Category: Reading Logs (page 1 of 1)

Reading Log Week 5: Where Did Acadia Come From?

CBC, “Acadian Facts,” The Acadians. http://www.cbc.ca/acadian/acadian_facts.html (2016).

Naomi E. S. Griffiths, “Acadian Identity: The Creation and Re-creation of Community,” Dalhousie Review 73:3 (Fall 1993): 325-349.

In this weeks readings from CBC and Naomi E. S. Griffiths, we are presented with two sources that have become pivotal to retrieving information: the news[1] and an essay[2]. While reading both articles I was intrigued by Griffiths story-like approach to explain Acadia, and saw it is a better, more reliable representation of the people’s life over the CBC websites information.

Griffith’s first person point of view made the information easier to read; although it was longer, it gave her room to go in depth with reasoning and made the article flow. Her main argument was that “community is created, not inherited,”[3] and from this explains how the French and English built the land after migrating. Her personal research contradicts her main argument though, she explains her plan to explain Acadia’s “distinctiveness in some encapsulation by the Acadians as a French national spirit,”[4] but contradicts this when she states how she plans to explain the Acadian’s distinctiveness and not-inherited community.

CBC also states that the Acadian’s history and nationality were different from French Canadians by using the motto “L’union fait lad force”[5] (strength through unity). Griffiths and CBC both realize that Acadia was built by migrating immigrants, but Griffiths believes Champlain and other French founded the land; whereas CBC states the land was inhabited by Native tribes and founded by Giavanni de Verazzano. The CBC article is very dry and to the point with it’s information, it does not explain why the Europeans were migrating; whereas Griffiths goes into depth explaining why the Europeans migrated and what they were hoping to achieve.[6] It is clear that both authors understood the sense of unity by Acadian people, although it’s hard to believe their community was built off purely original morals because a majority of the people coming to inherit land were descendants of  France and England.

CBC has no sources on their website making the reliability of the information hard to determine. In society we have accustomed ourselves to accepting the news as a reliable source, and rarely question the information we receive– so how do we determine the reliability of history that is presented through the news if there are no sources? Griffith’s, although a written essay, has many scholarly and reliable sources.The written essay by Griffiths is more reliable than the news article because she presents actual sources and explains the history of Acadia in depth and with reason.

[1] CBC, “Acadian Facts,” The Acadians. http://www.cbc.ca/acadian/acadian_facts.html (2016).

[2] Naomi E. S. Griffiths, “Acadian Identity: The Creation and Re-creation of Community,” Dalhousie Review 73:3 (Fall 1993): 325-349.

[3] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” Dalhousie Review 73:3 (Fall 1993): 329.

[4] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” Dalhousie Review 73:3 (Fall 1993): 329.

[5] CBC, “Acadian Facts,” The Acadians. http://www.cbc.ca/acadian/acadian_facts.html (2016).

[6] Griffiths, “Acadian Identity,” Dalhousie Review 73:3 (Fall 1993): 831.

Reading Log Week 1: What Even Is History?

John Douglas Belshaw, Canadian History: Pre Confederation, 1.

In the first chapter of John Douglas Belshaw’s, ‘Canadian History: Pre-Confederation’ he focuses on answering: what is history? To answer this question he focuses on three main points : how to make histories, research histories, and understand how history has influenced the modern world. In the beginning of the chapter he states that the “study of history is a combination of the ‘what’ and the ‘how’.” [1] This ‘what’ and ‘how’ can be found through historiography (the study of historical writing), and come from either a primary or secondary source. Just as anything else in the modern world history cannot always be trusted; to be legitimate historical evidence the material must be reliable and verifiable. This can be difficult to determine because history has a stale-date and the “past is constantly subject to change.” [2] We are constantly making history–yesterday, just as one-hundred years ago, is no longer the present; therefore anything done or learned in the past can be used as a building block for history. Many factors come into place when understanding the past: events, leaders, ideologies and methodologies are what create what we know as history. If historical events such as the Canadian fur trade did not happen, there would be no Canada, or if the National School approach never existed Canada would have never gained the national identity or historiography that they did. These events would have never occurred if Canada hadn’t had the leaders and ideologies that they did.

So what is history? History is a past that lingers on today. It is our foundation and our answers to the ‘what’ and ‘how’s’ of today.

[1] John Douglas Belshaw, Canadian History: Pre Confederation, 1.

[2] Belshaw, Canadian History: Pre Confederation, 5.

Reading Log Week 3: Beothuk’s Take Independence to a Whole New Level

Donald H. Holly Jr., “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction” Arctic Anthropology 37:1 (2000), p.79-95.

Ralph Pastore, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World,” Acadiensis 19:1 (Fall 1989), p.52-71.

In both articles “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction” [1] and “The Collapse of the Beothuk World,”[2] the authors focus on answering the question, why did the Beothuk fail as a group? This question is arduous to answer since the majority of the evidence to support it is based upon archaeological findings rather than written documents. At this time the Beothuk had no means or understanding of documentation because they had withdrawn their group from the burgeoning world. Both articles agree that Beothuk primarily failed due to their withdrawal from European communication, or “avoidance model”[3]. Their evasion towards assimilation was a surprise to many, and strongly sustained through all the people; they were quite literally, their own group of people in their own territory.

The primary reason for the extinction of the Beothuk people was their lack of contact with the assimilating Europeans. The Europeans were seen as a threat to the Beothuk’s; therefore, the Beothuk’s moved their place of inhabitants from the coast of New Foundland where they were able to thrive, to the inner depths of the island, where they were farther from the newcomers; but, resources were harder to come by. It is no surprise the Beothuk became extinct, they had no ties with any outside sources. They did not participate in the fur trade, had no easy to access to their most recognized source of food (sea animals), no firearms which denied them access to war, and no missionary visits[4]; this all lead to their failure to expand and thus, thrive.

Donald Holly’s article proposes that the Beothuk’s were seen as a group with no potential from the start, but opposes this theory and states that they did actually stand a chance. He states that their settlement, sustenance, emphasis on identity, and avoidance of the Europeans, were them actively seeking a means of adaption; but also makes a point of calling it an “inevitable extinction.”[5] This article had contradicting points of view from the sources and even made a point of referencing on of them as a ‘revised’ version, which made the points less convincing. He was also quoting data of Pastore, the author of the second article “The Collapse of the Beothuk World,” which makes him seem less knowledgeable.

Pastore’s article is much more convincing than Holly’s. He makes an effort to introduce his sources in such a way that composes them as scholarly and reliable with sayings such as: “remarkable collection of documents”[6] and “used by popular researchers”[7]. He goes into more depth for explaining how the Beothuk’s withdrew from society and how this effected them by giving the examples of their lacking participation in fur trade and pointing out that they were unique from other Native groups because they did not struggle with the same things like: disease, alcoholism, and assault on their beliefs[8].

Holly and Pastore share similar points of view in explaining why the Beothuk’s became extinct, but Holly carried out his article in a more understandable and scholarly fashion with his use of erudite examples and quotes.

[1] Donald H. Holly Jr., “The Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction” Arctic Anthropology 37:1 (2000), p.79-95.

[2] Ralph Pastore, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World,” Acadiensis 19:1 (Fall 1989), p.52-71.

[3] Holly, “Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction” p. 83.

[4] Pastore, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World” p. 57.

[5] Holly, “Beothuk on the Eve of Their Extinction” p.83.

[6] Pastore, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World” p. 56.

[7] Pastore, “The Collapse of the Beothuk World” p.56.

[8] Pastore, ““The Collapse of the Beothuk World” p.57

Reading Log Week 2: The Insistent Missionary

James P. Ronda, “‘We Are Well As We Are’: An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), 75.

Ronda, “‘We Are Well As We Are’: An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions,” 76.

Have you ever questioned the background of a certain religion? Not just the God, or the written book by which they serve, but the actual character traits each individual withholds? This is exactly what Ronda digs into in the article, ‘We Are Well As We Are’: An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions.” An article that questions the reliability and background of a religious group’s actions is very odd, because religion is a very touchy topic, but Ronda goes about this in a respectful, yet powerful manner. This article was written to prove that missionaries in the past were in fact, selfish and abjure; contrary to the common belief that they are dedicated, self-sacrificing people. I was taken back by this article because I was unaware of this hidden past on missionaries, I was one of the people who believed that they were self-less followers willing to help anyone, but this article proves otherwise using the Native Americans as a strong example. Throughout the article Ronda argues on the Native Indians side to prove that missionaries are not what they are made out to be. The missionaries, or Jesuits, were a very common group in Europe in the seventeenth century; therefore influential to people around the world. Many people were influenced by this religion and took it into their own homes; it became very common and many people (especially missionaries) were spreading the word of God to all to continue the rise of Christian faith. Since the Indians would not take in Christianity they were perceived to be deviant and incapable of change. Their religion was not taken seriously; for example, their healing ritual was seen as sinful and diabolical to the Jesuits and they condemned them for that. The Jesuits also tried to convince the Indians that there is a hell by going as far as making highly coloured pictures to depict the torments or the hell they believe in, but even after all this the Indians still sought heaven and hell to be fables and romantic stories. Neither group had respect for the other, and both viewed each others leaders as “devils, demons, sorcerors, and witches.”[1] Many Indians stayed true to their religion despite the attack of the Christian God and the intense missionary imperialism; even political leaders went as far as making speeches to keep the Indians strong to withhold the beliefs of their ancestors, “if you my brothers, like me, have any feeling and love for yourselves, for your children, and for your country, choose with me to consider him rather as an enemy rather than as a friend”[2].

This article proves through many quotes and accusations that the missionaries in the seventeenth century were in fact, judgemental, selfish, and unwilling to accept the fact that other people may disagree with their beliefs. This article is convincing, because as someone has never considered this topic, I believed everything Ronda said with no questions or considerations.

[1] James P. Ronda, “‘We Are Well As We Are’: An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), 75.

[2] Ronda, “‘We Are Well As We Are’: An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions,” 76.