lawyer and he gave his opinion about what was going on and although they didn't mention it in the news coverage he mentions that the Canadian Army is torturing the detainees, he thinks torture is counterproductive in achieving success in the war because he believes that it will get more Canadian soldiers killed.

I'm glad I got a chance to listen to this news broadcast about the controversy about the Afghanistan POWs. Listening to the interview with the lawyer and the reactions of the liberals about this problem really made me notice how peaceful Canada wants its country to be. They also would like their government to act more responsible and actually go through the correct protocol when executing military missions. Towards the end of the interview the lawyer said that the torture the military is doing to the POWs is creating more Canadian soldier deaths because he said that; why would any Taliban fighter willing give up to the Canadian Army when they know they will be tortured? The lawyer believes that they will fight to the death instead of being captive.

This lecture was entitled A Socialist Monarchy. It started out with the SGI, which is the Saskatchewan Government Insurance. Isern told us a bit about his experiences with it and that in some ways it is better than America's because the Insurance company is the one who takes care of the whole thing, if you get into an accident. Then we talked about the Tories and the Social Democrats which differ in that Tories want the state to generate wealth and Social Democrats want the state to distribute the wealth. After the Depression, there were two changes including the Progressive tax system and the Constitution of the Wheat Board where there were limits put on how much wheat each farmer could produce. This was an attempt to put the common good above the individuals.
The biggest part of the lecture was the healthcare system. The main difference between the US and Canadian systems is that Canada's is public and the US is private. Canada provides universal, comprehensive benefits for its citizens. We also learned that about 73% of Canadian citizens are satisfied with their healthcare, as opposed to less than 50% of Americans.
Next we went over the Canadian Universities and found out that the cost is less to attend a Canadian university, but the standards to get in are higher which results in less attendence. Canada also prides itself on being multicultural and that they believe that all people are equal. They have many different immigrants from every part of the world, such as Chinese, Haitian and diverse refugees.

This lecture was interesting and had several different topics. I found the most interesting part to be the differences in the universities. I did not expect the standards to get in to be higher in Canada. I think that since it is easier for us to get into college in America and so we may be prone to take it for granted and since Canadians have to work harder to get into the college they want, they may have a higher quality student base overall. I don't if this is true, but it would seem to be possible, based on the lecture.

The weekend trip to Canada was a fine experience. To be honest however I did not really see the difference between our cultures, in that weekend. I was trying to pay attention to things and other than the obvious answers like... their money is different, or they say 'eh' and use kilometers, I didn't see much to really compare. I have been to Canada many times before and I have never really got a sense if being in a different country. The only thing that did make it different this time is that I was actually driving and had to look at the Kilometers on my car and even that wasn't so bad because of my half year in Australia it had become more of a second nature to me, and I actually spooked my passenger out when we hit Winnipeg at the exact time I said... just cause I know how long 77 K normally takes at about 110. And actually for similarities, we went through Morris, Manitoba and I am from Morris, MN and they both have a Super Eight so seeing that billboard was actually kinda fun cause the land scape is much the same and I could actually start to believe that I was on my way home. :) Maybe I could claim that the public service industry's there were better... like the waitresses, maybe because they take pride in their public services. But having only had 3 waitresses in a small area and time I can't reliably make that judgement.

The book Contact & Conflict by Robin Fisher, talks about the First Nations history and their significance to both British Columbia and Canada (as a whole) history. Fisher intentions in writing the book is to establish the role of the Indian in British Columbia's history, but states this is not a volume of Indian History. He writes "It is a history of the contact of two cultures, of Indian-European relations." In which Fisher starts the book with the fur trade in British Columbia. The first chapter was confusing, at first. The title of the chapter "The Maritime Fur Trade", was confusing in the sense that the Maritime are located in eastern Canada. Why would Fisher write about an eastern fur trade, in a predominantly western fur trading area? Then after reading, there was a realization that Fisher wrote the chapter from the view point of the Indians in British Columbia and they were trading with the Maritime fur traders.

In this chapter He writes about first contact with Europeans and the fur trade. One interesting portion of the chapter is Fisher's explanation of the bartering method of the Indians. He explains that the general conception in history is that Indians traded for things that were "strangely whimsical and constantly variable." He claims that this was false, the general goods that Indians traded for useful items that were in great need in pre-contact society. One real surprising ideal is also that in the Maritime trade, Indians realized the high demand for their items. Thus controlling the market to benefit themselves in the fur trade. Fisher goes in to the explanation of the distinct methods in trading that Indians used in the Maritime fur trade.

In the following chapters Fisher writes about the eventual influx of Europeans into the British Columbia area. He starts with the Land Based fur trading companies coming westward into British Columbia. Fisher explains that although Land Based companies started trading in the area, Coastal Indians still regulated the value of furs. He continues his analysis of the influx of Europeans with the establishment of forts. Coastal Indians would soon lose control of the fur trade due to lower amounts of fur bearing animals on the coastal region and diseases. The growing amount of European settlers in British Columbia would quietly change the way Indians were viewed. No longer would Europeans treat the Indians of British Columbia as equals, primarily due the the lack of dependence from the them. Fisher argues that through the different events in British Columbia that Indians had to endure during the mid-1800s, by the end of the century many Indians in British Columbia were simply trying to survive and were not prospering like the time of the Maritime Fur Trade. In which, all factors ended up placing a great divide between the cultures. Even more so in the 1880s, the government outlawed the practice and celebration of the Potlach.

The book is a real interesting read and gives good detail of the Indian identity in British Columbia. Fisher states that gold mining, the influx of missionaries and settlers, and the role that government officials all were effective in damaging their culture. It did not matter which First Nation tribe you belonged to in British Columbia (even though some were more welcomed than others), by the 1860's the common view point of Europeans that Indians were savages had taken the place of the civilized man. The non-respectful attitude for Indians in British Columbia would continue until the mid 20th century. Overall, this was a good book and really enjoyed it.

I recently read two articles in the magazine called The Walrus. The Walrus is a magazine similiar to Time magazine. The nature of the magazine is worldy current events and personal Canadian stories. The first article I read was "Boy Wonder" in the May 2007 edition. It was about how female students in Canada are speeding ahead of boys in the past years. Many academics say that it is not really girls that are excelling at a higher level, but that the boys are digressing. They think this is due to the curriculum being more and more centered around standardize testing. It reminded me a lot of the current controversy over standardize testing in the United States. I personally don't think standardize testing should be the centerpiece of assessment. Perhaps standardize accountability favors females brains more, we do have our psychological differences. The second article I read was "Hail to the Hammer, Ancient Ballads get the Viking Heavy-Metal Treatment" in the March 2007 edition. The article talked about the small, rocky islands in the North Atlantic between Scotland and Iceland. The culture is very centered around its Viking heritage. The article discussed the type of music like combines Viking bed time stories and heavy-metal. A sign o one bar door read "Viking Territory, No Wimps Allowed", that would be an interesting place to visit. The islands, the Faroes I had never heard of before. It just reminds you on what a big planet we live on.

The main topic of lecture eight was on the idea of a socialist monarchy. A socialist monarchy is a type of government with instittions and policies that have socialist aspects, and to some degree it is still under the monarch. One aspect that Dr. Isern seemed passionate about was Canada's Health Care program. They have national health care. Dr. Isern made the point that we should have the same because every American deserves health care because we as a country can afford it. The lecture was full of comparisons between American and Canadian themes. The lecture reminder me of Continental Divivde, it seems that professor Isern and Lipset share some opinions. Canadian universities are also very unique. The teaching style is a combination of the German and British styles. Not as many people attend university in Canada as they do in the United States, and the academic standards are on average higher than in the United States. I did not know that Canada does not put much importance on college athletics, which explain some things. Canadians look at their national government sa a friend citizens turn to. Unlike in the states where many people are suspicious of government, and have little trust in the beauracracy. Canada embraces its multiculturalism, and I believe that resembles the U.S. the most. We are both proud of our diversity and proudly define ourselves as a free, diverse people. I learned in North Dakota history class last semester that ND has some socialist aspects in its government, which can be compared to Canada's system. Is there any current lobbying for national healthcare in the United States?

Lecture 8 was on Socialist Monarchy. The class dove into the depths of Canadian government. A lot of the lecture was based on Canadian government verses the United States government as a way for the class to understand the comparisons. Canadian philosophy is that of a socialist monarchy whereas the United States says that a government is best which governs least. In America we have our republicans, democrats, reformers, independents, etc. In Canada people are divided into Tories, social democrats, and red Tories. The discussion of the origins of the welfare states came up and the idea of capitalism reforming itself. The Great Depression affected Canada as well. There were the Tories in 1935 with their ideas to care of the Canadians during the depression and then there the liberals who decided that they would just ride out the depression. Various programs had been developed since the depression and since World War II. That of unemployment insurance, union rights to organize, family allowances and gradual expansion of coverage were just a few programs developed. The difference in health care from the US to Canada is that Canada has public providers and funding whereas the US has private service and private payers. There is also a difference in school systems in Canada verses the United States. Kids that attend college in Canada have higher standards however it costs less. Fewer kids attend college in Canada. Multi-cultural Canada was also presented. The idea of identity, ancestry, and belonging is prominent in Canada. It is important to Canadians to take pride in their ancestry. The country was mainly founded by British and French peoples. It is still a battle today over identity especially for such people as those in French Quebec.

This hilarious television show follows the lives of a handful of characters in their small Saskatchewan town of Dog River. Everything in this town seems to revolve around the gas station and the adjoining cafe.

This comedy reminded me a lot of the British style with its dry wit and situational punch lines. Everything seemed to stem from sarcasm because there's "nothin' else to do'.

There was also an under tone of the Canadian view of what the prairie provinces are seen as. Slow, flat, nothing to do, and nothing to see. The characters are made out to seem a little on the dim side, with quotes like, "Palates: the guy who sentenced Jesus to death", which makes the show that much more funny. The subject of change comes up fairly frequently with the older generation being largely against it and the younger generation trying to bring it about to make improvements and bring in more people.

America and the Canadian government also seem to be at the butt of almost every joke. Detroit is seen as a hell hole and not even the CFL's broke enough to use plaid shirts for uniforms. Dog River seems to be a typical hinterland town where the younger generations move into the city and only oddities like Lacey move to Dog River from Toronto. There was also a line about "when she moves back to Toronto" as though it is inconceivable for her to want to stay in the middle of nowhere.

And, of course, what Canadian film would be complete with out hockey? It seems that no matter what movie you view, if it's Canadian there has to be at least a reference to either hockey or curling. Here they show just how serious the sport is. There are older leagues with a hodge podge of players yet a seriousness that presses teams to try and recruit players from other towns to win.

My favorite line, however, was when Brent, the main character, says to his father, "I've angered the Karma gods and you're my punishment".

This French film follows the life of a boy/man named Zac and his growing up years with his parents and four brothers. Zac is in a constant struggle to win the approval and love of his father. What starts off as a great father-son relationship turns sour when Zac is caught dressing like a woman and playing house with his baby brother. Zac's father worries that his son is gay and doesn't know how to handle this subject which goes against everything he believes and stands for. This begins a pendulum relationship as Zac grows into adulthood as Zac tries to hide his homosexuality to stay in the graces of his father.

I think this film did a great job showing the emphasis on family and religion in French-Canadian life. From the very begining, it always shows the family together interacting. It shows that every decision made in the film is in some way influenced by one or both of these things. Zac's 'gift' is seen as a sign from God, and thus has every shirt-tail relative and friend calling for him to 'think of them' for healing, and in the end when Zac runs away, he goes to Jeruselem. I think that the family's strong faith had alot to do with the way they handled Zac being gay. In the Bible it says that homosexuality is bad, thus the family views it as bad. It is said at one point, 'how could he do this to us?' as if it was a choice and he was trying to puish his family. Zac finds that the only way to please his father was to do ultra-manly activities like get into fights with bigger boys, and have sex with girls.

This film was a suprise to me. I didn't expect it to be as good as it was. I also got a little mad at the father for putting what seemed like conditions onto his love for his son. I was also very saddened that it took death to bring acceptance.

We start this lecture with a view of Canada as a Socialist Democracy and a communitarian State in contrast with the individualism of America and the ideaology that "the gov't that governs best governs least." The Canadian consensus, due to the socialist aspects of their government is that of the State as a friend, this is not the case in America. One of the great progenitors of a social monarchy was Robertson Davies, a revered Canadian writer, whose nationalist values were the catalyst for many social ideals. Following The Great Depression and World War II the development of the Canadian welfare state would strengthen with the most distinctive portion of the Canadian welfare state being its healthcare system that, in sharp c0ntrast to the American system, is based on public allowances rather than private enterprise. We briefly covered the university system before moving on to multiculturalism. Canadian multiculturalism is concerned with accepting diverse cultures and their place within the Canadian mosaic. The promotion of multiculturalism has led to many grants for research on ethnicity issues and ethnic activities. We ended with the question: "How different is Canada?" The communitarian nature of Canada provides a different national rhetoric with a different political consensus--that of gov't as friend. Health care is the main difference in the welfare system and multiculturalism provides a different cultural metaphor than that of America's "melting pot." This lecture has really nurtured my interest in the Canadian healthcare system, personally, I would like to have some form of universal healthcare in the US. I don't know what that system would be, and would not venture to propose anything, but based on Canadian opinion I like the sound of their system. Also, the "mosaic" is, to me, a more realistic cultural identity than the "melting pot."

While in Canada we got the National Post under our door on Saturday morning. I started flipping through the paper and on the surface it looks pretty much like our papers; it has news about Canada and some world news, but it has more news pertaining to the US than we have about them. A big chunk of the paper was about courage and the Virginia Tech incident. They also mention American Idol, Hollywood stars and young American designers.
The article that caught my eye, though, was the one about the Canadian Museum for Human Rights because our Manitoba museum guide had talked about it on our tour. The article says that this museum will show the history of human rights in Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, says in the article that there are several reasons why Winnipeg would be a perfect spot for this museum including: location, Winnipeg's history of human rights struggles and all the native people that have settled there.
Between our tour guide and the article, I got the impression that Canada definitely prides itself on being accepting of many different cultures and is even going as far as to put it on display in a multi-million dollar project. I have to admit though, that I am curious about what this museum will be like and I think I will be making another trip to see it when it is completed.

Our trip to Winnipeg proved to be quite interesting. I have been to Winnipeg several times before and each time I go there is something new that I appreciate about the city. For one thing, there some kind of new currency every time I go. This time, it was a quarter with a pink breast cancer ribbon on it. As far as interesting events on our trip, I found the Manitoba museum to have a more-than-adequate set of exhibits. Bruce Shepard proved to be very knowledgeable on all things Canadian (almost too knowledgeable on some topics).

One thing that I’d liked to have done more was have more interaction with Canadians. When I’ve done that in the past, it always makes me think of how amazing of a cultural difference there is between Fargo and Winnipeg despite being so close together. Also, Winnipeg clearly puts a higher value on arts and historical preservation than Fargo does.

What an odd movie. I never expected to see Leslie Nielsen harvesting cow manure direct from the source with the intention of cultivating magic mushrooms from said excrement, but, now I can say I have seen it and was quite amused/revolted. This scene aside, the rest of the movie is pretty wacky as well, but with a good portion of cheese as well. The plot follows four old friends who are brought back together to form a curling team following the death of their coach and mentor Bob Foley. The guys are then a part of any cliche sports comedy, as they attempt to train, are humiliated by old men and ultimatly lose any respect they once held in the eyes of their community. Anyhow, this means they have to train harder, which leads to the introduction of Leslie Nielsen as Gordon Cutter. Nielsen, the undeniable veteran here, steals the show with his performance. Anyhow, as one may guess the downtrodden heroes are able to pull themselves up from the gutter and retrieve their lost glory. I felt that this films plot is one that we've seen done so many times, that I knew exactly where the film was going at all times. The love triangle between Chris Cutter and the Foley sisters actually comes off kinda creepy at times, but maybe that's just me. In the end, I learned a lot more about curling than I thought I would (I now know of the horrid sin of "burning the rock" and not calling it) and had a good time to boot. Also in the film is an army of beavers that appear twice, this of course reminds one immediately of Canada. Did I mention Leslie Nielsen as the mushroom eating old codger? Ridiculous but welcome.

this doesnt pertain to our study of Canada, but I thought people like us would enjoy it, i thought it was hilarious. it came from an episode of Family Guy I saw last night:

Chris: What do you do at a Young Republicans meeting?
Alyssa: We help those who already have the means to help themselves. Also, we perpetuate the idea that Jesus chose America to destroy non-believers and brown people.
Chris: I dont know why, but I feel safer already.

Jared Hines
Research Project

One problem facing the Canadian Federation today has to do with their national health care. The Tories belief in Canada of noblesse oblige gives the nobles (the government) an obligation to take care of the rest of the country, especially those who cannot take care of themselves. But the cost to provide each and every citizen in Canada health care is getting out of hand; they topped $100 billion in 2001 (canadian-healthcare.org, 2004). Reasons for this include: the cost of medication has increased over the years, the baby boomers (although not as many in Canada as the U.S.) are needing more medications and treatment, and changes in the way services are delivered. If the Canadian government keeps paying for everything its citizens need in terms of preventative and emergency care, it will eventually dig the hole deeper and deeper in red until it becomes hard to climb out of. It is my opinion that Canada should at least reform its national health care to save itself a ton of money in the future as western nations such as Britain and Germany did almost twenty years ago. Neverth