Month: November 2016 Page 1 of 2

Journal #10

In the dictionary history is defined as the study of past events. However, I have learned that history is more than just studying the events of the people in our past. It is so much more than that. To me history is about trying to comprehend the realities of life that can be very hard to understand for a twenty-first century audience. History is about seeing past mistakes and learning to better our future. In particular we have learned a tremendous amount about the indigenous culture. European settlers did a lot of harm and made many mistakes however, we have learned from those mistakes. The historiography is also ever changing when it comes to indigenous accounts of what happened. This is something that would not have been considered even a little as fifty years ago. I have learned that in order to truly understand history it is important to have accounts from each party that was involved. It has been said that history is written by the victors and while that may be true, current historiography is attempting to change that.

As far as the actual research of history goes there are many ways in which this course has helped me develop the tools needed to do so. First of all, I have learned that through careful readings of primary and secondary sources we can have a greater idea of the reality of living in the past. Secondly, I have learned that finding my own sources and creating a research topic can lead to a far greater understanding of any particular topic. Thirdly, discussion on specific readings can open up different insights that I may have not realized without other classmates input. Finally, tough the compiling of all the information I have learned in my Eportfolio I have a much greater understanding of exactly what I have taken away from History 1120.

In conclusion, I have learned many new ideas and subjects throughout this course. Whether it be about first contact, the seven years war, indigenous accounts, or the thoughts and feelings of every party involved there has been a tremendous amount that I have learned. I have learned what history means to me and how to appreciate the differences between how everyone approaches history. I have learned the value of both primary and secondary sources. I have also learned the need of discussion to further benefit my learning experience. I have also learned that my own research into a particular subject can lead to a much better comprehension of that subject. Ultimately, history for me is about learning from our mistakes through researching our ancestor’s mistakes and their triumphs.

Journal Entry #9

Duelling in Upper Canada can be attributed to a number of reasons. But in most cases it results from a man feeling that his honour has been slighted. However, what is clear is that dueling at this time in Canadian history was performed by a certain type of person. These people always had three qualities, they were white, upper class, and always men. This meant that dueling during this time period helped to define what masculinity was. Unfortunately, only upper class white men decided were involved in this definition. As Cecilia Morgan states in her article “this method of settling disputes was not open to men of the lower-middle or working classes”[1] which proves how dueling was only granted to the rich, upper class man. Duels were usually started for one of two reasons. The first being the supposed slight of a man’s honour or in most cases the defense of a woman’s honour. In many ways these slights were imagined as Morgan states how honour was “both sought and protected as though it were a thing known and fixed, while at the same time it was in constant need of affirmation, being repeatedly challenged”[2]. Which goes to show how the whole idea of honour was not fully understand and therefore men dying over it was completely ridiculous. However, that did not stop men from fighting anyway. Men chose to uphold women’s honour regardless of whether or not they truly understand what honour meant. This is seen in the case of John Wilson and Robert Lyon. In Stephen Bown’s article he notes how the whole duel was started over “had sat alongside Miss Hughes with his arms about her in a position which no woman of spirit would permit.”[3] Now, Wilson was in love with Elisabeth Hughes and as a result of this so called slight to her honour he challenged Lyon to a duel. This duel led to the death of Robert Lyon and it also resulted in John Wilson being taken to court. Although Wilson was acquitted and later became a judge it does not deny the fact that the duel was fought over an absolutely ridiculous reason. However, Wilson and Hughes did go on to marry and they stay married for thirty four years. So maybe Wilson really did love Hughes enough to die for her. In Morgan’s article she wraps up by stating how masculinity ended up abolishing duels as well. She says that it was strongly discouraged by society because of it leading to the widowing of wives and left families economically destitute. She says that “the ‘phantom’ of honour was less important than men’s responsibilities towards financially dependent wives, children, mothers, and sisters”[4]. What this shows is how Canada’s ideals of what masculinity is began to shift towards more modern ideas of what it means to be a man. In conclusion, dueling in Upper Canada was controlled entirely by upper class, white men. Although it was defined by an idea to uphold men’s honour and women’s virtue, what ended up happening was needless death and violence. So as a result of this many men and women fought for it to be outlawed in order for the respectable family unit to be maintained. As a result of this fight Upper Canada moved towards a much more modern idea of masculinity and the nuclear family.

Bibliography

Cecilia Morgan, “In Search of the Phantom Misnamed Honour: Duelling in Upper Canada,” The Canadian                 Historical Review 76 (1995): 1-35.

Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’Clock,” Beaver 79 (1999): 1-7.

[1] Cecilia Morgan, “In Search of the Phantom Misnamed Honour: Duelling in Upper Canada,” The Canadian Historical Review 76 (1995): 24.

[2] Morgan, “In Search,” 25.

[3] Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’Clock,” Beaver 79 (1999): 3.

[4] Morgan, “In Search,” 35.

Journal Entry #8

In Greer’s article about charivaris he focuses on three main stages that he identifies. The first stage were essentially marital disagreements between society and the newlyweds. For example a man marrying a much younger woman or if “one of the partners had been previously married”[1]. After this the charivaris shifted into the next stage which involved a much more political angle. During the rebellion of 1837 Greer argues that in the summer of 1837 the charivaris were being used to further political ideas. He says “charivaris were used for more clearly strategic purposes”[2] which indicates how these demonstrations were transforming from simple disagreements of matrimony to an all-out political force. Something that Greer does not mention in his article is that often times these charivari events would deal with racial issues as well. In Moodie’s novel “Roughing it in the Bush” she speaks about how a young black man who married a young white woman was dragged out of his house naked and as a result of the weather he “died under their hands”[3]. This is the main difference between the two readings both Greer and Moodie focus on the marital aspects of the charivari it is Moodie who shows the blatant racism that was abundant in the ceremonies of the charivari. However, Greer shows how after the rebellion of 1837 that the charivari revolts moved from political or marital concerns to violent outbursts of social unhappiness. Greer states that after the rebellion the charivari turned into a “weapon for chastising moral transgressions and punishing nonconformist”[4] so in the early days of the charivari they were threatening in some ways but it was not until after the rebellion that they changed into a more malicious event. Greer states that the “charivari form was deployed in radically new and decidedly more cruel ways”[5]. In conclusion, the charivari of Canada had three main stages. The first was a milder ritual meant to intimidate those individuals who went outside the social norms of society set by the Catholic Church. For example, a young man marrying an older woman or vice versa. At this same time Moodie adds that the charivari could be quite violent and racist as well with her story of the young black barber who was killed for marrying a white woman. From her the second stage that Greer illustrates was the political stage that involved the charivaris attacking captains and in some cases demanding they step down or pay a certain fee. In the final stage Greer illustrates how after the rebellion the same rituals turned violent and could many times result in either injuries or death. By the end of the article Greer shows how the charivari started as a simple revolt of assumed discrepancies of the social norm, to violent demonstrations of the power of a masked, anonymous group of people can have.

Bibliography

Allan Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution: Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837,” Social History 15 (1990) 25-43.

Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the Bush (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014) 21-25.

[1] Allan Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution: Charivaris and the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837,” Social History 15 (1990) 27.

[2] Greer “From Folklore to Revolution,” 35.

[3] Susanna Moodie, Roughing it in the Bush (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014) 25.

[4] Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution,” 42.

[5] Greer, “From Folklore to Revolution,” 42.

Journal Entry #7

In Jorgensen’s article he is attempting to address the question of indigenous people’s role in Barkerville. Like many historians today he is attempting to correct the older analysis of indigenous people’s lives and the role they played in society. It is very easy to disregard the indigenous population of Barkerville and write them off as nothing more than prostitutes and helpless victims of disease. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the indigenous people were involved in many aspects of life in Barkerville including “berry picking, laundry services, packing and packhorse support, hunting, selling salmon and eulachon, letter-carrying, mining, and prostitution”[1]. In spite of this history has not always looked at the indigenous point of view and as a result has lacked the authenticity of Jorgensen’s article.

Some early historians viewed Barkerville through a tiny lens unable to see any impact that the indigenous people were having except for menial jobs like prostitution and carriers. They did not look at the surrounding areas of Baskerville and the evidence of the indigenous people who were there. Even during the time of the gold rush there was indigenous people present just outside of Barkerville in a place called “Barkerville: Indian Encampment”[2]. The only excuse for their ignorance could be due to the massive destruction of indigenous people due to the smallpox epidemic.  With Europeans immunity to smallpox the effect on them was rather small, not much more than a cold or flu. However, in the case of the indigenous people and their different lifestyles smallpox caused “population loss”[3] which “range as high as 90 percent”[4]. This shows just how much the indigenous people in BC suffered due to the diseases that ran rampant due to European contribution. That being said the Indigenous people who remained in Barkerville and the surrounding areas contributed in many different ways.

At first one of the ways the Indigenous people survived was the hunting and trading of furs throughout the province and in Barkerville in particular. They existed in other ways during this time as well such as “Foraging, particularly for berries, was another form of subsistence work engaged in by First Nations people”[5]. Now it is true that they also used wage worker such as delivering mail, it is also true that they were involved in mining. The Indigenous people were very active at this time in the mining trade Jorgensen quotes Daniel Marshall by saying “’Native peoples not only participated in gold discoveries throughout the northern Pacific Slope region, but actively mined the resource’”[6]. These different examples show how Indigenous people were not just hiding in the shadows of Barkerville but they were instead active participants in its growth and mining opportunities.

There is also a very negative viewpoint towards Indigenous woman being only prostitutes and while there is evidence of this Jorgensen also says “Aboriginal women who came into contact with white men through the sex trade were comparatively more visible (and therefore potentially better recorded) than were those involved in other forms of work”[7] so as a result of the white European centered history many Aboriginal woman were viewed as nothing more than prostitutes. This again shows the limited view of the history up to this point. However, Jorgensen is on the right track to creating a more multiethnic approach to history. In this article he uses both primary sources found in the newspaper and other important documents of the time, but he also uses Indigenous oral traditions to back up his arguments. Which will lead to a better understanding of Indigenous people’s role in this time period.

Bibliography

Mica Jorgensen, “Into That Country to Work,” BC Studies 185 (2015): 109-136.

[1] Mica Jorgensen, “Into That Country to Work,” BC Studies 185 (2015): 135.

[2] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 120.

[3] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 118.

[4] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 118.

[5] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 122.

[6] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 129.

[7] Jorgensen, “Into That Country,” 132.

Journal Entry #6

In Afua Cooper’s article she is arguing that African-American men and women had a sense of agency in their lives throughout the period of their enslavement in Upper Canada. She also wants to show how slavery was abolished in Canada. She does this by showing the key players and their contribution to the abolition of slavery. Cooper focuses in on the different ways that African-American men and women would resist their enslavement through major and minor resistance. Some examples of day to day minor resistance by these men and women were the “breaking of tools”[1] and “destroying of livestock”[2]. Through these simple acts Cooper argues that African-American men and women showed their sense of agency. She furthers this point by showing examples of some larger acts of resistance. Some of these examples are “Arson”[3] and “homicide”[4] which clearly show that these people were not going to stand by and accept the fate that they were subjected to. Furthermore, Cooper gives examples of some of the men and women who stood up to slavery at a time when it was the cultural norm. Men like Peter Martin an African American man who brought the case of Chloe Cooley to the Council of Upper Canadian legislature. In doing this Peter Martin started a process that would eventually would lead to laws that would slowly abolish slavery. To illustrate how most Caucasian men and women viewed African American men as dishonest and untrustworthy Cooper gives us the example of William Grisley. Peter Martin needed Grisley in order to “’to prove the truth of his allegation’”[5] which goes to show how in that time a black man needed a white man’s word to prove his case to be legitimate. This case led to Simcoe lobbying for an act that would abolish slavery altogether. Although the act that he helped to produce eventually nicknamed “Simcoe’s Act”[6] did not completely abolish slavery it did lead to promising steps forward and it slowly began to chisel away at the slave trade. The act stated that children born after 1793 would be free on their “25^th birthday”[7] and also that their children would “earn their freedom at birth”[8]. It also allowed for no buying and selling of slaves between the United States and Canada. This act also help to lead to the idea of the Underground Railroad and would eventually lead to Canada being free of slavery. So in conclusion, what Cooper argues is that a small act of resistance as simple as Chloe Cooley yelling for help can lead to a revolution that can change the world. She gives evidence to this by the acts of both Peter Martin and Simcoe who were compelled to make a change after the terrible abuse that befell Chloe Cooley.

Bibliography

Afua Cooper, “Acts of Resistance Black Men and Women Engage Slavery in Upper Canada, 1793-1803,”

Ontario History 99 (2007) 1-13.

[1] Afua Cooper, “Acts of Resistance Black Men and Women Engage Slavery in Upper Canada, 1793-1803,” Ontario History 99 (2007) 2.

[2] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 2.

[3] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 2.

[4] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 2.

[5] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 5.

[6] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 8.

[7] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 8.

[8] Cooper “Acts of Resistance,” 8.

Journal Entry #5

In her article Naomi Griffiths is primarily concerned with the identity of Acadians both before and after the deportation. She is interested in their strong sense of cultural identity and how that was established. She remarks that the Acadians went through a very prosperous age in 1713 she says that “The community was demographically self-generating and economically self-sufficient”[1] . She also goes on to say that their religious groups were thriving as well as their strong sense of community and family. Griffiths seems to be asserting that because of these strong cultural, economic, and religious bonds that Acadia stood outside of the others cultures that inhabited the area. One of the interesting effects of this cultural phenomenon is that they were able to use religious faiths like Catholicism to their own means. Because they felt no particular ties to France or England they “were neither controlled by the priests in their political life nor particularly obedient to the precepts of the church”[2]. So essentially Acadia picked and chose what ideals from the religious faiths they wanted to follow. This is a very modern take on religion that shows just how unique a place Acadia really was. Unfortunately this way of life was not to last for the English soon began to realize that the people of Acadia had to answer to their role. While Acadian people were not particularly against the idea they did want to reserve the right to “not be obliged to carry arms”[3]. It seems by making this clause that Acadia wanted to remain the peaceful, prosperous community they had become. However, this arrangement was not built to last the English demanded that the Acadians take up arms and of course Acadia stood its ground and declined. This is the event that led to the deportation of the Acadians. The British shipped the Acadians away on vessels by the thousands. The sad part of this event was that the deaths on the ship reached “50% and in most cases 30% of those embarked”[4]. Griffiths does not deny that this genocide did not break up their strong community. However, she argues that it did not break up the identity of the Acadian people. She says that despite the effort of the British government Nova Scotia “had never been entirely without them”[5]. This is a testament to just how strong the identity of the Acadians were. Even though they were deported and exiled a certain amount remained and others slowly made their way home. If there is one thing that can be said about Acadia and their people it is that they were an unwavering, unflinching community that would not let its cultural identity slip into the past.

Bibliography

Naomi E.S. Griffiths, “Acadian Identity: The Creation and Re-Creation of Community” Dalhousie Review. 73 (1993): 325-349.

[1] Naomi E.S. Griffiths, “Acadian Identity: The Creation and Re-Creation of Community” Dalhousie Review. 73 (1993): 330.

[2] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” 331.

[3] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” 333.

[4] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” 334.

[5] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” 335.

Journal Entry #4

In her essay Noel is arguing that historians have to take a different view of the role of woman in pre-confederation Canada. Up to the point where she was writing her article and even now the role of women is largely misunderstood. Some had argued that women were either a “push”[1] or “pull”[2] factor to lure men into coming and staying in the colonies. However, Noel would argue the exact opposite. Noel has found evidence that women were not only able to contribute as much to the household as men but in many cases they would do more. For example, women had their duties inside the household such as cleaning, cooking, and taking care of the children, but they also would take part in the farming and sewing and trading as well. As Noel says “The “nagging wife” may not have joined her husband in the canoe, but there was a good chance she grew the tobacco, made the shirts he took west to trade – maybe even made the canoe itself!”[3] Which suggests that woman played a much larger role in pre confederation Canada that anyone ever thought.  It was even possible for a woman to be the head of her own household and be financially independent. For example Louis Denys de La Ronde seized the opportunity of taking her husband’s land after he passed and with it she ended up earning “over 46,000 Livres”[4]. Essentially what Noel is trying to do is to shed a light on what woman were and how successful they could become in pre confederation Canada. Through the evidence she presents she shows that woman thrived if they were resourceful, and ambitious enough. In Adrienne Ledeauc’s letter to Jeanne she is trying to communicate to Jeanne how similar they were and after having spent time researching her life she can draw similar experiences between them. Ledeauc catalogues Jeanne’s journey as a fille du roi and the coditions that she woud have had to deal with. She speaks about what the journey from France to New France would have been like and how they were in danger of pirate attacks and disease. She also discusses how upon arrival to the colonies the woman would be greeted by men who could “be deprived of the right to trade, hunt, or fish. And the privileges of church and community would be withheld from them”[5]  She talks about how Jeanne may have felt pressured to marry her husband based on this and also how easy it would be to fall into one of these pre-arranged marriages especially when all of her friends were doing the same. She ends her letter with addressing how she is a war bride from 1946 and how as she sailed across the Atlantic she felt “I can identify with you, Jeanne, because I was one of these young women”[6] Adrienne Ledauc felt that her journey perfectly coincided with Jeanne’s and because of this she felt necessary to do more research into the fille du roi and in particular Jeanne Faucheaux.

Bibliography

Adrienne Ledeauc, “A Fille Du Roi’s Passage” 81 (2001) 1.

Jan Noel, “Nagging Wife” Revisited: Women and the Fur Trade in New France” French Colonial History 7    (2006) 2.

[1] Jan Noel, “Nagging Wife” Revisited: Women and the Fur Trade in New France” French Colonial History 7 (2006) 2.

[2] Noel, “Nagging Wife” 2.

[3] Noel, “Nagging Wife” 13.

[4] Noel, “Nagging Wife” 5.

[5] Adrienne Ledeauc, “A Fille Du Roi’s Passage” 81 (2001) 1.

[6] Ledeauc, “A Fille Du Roi’s Passage” 1.

Journal Entry #3

Donald Holly and Ralph Pastore are arguing that the supposed idea that the Beothuk people had no agency is completely untrue. When looking at the first contact between Europeans and the Native people it is assumed that the natives were docile and accepting of their fate and lack of agency. Holly argues that the opposite is true. He says that “Even in the midst of great historical turmoil, they held feasts, they secretly stole or destroyed equipment, openly attacked settlers”[1] Holly fights for the Beothuk’s agency by giving evidence to the fact that they fought back against the European settlers of the time. He insists that “the Beothuk, illustrate, through confrontation, that they were agents” [2] Holly wants to ensure that the historical record is set straight about native engagement and agency at this time period. Now, Pastore is more focused on how the Beothuk people were also interested in stealing from the Europeans and remaining autonomous. Pastore says that “these seasonally-abandoned fishing premises were treasure troves of metal objects”[3]  the Beothuk’s had no need to trade with Europeans because they found whatever they needed at the abandoned shores of the Europeans. As a result of this, Europeans were forced to trap their own fur and it became next to impossible to negotiate trades between the two groups. Due to the lack of resources there was no presence of missionaries in Newfoundland, which at the time was another way that Europeans would make contact with the Native people. Ultimately, both Pastore and Holly are trying to resist the old notion that the Beothuk’s in particular had no agency. They insist that through violence, confrontation, and scavenging the Beothuk people carved out their own existence independent of European help or trade. Although they did eventually die out the notion that they were doomed to this fate is no longer valid.

Bibliography

Holly H. Donald, “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction,” Arctic Anthropology 37 (2000): 79-95.

Pastore Ralph, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World” Acadiensis: Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region 19 (1989): 52-71.

[1] Holly H. Donald, “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction,” Arctic Anthropology 37 (2000): 90.

[2] Holly, “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction,” 89.

[3] Pastore Ralph, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World” Acadiensis: Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region 19 (1989): 57.