Chapter 3 Reconciling Nationalistic Loyalties How do loyalties

Chapter 3: Reconciling Nationalistic Loyalties How do loyalties shape people’s choices? One synonym for loyalty is commitment – the act of staying true to an idea, a cause, a nation, a person, or even yourself. Loyalty can sometimes be demonstrated publicly. For example, Sir Churchill Winston declared his loyalty when he stated that Britain would “never surrender” to Hitler and fascism during World War II

Loyalty can also be low-key and not displayed publicly. An example of this would be your loyalty to a friend. Other synonyms for loyalty are allegiance, faithfulness, devotion, fidelity, steadfastness, and attachment. When faced with a choice, loyalty can play a role in the decision that one makes. It can be simple decisions or difficult ones. For example, helping a friend in their time of need may be an easy choice. However, if you had two friends who were running for school president, which would you choose? How would you choose?

Patriotism is understood as the love for ones country. Patriotism can be shown as a form of loyalty to ones country. It has inspired people to march in a parade or fight for their country. Some have been inspired to petition the Canadian government to give Highway 401 the name Highway of Heroes because it is the way fallen soldiers return to home from Afghanistan. Highway of Heroes, Ontario

Nationalist loyalties rarely demand extreme sacrifice, such as that made by some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. However, they can influence our choices. For example, here in Fort Mc. Murray, there a lot of people from Newfoundland. They show their loyalty by displaying the Newfoundland Flag.

Contending loyalties are loyalties that compete with one another and choosing between them is sometimes difficult. While some may agree with the renaming of highway 401 to Highway of Heroes, they may not necessarily agree with the war in Afghanistan.

What choices have people made to affirm nationalist loyalties? People often do visible things to show their loyalty. For example, you may wear COMP clothing to show Miner Pride, or if you are a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, you may wear the Toronto jersey. People also wear the maple leaf on their backpacks or clothes when traveling to other parts of the world to display that they are Canadian.

Some people use place names to affirm their nationalist identities. The Inuit of South Baffin Island started the South Baffin Place Names project to record traditional Inuktitut place names. Europeans often ignored the traditional names and gave the same places European names. Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, was called Frosbisher Bay by the Europeans.

Prior to the 1930 s, many Inuit used just one name to identify themselves. Because the government found this to be too difficult to keep track of the people, they enforced a number system in order to keep track of the Inuit. For years, they were referred to as a number rather than a name. In 1969, the number system was abolished. The government then enforced that the Inuit were required to have a last name as well as a first name. One man fought this, and had his name permanently changed back to the one he was given at birth: Kiviaq.

Cultural Pluralism is people from many nations living together in one country. This allows for respect of cultural differences; Ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups live together in harmony. Canada is a prime example of this. Many people immigrate to Canada because of our reputation of cultural pluralism. Canada was the first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official government policy. It is called the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. This allows for immigrants to keep their traditions, languages and religions when they move to Canada.

Some people have difficulties expressing the loyalties when they have moved to a new country. When immigrants first arrive in Canada, they are concerned about fitting in and do not express their loyalties. As time passes however, they begin to feel more comfortable and may express their loyalties. For example, during the Olympics, Chinese Canadians may cheer for the Chinese team.

Canadians are divided on how much immigrants should try to fit into Canadian culture. Reasonable accommodation is a legal and constitutional concept that requires Canadian public institutions to adapt to religious and cultural practices of minorities as long as they do not violate other rights and freedoms. In 1988 for example, Beltej Singh Dhillon challenged RCMP traditions.

In 1988 for example, Beltej Singh Dhillon challenged RCMP traditions. The RCMP wanted him to cut his hair, shave his beard and wear a Stetson hat. Dhillon argued that wearing a turban is a religious duty for Sikh men and that he was forced between serving his religion and serving his country. In 1990, the country agreed that his request was reasonable and Dhillon became a RCMP officer.

Ever since Confederation, people have disagreed on the idea of reasonable accommodation. Some people believe that reasonable accommodation doesn’t allow for a shared identity and belonging. Stephen Harper states that “Canada’s diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength. ”

As well, the Department of Canadian Heritage states “It is in building a peaceful, harmonious society that diversity plays its most dynamic role. It challenges Canadians to adapt and relate to one another despite our differences, which encourages understanding, flexibility and compromise. This makes us resilient – able to accommodate different points of view and see different ways to solve problems. ”

In 2007, reasonable accommodation became an issue in Quebec. Some minority communities were concerned about the lack of accommodation. In 2007, Asmahan Mansour was not allowed to play in a soccer game because she was wearing a hijab. The referee made the call deeming it unsafe. Premier Jean Charest agreed with this ruling. Many people believed that this was an example of failing to accommodate to minority groups.

How can nationalist loyalties create conflict? Sometimes, people can be loyal to more than one nation and their nationalist loyalties can exist without conflict. For example, a new Canadian citizen may feel strong loyalties to Canada, but also follow the news from their country of origin. However, nationalistic loyalties are not always compatible. Their goals may conflict.

For example, a Québécois may have strong loyalties to Quebec and to Canada. If they are questioned about Quebec sovereignty, they may have a difficult choice to make. To not separate or to separate? In 1995, a referendum was held, asking the people of Quebec whether or not they wanted to separate from Canada. 93. 5% of the population voted in the referendum. 50. 52 % voted no, that they did not want to separate. 49. 42% voted to separate. In 2006, a poll of Québécois found that support for staying in Canada has risen. Those who wanted to separate from Canada are called sovereignists. Those who wanted to stay with Canada are federalists.

An example, while plenty of Canadians celebrate July 1 st as Canada Day, July 1 st is Memorial Day for those in Newfoundland. It is a day to remember those of the First Newfoundland Regiment that died July 1, 1916 in the Battle of Somme.

Contending loyalties can also lead to conflict between peoples. Conflict can arise when two peoples want to establish their nation in the same territory. If they cannot resolve their conflicting loyalties, the result may be violence. An example of two groups who cannot solve their conflicting loyalties are the Palestinians and the Israelis. Both want control over the same territory which has religious, historical, spiritual, cultural and geographic significance.

How have people reconciled contending nationalist loyalties? Reconciliation is the coming to terms with the past or mending a broken relationship. It can help resolve differences and bring people together once again. If two contending nations cannot be reconciled, it can lead to political struggles and even to war. What is an Canadian example of conflict between two contending nations?

In the past, Canadian governments tried to force First Nations, Metis, and Inuit to abandon their culture and traditions and to fit in with mainstream society. Over the past few decades, this has begun to change, and the Canadian governments have begun to recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights are now put into the Canadian constitution. However, there are still many groups that continue to control their own destiny.

Oka Crisis: In 1990, a group of Mohawks on the Kanesatake (near Oka, Quebec)reserve set up a roadblock and a camp to stop the expansion of a golf course onto Mohawk land. The provincial police were called in to break up the protest. Shots were fired and one officer was killed. The Canadian military was called in and on Sept 26 th, the protest finally came to an end.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Created in 1991 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney after the Oka Crisis. It was made up of 7 people. 4 Aboriginal and 3 non-Aboriginal. The final report was published in 1996 and it’s main conclusion stated : “The main policy direction, pursued for more that 150 years, first by colonial then by Canadian governments, has been wrong. ” The report also urged all Canadians to view First Nations, Metis, and Inuit as nations with a right to govern themselves in partnership with Canada.

Canadian Government’s Statement of Reconciliation: In 1998, the Canadian government acknowledged that First Nations have lived in North America for thousands of years. It also admitted that past governments had damaged the culture and traditions of first nations. “The Government of Canada today formally expresses to all Aboriginal people in Canada our profound regret for past actions of the federal government which have contributed to these difficult pages in the history of our relationship together. ” Reconciliation will be a continuous process that will not succeed if the past is repeated. Aboriginal people must have an equal share in the political, economic, cultural, and social life of Canada.

Land Claims: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People said that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people must learn to share the land they both live in. The government’s Statement of Reconciliation did not mention the sharing of land or settling land claims. A land claim is an Aboriginal people’s claim to the right to control the land where their traditionally lived. Land claims are fairly difficult to settle. There a large amount of reports, surveys, studies, court cases and many years to settle land claim dispute and many Aboriginals are tired of the long wait.