See paradigm defined - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm
See Zeitgeist defined - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zeitgeist
Having written an essay about Louis Riel and his impact on western settlement, the following can be agreed upon:
Riel used political, social and military means to advocate on behalf of his constituency - the Metis. He did what he thought was fair and just based on his interpretation of who had right to the land and what would best protect the language and culture of his constituency going forward.
Riel personified the inherent conflict brewing between natives and non-natives based on the fallout resulting from the paradigm shifts which had taken place in "first contact" between Europeans and natives, the emerging fur trade and New France, The Conquest and British North America.
What were those paradigms and how did they clash and merge to transform the world of native peoples, and, on a larger scale, the world of what becomes Canada?
French Colonialism
The conventionally agreed upon beginnings of a French presence in what becomes Canada, and indeed the name Canada itself begins with Jacques Cartier. The explorer claimed part of present day Canada for France in 1534. Cartier's voyages and his reports were critical in terms of convincing France to move forward and make New France, as it was eventually called a colonial priority.
Below is a story detailing a recent archaeological find documenting one of Cartier's settlements.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=edd7eac6-f566-4011-87d7-82becfc883a2&sponsor=
What could motivate European powers like France, Britain and Spain to pursue colonial property around the world?
To understand this, we need to examine the colonial paradigm...
The mother country (i.e. one of the three European powers) would find some useful good (i.e. the beaver in New France, spices in the Far East) that was otherwise unavailable or could be manufactured into a finished good that was in demand back home.
In this arrangement, the colony was a storehouse of sorts or supply line. The focus was entirely on the needs of the mother country, which created the demand and dictated the terms of all development. In this way, the mother country served as the center and the colony as the hinterland. We refer to this as metropolitanism.
The Metropolitan Thesis, also known as the Laurentian thesis, is one of the dominant schools in Canadian historical thought. The basic argument of the school states that the driving force in Canadian History has been the nation's metropolitan areas. These originally included Paris, London (after 1763), and finally Montreal and Toronto in the modern era. These metropolitan centers determined how Canada would be developed, how it would be governed, and how it would be settled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Thesis
In metropolitanism, cities cast huge shadows of influence over other areas. We see concrete examples of this in many aspects of Canadian society. The means by which representation by population is exclusively used to fill the federal parliament centralizes power by giving the most populated areas the greatest influence.
See the chart in the link below. A careful examination of the chart shows that out of 308 seats in the House of Commons, Ontario gets 106 members and Quebec gets 75. In other words, 58% of the seats available in the federal parliament come from these two powerful provinces. This gives Ontario and Quebec what amounts to perpetual control of the national agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada
The railway is also a symbol of metropolitan control, creating an east-west trade axis instead of a north-south one. In part, this occurs as a result of the split between the Thirteen Colonies and Britain. However, the net effect of the railway is to act as the backbone of metropolitan control of the west, as finished goods are produced in Ontario and shipped out to the frontier.
Cultural exchanges between peoples are also a part of colonization and native peoples soon found the "Black Robes" or Jesuits amongst them. These were representatives of the Catholic Church whose aim was to spread the word of God and compel religious conversion throughout the world. The Jesuits were extremely well educated and made relations with native peoples a priority based on their mission. However, other French influences made such relations a priority for other purposes.
Background of the Society of Jesus
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm
The Jesuit Order today in English Canada
http://www.jesuits.ca/About_us/index.php
Intermarriage between French and natives led to the Metis. This led to a blending of native culture with the addition of the French language and the Catholic faith. The reason that French Canadians identified with Louis Riel was because they saw Riel as a defender of French language rights and French education, which invariably took place in the Catholic church. Also, the French found themselves conquered by the English after 1760, and as such could identify with the Metis who felt conquered as well. By and large, the frustration French and native peoples felt was based on a changing economy and the move away from the fur trade and the staple culture.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?Params=A1ARTA0005259&PgNm=TCE
British Colonialism
The 1759 Conquest, which culminates in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham results in the fall of New France and the first of many transformational changes in North America.
See the link below and read about the Plains of Abraham and the context of this struggle during the French and Indian War.
- Britain's complete dominance of North America after 1760
- The decline of the fur trade as a viable economic activity
- The changing nature of European settlement after 1760
Given the fact that Britain had outlasted France and Spain in the rush to colonize the New World, and the fur trade was declining due to the fall in the demand for fashionable products made from fur, "Quebec" as New France was now known, would move to a settlement culture. In the interests of growing the colony profitably, the British relied on the template of the Thirteen Colonies to the south, expecting that Montreal and Quebec would become centers of commerce and manufacturing. However, the capacity to do this was woefully weak given the fact that the French population that remained had no interest or skills in becoming merchants like the ones in Boston. They preferred to keep to themselves and continue farming along the banks of the St. Lawrence. British immigration to Quebec in the 1760's was limited and so the development Britain hoped for would not materialize. Ultimately, the real catalyst for economic change would depend on an influx of enterprising, industrious, and business-minded people -- namely, the United Empire Loyalists. But that would take until the time of the American Revolution; a long way off.
In the meantime, the majority French population were frustrated by having a significant part of their livelihood (i.e. the fur trade) legislated away from them by the British in the interests of "modernization". As a consequence there was no enthusiasm for enterprise and the merchant trade. Combined with the relatively small numbers coming in from Britain, Quebec stumbled economically. The growing difficulties with the Thirteen Colonies and the unmistakable dominance of the French Catholic population, convinced those charged with administering Quebec on behalf of
Britain that something would have to be done to keep the French happy, otherwise they might join the American Revolution.
The solution to this problem was the Quebec Act. See the link below. It served to secure French Canadian support, but it also greatly offended the American colonists and is widely viewed as being one of the Intolerable Acts which pushed the colonists over the edge and started the War of Independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act
