To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Nationalisms in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has historically been, and continues to be, several rival nationalisms in Canada. Canadians have differing cultural and political identifications which often overlap. Loyalty towards Canada is tempered by strong regional and ethnic identities, and an affinity toward a common North American culture shared with the United States.

The largest and most-apparent differences are between English and French Canada, with the federal government recognizing the Québécois as "a nation within a united Canada".[1] Among the provinces, Newfoundlanders also have a strong sense of national identity, having had a period of separate nationhood before joining the Canadian Confederation. Additionally, there has been a revival of Aboriginal nationalism, identifying with a specific band or tribe or with First Nations in general.

Also common are diaspora nationalisms, with nearly every such community represented in Canada. Most Canadians see no conflict in being loyal to Canada while retaining a sense of ethnic identity and connection to the homeland. With an increasingly diverse cultural landscape in the country, some have advocated for civic nationalism based on shared citizenship and common rights.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 694 753
    3 249
    122 300
    1 086
    3 184 043
  • ✪ Decolonization and Nationalism Triumphant: Crash Course World History #40
  • ✪ Who Belongs? | 1 of 4 | Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities || Radcliffe Institute
  • ✪ The rise of China and the inevitable decline of America
  • ✪ David A. Wilson: The Moderate McGee
  • ✪ Communists, Nationalists, and China's Revolutions: Crash Course World History #37

Transcription

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about decolonization. The empires European states formed in the 19th century proved about as stable and long-lasting as Genghis Khan’s, leading to so many of the nation states we know and love today. Yes, I’m looking at you, Burundi. DID YOU EVER KNOW YOU’RE MY BURUNDI? YOU’RE EVERYTHING-- [Stan brings Karaoke house down with his version of WindBeneathMyWings? Not kidding] STAN, DON’T CUT TO THE INTRO! I SING LIKE AN ANGEL! [BEST] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [EVAR] So unless you’re over 60-- and let’s face it, Internet, you’re not-- you’ve only ever known a world of nation states. But as we’ve seen from Egypt to Alexander the Great to China to Rome to the Mongols, who, for once, are not the exception here, [lackadaisical layabouts listen to their legion's lamentations, lounging no longer.] to the Ottomans and the Americas, empire has long been the dominant way we’ve organized ourselves politically-- or at least the way that other people have organized us. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! So to them Star Wars would’ve been, like, a completely different movie. Most of them would’ve been like, Go Empire! Crush those rebels! Yeah, also they’d be like what is this screen that displays crisp moving images of events that are not currently occurring? [failing to imagine MFTP's ideas complexly] Also, not to get off-topic, but you never learn what happens AFTER the rebel victory in Star Wars. And, as as we’ve learned from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring, revolution is often the easy part. [tell that to residents of Alderaan] I mean, you think destroying a Death Star is hard? Try negotiating a trade treaty with gungans. [oh Naboo you di'int!] Right, anyway. So, the late 20th century was not the first time that empires disintegrated. Rome comes to mind. Also the Persians. And of course the American Revolution ended one kind of European imperial experiment. But in all those cases, Empire struck back... heh heh, you see what I did there? I mean, Britain lost its 13 colonies, but later controlled half of Africa and all of India. And what makes the recent decolonization so special is that at least so far, no empires have emerged to replace the ones that fell. And this was largely due to World War II because on some level, the Allies were fighting to stop Nazi imperialism: Hitler wanted to take over Central Europe, and Africa, and probably the Middle East-- and the Ally defeat of the Nazis discredited the whole idea of empire. So the English, French, and Americans couldn’t very well say to the colonial troops who’d fought alongside them, “Thank you so much for helping us to thwart Germany’s imperialistic ambitions. As a reward, please hand in your rifle and return to your state of subjugation.” [a little awkward, that] Plus, most of the big colonial powers-- especially France, Britain, and Japan-- had been significantly weakened by World War II, by which I mean that large swaths of them looked like this: So, post-war decolonization happened all over the place: The British colony that had once been “India” became three independent nations. By the way, is this Gandhi or is this Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi? In Southeast Asia, French Indochina became Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. And the Dutch East Indies became Indonesia. But of course when we think about decolonization, we mostly think about Africa going from this to this: So we’re gonna oversimplify here, [got that, commenters?] because we have to, [not because we hate and/or forgot you] but decolonization throughout Afro-Eurasia had some similar characteristics. Because it occurred in the context of the Cold War, many of these new nations had to choose between socialist and capitalist influences, which shaped their futures. [and their future color-coding] While many of these new countries eventually adopted some form of democracy, the road there was often rocky. Also decolonization often involved violence, usually the overthrow of colonial elites. But we’ll turn now to the most famous nonviolent-- or supposedly so, anyway-- decolonization: that of India. So the story begins, more or less, in 1885 with the founding of the Indian National Congress. Congress Party leaders and other nationalists in India were usually from the elite classes. Initially, they didn’t even demand independence from Britain. But they were interested in creating a modern Indian nation rather than a return to some ancient pre-colonial form, possibly because India was-- and is--hugely diverse and really only unified into a single state when under imperial rule by one group or another, whether the Mauryans, the Guptas, the Mughals, or the British. Okay, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The best known Indian nationalist, Mohandas K. Gandhi, was a fascinating character: [and a fabric-draping genius] A British educated lawyer born to a wealthy family, he’s known for making his own clothes, his long fasts, and his battles to alleviate poverty, improve the rights of women, and achieve a unified Indian independence from Britain. In terms of decolonization, he stands out for his use of nonviolence and his linking it to a somewhat mythologized view of Indian history. I mean, after all, there’s plenty of violence in India’s past and in its heroic epics, but Gandhi managed to hearken back to a past that used nonviolence to bring change. Gandhi and his compatriot Jawaharlal Nehru believed that a single India could continue to be ruled by Indian elites and somehow transcend the tension between the country’s Hindu majority and its sizable Muslim minority. In this they were less practical than their contemporary, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League who felt-- to quote historian Ainslie Embree-- "that the unified India of which the Congress spoke was an artificial one, created and maintained by British bayonets.” Jinnah proved correct and in 1947 when the British left, their Indian colony was partitioned into the modern state of India and West and East Pakistan, the latter of which became Bangladesh in 1971. While it’s easy to congratulate both the British and the Indian governments on an orderly and nonviolent transfer of power, the reality of partition was neither orderly nor nonviolent. About 12 million people were displaced as Hindus in Pakistan moved to India and Muslims in India moved to Pakistan. As people left their homes, sometimes unwillingly, there was violence, and all tolled as many as half a million people were killed, more than died in the bloody Indonesian battle for independence. So while it’s true that the massive protests that forced Britain to end its colonization of India were nonviolent, the emergence of the independent states involved really wasn’t. Thanks, Thought Bubble. All this violence devastated Gandhi, whose lengthy and repeated hunger strikes to end violence had mixed results, and who was eventually assassinated by a Hindu nationalist who felt that Gandhi was too sympathetic to Muslims. Oh, it’s time for the open letter? [we should just add wheels to the throne, maybe?] An Open Letter to hunger strikers. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. A cupcake? Stan, this just seems cruel. [and delicious. DFTB delicious.] These are from Meredith the Intern to celebrate Merebration, the holiday she invented to celebrate the anniversary of her singleness. [no good can come of this, John…] Dear hunger strikers, Do you remember earlier when I said that Gandhi hearkened back to a mythologized Indian past? Well it turns out that hunger striking in India goes back all the way to, like, the 5th century BCE. Hunger strikes have been used around the world including British and American suffragettes, who hunger struck to get the vote. And in pre-Christian Ireland, when you felt wronged by someone, it was common practice to sit on their doorstep and hunger strike until your grievance was addressed. And sometimes it even works. I really admire you, hunger strikers. But I lack the courage of your convictions. Also, this is an amazing cupcake. Best wishes, John Green Since independence, India has largely been a success story, although we will talk about the complexity of India’s emerging global capitalism next week. For now, though, let’s travel east to Indonesia, [by map?] a huge nation of over 13,000 islands that has largely been ignored here on Crash Course World History due to our long-standing bias against islands. Like, we haven’t even mentioned Greenland on this show. The Greenlanders, of course, haven’t complained because they don’t have the Internet.[about to show how much internet they have in comments...] So, the Dutch exploited their island colonies with the system of kultuurstelsel, [gesundheit!] in which all peasants had to set aside one fifth of their land to grow cash crops for export to the Netherlands. This accounted for 25% of the total Dutch national budget and it explains why they have all kinds of fancy buildings despite technically living underwater. [flippers > wooden shoes] They’re like sea monkeys. This system was rather less popular in Indonesia, and the Dutch didn’t offer much in exchange. They couldn’t even defend their colony from the Japanese, who occupied it for most of World War II, during which time the Japanese furthered the cause of Indonesian nationalism by placing native Indonesians in more prominent positions of power, including Sukarno, who became Indonesia’s first prime minister. After the war, the Dutch-- with British help-- tried to hold onto their Indonesian colonies with so-called “police actions,” which went on for more than four years before Indonesia finally won its independence in 1950. Over in the French colonies of IndoChina, so called because they were neither Indian nor Chinese, things were even more violent. The end of colonization was disastrous in Cambodia, where the 17-year reign of Norodom Sihanouk gave way to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, [Pol Pot definitely prime candidate for the Evil Baby Orphanage] which massacred a stunning 21% of Cambodia’s population between 1975 and 1979. In Vietnam, the French fought communist-led nationalists, especially Ho Chi Minh from almost the moment World War II ended until 1954, when the French were defeated. And then the Americans learned that there was a land war available in Asia, so they quickly took over from the French and communists did not fully control Vietnam until 1975. Despite still being ostensibly communist, Vietnam now manufactures all kinds of stuff that we like in America, especially sneakers. More about that next week, too, but now to Egypt. You’ll remember that Egypt bankrupted itself in the 19th century, trying to industrialize and ever since had been ruled by an Egyptian king who took his orders from the British. So while technically Egypt had been independent since 1922, it was very dependent independence. But, that changed in the 1950s, when the king was overthrown by the army. The army commander who led that coup was Gemal Abdul Nasser, who proved brilliant at playing the US and the USSR off each other to the benefit of Egypt. Nasser’s was a largely secular nationalism, and he and his successors saw one of the other anti-imperialistic nationalist forces in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, as a threat. So once in power, Nasser and the army banned the Muslim Brotherhood, forcing it underground, where it would disappear and never become an issue again. [not exactly] Wait, what’s that? ...Really? And finally let’s turn to Central and Southern Africa. One of the most problematic legacies of colonialism was its geography. Colonial boundaries became redefined as the borders of new nation states, even where those boundaries were arbitrary or, in some cases, pernicious. The best known example is in Rwanda, where two very different tribes, the Hutu and the Tutsis were combined into one nation. But, more generally, the colonizers’ focus on value extraction really hurt these new nations. Europeans claimed to bring civilization and economic development to their colonies, but this economic development focused solely on building infrastructure to get resources and export them. Now whether European powers deliberately sabotaged development in Africa is a hot-button topic we’re going to stay well away from, but this much is inarguably true: when the Europeans left, African nations did not have the institutions necessary to thrive in the post-war industrial world. They had very few schools, for instance, and even fewer universities. Like, when the Congo achieved independence from Belgium in 1960, there were sixteen college graduates in a country of fourteen million people. Also, in many of these new countries, the traditional elites had been undermined by imperialism. Most Europeans didn’t rule their African possessions directly but rather through the proxies of local rulers. And once the Europeans left, those local rulers, the upper classes, were seen as illegitimate collaborators. And this meant that a new group of rulers had to rise up to take their place, often with very little experience in governance. I mean, Zimbabwe’s long-serving dictator Robert Mugabe was a high school teacher. Let that be a lesson to you. YOUR TEACHERS MAY HAVE DICTATORIAL AMBITIONS. But most strongmen have emerged, of course, from the military: Joseph Mobutu seized power in the Congo, which he held from 1965 until his death in 1997. Idi Amin was military dictator of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya from 1977 until 2011. The list goes on, but I don’t want to give the wrong impression about Africa. Because while the continent does have less freedom and lower levels of development than other regions in the world, many African nations show strong and consistent signs of growth despite the challenges of decolonization. Botswana for instance has gone from 70% literacy to 85% in the past 15 years and has seen steady GDP growth over 5%. Benin’s economy has grown in each of the past 12 years, which is better than Europe or the US can say. In 2002, Kenya’s life expectancy was 47; today it’s 63. Ethiopia’s per capita GDP has doubled over the past 10 years; and Mauritania has seen its infant mortality rate fall by more than 40%. Now, this progress is spotty and fragile, but it’s important to note that these nations have existed, on average, about 13 years less than my dad. Of course, past experience with the fall of empires hasn’t given us cause for hope, but many citizens of these new nations are seeing real progress. That said, disaster might lurk around the corner. It’s hard to say. I mean, now more than ever, we’re trying to tell the story of humans... from inside the story of humans. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. [single, yes, but waaay too cool for you] The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. [is it true what they say about Winnipeg?] Last week’s phrase of the week was “Meatloaf’s Career.” If you want to guess at this week’s phrase of the week or suggest future ones, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to Never get involved in a land war in Asia. [outro]

Contents

Identifying nationalism

There has long been a recognition by scholars that English and French Canada have divergent views of the nation, often referred to as the Two Solitudes, from the title of a 1945 novel.

The existence of multiple strains of nationalism within nineteenth century English-speaking Canada was first explored by historian Carl Berger in his 1971 book The Sense of Power[2] and his article in The Journal of British Studies.[3]

History

First Nations, first nationalism?

In the historiography of nationalism there is significant dispute over whether true nationalism existed in pre-modern societies. Canada's aboriginal peoples were generally organized into small societies which anthropologists call bands, which were sometimes part of a larger grouping called a tribe. Occasionally several tribes would form a larger group called a confederacy (the Iroquois, Seven Nations of Canada, Huron, Blackfoot, and Plains Cree-Assiniboine were or are confederacies). None of these resembled nations as understood in Europe in terms of scale or permanence. Today these groupings are referred to as "First Nations", representing their historical and modern role as sources of identity for many native people.

Settler and refugee nationalism arrive

The first Europeans to exhibit nationalism in Canada may have been the French settlers who inhabited New France. They showed a great deal of loyalty and community in the face of repeated attacks by British and Iroquois rivals during the French and Indian Wars. However, by the end of the French regime in North America, acadiens and canadiens may have already been showing signs of developing identities distinct from France.

The interrelated British ideologies of nationalism, unionism, loyalism, and imperialism arrived first in Newfoundland then the Maritimes, and finally in Central Canada with British traders who followed the British Army into these regions as each was successively won from France, ending with the Treaty of Paris (1763). They were reinforced from the 1770s to 1810s by the United Empire Loyalists: pro-British refugees fleeing the American Revolution.

Rival nationalisms under British rule

Reactions to British and American encroachments produced movements for solidarity between native tribes across much of eastern North America during Pontiac's Rebellion of 1759 and Tecumseh's Rebellion of 1811. By the end of the War of 1812, however, natives had lost their national sovereignty across most of Eastern Canada.

The influx of British settlers into Canada helped to prompt the development of French-Canadian nationalism which was quite evident during the 1837 rebellion against British rule in Lower Canada. At the same time a few English-speakers in Upper Canada were switching from a British to a Canadian form of identity, as evidenced in the contemporaneous Upper Canada Rebellion, although this was a minority position.

Not long afterwards, many English-speakers in Canada became attracted to American nationalism, in the form of annexationism, highlighted by the Montreal Annexation Manifesto of 1850.

Irish nationalism in its strong form of physical force Irish republicanism was evident in Canada during the Fenian Raids of the 1860s and assassination of Thomas D'Arcy McGee in 1868.

Nationalism and Confederation

When the Canadian Confederation was established in 1867, British and Canadian forms of identity and political allegiance continued to coexist. In 1891 election, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, himself a Scotsman, wrapped himself in the Union Jack, swore to keep Canada British, and called proposals for freer trade with the United States "veiled treason".

In Western Canada, native tribes retained their autonomy from Canadian society far longer than in the east. The interaction of European and Canadian traders with Indians in the interior led to the creation of an entirely new nation, the Métis. Along with Indian allies, the Métis asserted their national rights during the two Riel Rebellions (1870 and 1885).

The turn of the 20th century to the Great Wars

The project of Imperial Federation (creating a federal government for the entire British Empire), had important advocates in English Canada (the "imperialists") around the turn of the 20th century, but it ultimately floundered due opposition from ("anti-imperialist" or "nationalist") French-Canadian leaders such as Henri Bourassa and Wilfrid Laurier, and to indifference in Britain.

"British feeling" in Canada was in decline following the Alaska boundary dispute in 1903, in which Britain sided with the United States' border claims over Canada's. Imperialists in Canada tried to correct this with the creation of the Empire Club of Canada that same year.

Newfoundland had persistently resisted offer to join the Canadian Confederation since 1867, and so was elevated to the status of a dominion in 1907, co-equal to Canada within the British Empire. This further solidified Newfoundlander identity and added a period of separate nationhood to the later mythos of Newfoundland.

By the 1910 Canadian federal election – which again centred on trade with the United States and also the creation of a Canadian Navy separate from the British Royal Navy – Prime Minister Laurier complained that in Quebec he was called an imperialist, in Ontario a separatist, but, he protested, he was simply a Canadian.

Canadian participation in the World Wars was both divisive and unifying in different ways. French Canadians resisted the implementation of conscription during the crises of 1917 and 1944, leading to an erosion of francophone identification with the Canadian federation. In contrast English Canadians, especially recent immigrants from England, rallied to join the military in large numbers out of a sense of British loyalism. They saw their experience of the war, fighting in the Canadian Corps, as "the birth of a nation", when Canada replaced Britain as their primary focus of loyalty.[4][5]

After the wars

Canadian ties with Britain were loosened when Canada became fully legislatively independent of the United Kingdom by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, created its own citizenship law in 1946, and its own flag in 1965. Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, though Newfoundlander identity did not disappear.

In Quebec traditional religion- and culture-focused French-Canadian nationalism was being replaced with a new state-centred Quebecois nationalism during the Quiet Revolution, leading many to adopt the goal of Quebec's secession from the Canadian confederation. This has for the most part been a peaceful movement, aside from a string of terrorist attacks by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) in 1969 and 1970, leading to a government crackdown in 1970.

Since the 1970s, there have also been movements that have sought to turn the habitual feelings of Western alienation into a movement for Western separatism or Alberta separatism, although these movements often overlap with annexationist movements.

Also since the 1960s and 1970s there has been a revival of Aboriginal nationalism in Canada. This can take the form of identification with a specific band or tribe or with First Nations in general. Cree and Inuit nationalism in northern Quebec (which is generally mutually exclusive with Quebecois nationalism) lead to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975) which was concerned with native title over northern Quebec's crown lands. However the potential fate of northern Quebec if Quebec were to secede from Canada remains a point of controversy. Inuit activism (perhaps nationalism) has led to the creation of the federal territory of Nunavut (1994) and intra-provincial territories of Nunavik (in Quebec), Nunatsiavut (in Newfoundland and Labrador), and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (in the Northwest Territories and Yukon).

Present day

Diaspora nationalisms are quite common in Canada, with nearly every diaspora community in the world represented. Prior to the liberalization of Canadian immigration laws in the 1960s, the largest diaspora populations were groups with European or Near Eastern origins like Ukrainian, Irish, Azerbaijani or Armenian nationalists, and Zionists (people who support the existence of Israel). These have since been joined by groups from other continents, especially Asia, such as Punjabi Sikhs, Sri Lankan Tamils, etc.

As of 2012 the two largest strains of nationalism in Canada are Canadian nationalism and Quebec nationalism. Most citizens of Canada have a strong sense of loyalty towards Canada and other Canadians, however this is tempered with strong regional and ethnic identities and an affinity towards a common North American culture shared with the United States. Most non-Aboriginal English-speakers in Canada consider Canada to be their "nation" and are hostile towards any proposals to divide the Canadian Confederation into smaller states, or join it to the United States. French-speakers in Quebec generally refer to Quebec, and not Canada, as their "nation" – although they may also have a strong sense of Canadian-ness and many "soft nationalists" are federalists (wanting to remain in Canada) rather than sovereigntists (seeking separation). Linguistic minorities (French-speakers outside of Quebec and English-speakers in Quebec) tend to be passionately pro-Canadian, seeing the continuation of Confederation as their only guarantee of continued cultural survival. A minority of the public in provinces other than Quebec also think of their province as their main source of loyalty, instead of Canada. Aboriginal peoples may (or may not) think of their band or tribe as their primary sources of identification, and may at the same time reject Canada as a colonial state or feel no animosity towards Canada (although resentment of perceived instances of racism is high). Recent immigrant groups are often accused in the populist media of being insufficiently loyal to Canada (e.g. being called "Canadians of convenience") but generally most Canadians find no conflict in being loyal to Canada and retaining a sense of ethnic identity and connection to the homeland.

According to the political philosopher Charles Blattberg, Canada should be seen as a multinational country. All Canadians are members of Canada as a civic or political community, a community of citizens, and this is a community that contains many other kinds within it. These include not only communities of ethnic, regional, religious, and civic (the provincial and municipal governments) sorts, but also national communities, which often include or overlap with many of the other kinds. He thus recognizes the following nations within Canada: those formed by the various aboriginal First Nations, that of francophone Quebecers, that of the anglophones who identify with English Canadian culture, and perhaps that of the Acadians.[6]

Since 2018, the Canadian Yellow Vest movement has increasingly defined itself as defending "Old Stock Canadians" against the right-wing conspiracy theory known as "The Great Replacement". [7] This puts them of a kind with 19th century racist political movements like the Know Nothings.

See also

References

  1. ^ Hansard; 39th Parliament, 1st Session; No. 087; November 27, 2006
  2. ^ Nationalisms in Canada at Google Books
  3. ^ Cole, Douglas (May 1971). "The Problem of "Nationalism" and "Imperialism" in British Settlement Colonies". Journal of British Studies. 10 (2): 160–182. JSTOR 175353.
  4. ^ Nersessian, Mary (April 9, 2007). "Vimy battle marks birth of Canadian nationalism". CTV News. Toronto: Bell Media. Archived February 15, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  5. ^ Cook, Tim (2008). Shock troops: Canadians fighting the Great War, 1917–1918. Toronto: Viking.
  6. ^ Blattberg, Charles (2003). Shall We Dance? A Patriotic Politics for Canada. Montreal: McGill–Queen's University Press.
  7. ^ https://casisvancouver.ca/1_19_fifth-generation-warfare.html/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/5-Things-to-Know-About-RWE-In-Canada.pdf

Further reading

  • Banting, Keith; Soroka., Stuart (2012). "Minority nationalism and immigrant integration in Canada". Nations and Nationalism. 18 (1): 156–176.
  • Breton, Raymond (1988). "From ethnic to civic nationalism: English Canada and Quebec". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 11 (1): 85–102.
  • Gwyn, Richard (1995). Nationalism without walls: The unbearable lightness of being Canadian. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
  • Igartua, José Eduardo (2006). The other quiet revolution: National identities in English Canada, 1945–71. University of British Columbia Press.
  • Jackson, Steven (2014). "Globalization, corporate nationalism and masculinity in Canada: sport, Molson beer advertising and consumer citizenship". Sport in Society. 17 (7): 901–916.
  • Jensen, Richard (2009). "Comparative Nativism: The United States, Canada and Australia, 1880s–1910s". Canadian Issues.
  • Kymlicka, Will; Walker, Kathryn, eds. (2012). Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Canada and the World. University of British Columbia Press.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) chapters 3–4.
  • McCall, Sophie; Kim, Christine; Singer, Melina Baum, eds. (2012). Cultural Grammars of Nation, Diaspora, and Indigeneity in Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
  • McDonald, Marci (2011). The Armageddon factor: The rise of Christian nationalism in Canada. Random House LLC. on the right-wing Christian nationalist movement in Canada and its ties to the Conservative government of Stephen Harper
  • Mann, Jatinder (2012). "The introduction of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia, 1960s–1970s". Nations and Nationalism. 18 (3): 483–503.
This page was last edited on 8 April 2019, at 19:57
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.