S20 Contending Loyalties


 “Some countries you love. Some countries you hate. Canada is a country you worry about.” – Robertson Davies

                                                                            One method of assessing the impact of contending loyalties on the development of nationalism is through a ratings scale      

(4)  complete reject             (3) somewhat reject             (2) somewhat accept         complete accept (1)

Perspective:      Students should be aware of how history is sometimes used or abused to retell and promote a grand narrative of history, a narrowly focused national mythology that ignores other perspectives, or to elevate a single perspective to a position of predominance. Students are encouraged to challenge and critique multiple perspectives of the past, and to compare them and corroborate them with historical evidence. Students should recognize that for every event recorded in the past, there may be multiple contrasting or differing perspectives. Using primary-source accounts and historians’ interpretations, students may also investigate and compare how people, including specific groups such as minorities or women, may have experienced events differently in the past. In this way, there are particularly strong links between exploring multiple perspectives and the development of international-mindedness

 




Step 1: Perspective and Significance

     As a class we’ll move everyone into one of the following perspectives to explore Canadian nationalism: 

*Francophone                                        *Indigenous                                           *Anglophone                                          *Multicultural

Significance:       History is not simply the record of all events that have happened in the past. Instead, history is the record that has been preserved through evidence or traces of the past, and/or the aspects that someone has consciously decided to record and communicate. Students should be encouraged to ask questions about why something may have been recorded or included in a historical narrative. Similarly, they should be encouraged to think about who or what has been excluded from historical narratives, and for what reasons. Additionally, students’ questions should encourage them to think about, and assess, the relative importance of events, people, groups or developments, and whether the evidence supports the claims that others make about their significance.  

 With your perspective, choose 5 events that YOU determine to be most significant to the source quote and complete A, B and C for each event

A.     Provide a description of the event/concept

B.     Rank each of your event on the ratings scale in relation to the source quote and provide a rationale for that choice.  Events/concepts should be organized in chronological order

C.     Referenced source(s) in either MLA or APA format. (Easybib is recommended)

Significant Historical events/concepts

Plains of Abraham

Bill 22

 1980 referendum,

Confederation

Quebec act 1774

Bill 63

Bloc Quebecois 1990

Boer War

Lower Canada rebellion

1917 Conscription

1995 referendum

Meech Lake Accords

Responsible Government

1944 Conscription

Bill C-20

 1980 referendum

Union act 1841

Red River Rebellion

“Reasonable accommodation”

Bloc Quebecois 1991

“Quiet revolution”

Northwest Rebellion

Distinct Society

Residential Schools apology (2008)

White Paper- Red paper

Oka Crisis

 Upper Canada Rebellion

October Crisis (FLQ)

Indian Act 1876

Royal Proclamation 1763

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Multiculturalism Act

60’s scoop

National Energy Program

Social License

Reconciliation

          

As a class we’ll develop a summary of the events in a shared Google doc (see Google Classroom)


Assessment à Choose 2 events to submit for a summative grade. You can use feedback on the graded items to revise your remaining events to submit to improve your grade. You must turn in both the original graded term(s) and the revised term(s).

(Exemplars will be discussed in class)


ARGUMENTATION

When marking Argumentation, markers should consider how effectively the student

   establishes a position

   develops one or more arguments based on logic and reason

 

EVIDENCE

When marking Evidence, markers should consider how effectively the student uses evidence that

  is relevant and accurate

  reflects depth and/or breadth

Excellent (E) 5

The position established is convincingly supported by judiciously chosen and developed argument(s). The argumentation is consistent and compelling, demonstrating an insightful understanding of the assignment.

Excellent (E) 5

Evidence is sophisticated and deliberately chosen. The relative absence of error is impressive. A thorough and comprehensive discussion of evidence reveals an insightful understanding of History and its application to the assignment.

Proficient (Pf) 4

The position established is persuasively supported by purposely chosen and developed argument(s). The argumentation is logical and capably developed, demonstrating a sound understanding of the assignment.

 

Proficient (Pf) 4

Evidence is specific and purposeful. Evidence may contain some minor errors. A capable and adept discussion of evidence reveals a solid understanding of History and its application to the assignment.

 

Satisfactory (S) 3

The position established is generally supported by appropriately chosen and developed argument(s). The argumentation is straightforward and conventional, demonstrating an adequate understanding of the assignment.

Satisfactory (S) 6

Satisfactory (S) 3

Evidence is conventional and straightforward. The evidence may contain minor errors and a mixture of relevant and extraneous information. A generalized and basic discussion reveals an acceptable understanding of History and its application to the assignment.

 

Limited (L) 2

The position established is confusing and largely unrelated to the argument(s). The argumentation is repetitive, contradictory, simplistic, and based on uninformed belief.

Limited (L) 2

Evidence is potentially relevant but is unfocused and incompletely developed. The evidence contains inaccuracies and extraneous detail. The discussion reveals a superficial and confused understanding of History and the assignment.

Poor (P) 1

The position established has little or no relationship to the source or argument(s). The argumentation is irrelevant and illogical.

Poor (P) 1

Evidence is irrelevant and inaccurate. The evidence contains major and revealing errors. A minimal or scant discussion reveals a lack of understanding of History knowledge and its application to the assignment.

Step 2 Perspective Groups

Meet in your perspective groups and come to a consensus on what the 5 most significant events for Canadian Nationalism were and why.   (This isn't a ranking, you can consider each of the 5 equals in significance).

 Share the group results in the Google doc shared on Google Classroom called “perspective groups”

 

Step 3 Reconciliation Conference

The spirit of this multi-perspective discussion is from the following:


"We must recognize our common humanity and the permanent connection with one another and the place we live. Our collective well-being rests with the relationships we build today." 

 Reconciliation Canada https://goo.gl/5qCWIB

We'll arrange the class into several conferences with at least one member from each perspective. In these reconciliation conferences each group work through the following:

Ø  each perspective share their perspective's 5 most significant historical events and why

Ø  as a multi-perspective group decide upon the 5 most significant events are and provide a rationale

Share the conference results in the shared Google doc on Google Classroom called “reconciliation Conference”

 


 Discussion point: 

How does our discussion perspective differ from the following? 


Step 4 Developing Relationship(s)

Using the summary Google docs from step 2 and 3 what relationship(s) between the perspectives on Canadian Nationalism exist? Below are several prompts to help develop your ideas on relationships.

A relationship may include the following: 

Ø  value claim à by a perspective i.e.  Mr. Brentnell believes Star Wars is the best sci-fi series ever!

Ø  Affirming à confirm or ratify. i.e Worldwide box office sales of movie tickets confirm Star Wars has made the most money of any sci-fi series in history.

Ø  Negating à making ineffective. i.e.  Star Trek has 12 movies and 726 television episodes; while Star Wars only has 12 movies and 246 television episodes. Clearly Star Trek is the superior sci-fi series.

·       Are there any agreement/disagreement about the importance of an event or event(s)?

·       Are there any key terms/concepts from social studies that would apply to the perspectives or the perspective’s views on the events? 

·       Are there any differences or trends between the individual perspective level, perspective groups (step 2) and the reconciliation conference (step 3)

REMEMBER: PROVIDE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE WITH REASONING FOR ALL REALTIONSHIP(S)

Share 1 relationship you’ve found on the following Google document:  http://bit.ly/2Rq1oKT

Everyone will have access to the results of the relationship(s) found in step 4


Step 5 Written Response

To what extent has PERSPECTIVE affected nationalism in Canada?

This response will be setup and written in Google Classroom

Comments