Study Guides (238,486)
Canada (115,176)
History (81)

Exam Review

14 Pages
Unlock Document

McMaster University
Katharine Rollwagen

REVIEW QUESTION Mid term exam History 2T03 1. Explain how people who hunted buffalo and people who fished had different modes of life and different social structure Fishing: people who from Europe who wanted fish had more conflict with world powers, as there was a limited supply and a lot of countries were sending people out to bring it back to Europe. The fish market was important, especially to those of catholic faiths who were banned from meat consumption several days out of the year, but were allowed to eat fish. For the most part, the race for fish was not as interactive with the natives as the hunt for fur. Most countries would be able to set up “wet fisheries” on their boats, and never had the need to set up any sort of manufacturing station or settlement on land with the Natives. Cupids Cove and Ferryland were two of the earlier fishing settlements from Europe, and did not do well. They could not stay self-sustaining, and relied on the mother country for the majority of life necessities. It got really expensive for Europe to keep the settlements up. In addition, the government had decided to send over full families in hopes that it would help people stay and maintain a new life there, but settlers were not prepared for the cold winters and diseases that would set in, within a couple years, left to return to England. It was a seasonal economy. Fur: hunting was very dependent upon Natives. The natives usually hunted the furs and brought them to the European trading posts. Furs were popular for fashion. They had previously gotten their furs from Russia, but when Sweden cut off trade routs, they moved to their colonies. By 1600, 1 000 aboriginals were coming down to the St. Lawrence to trade with the Europeans. The Fur trade required control of land and waterways to maintain power in the fur trade (over other European countries). France realized early on that success in the fur trade relied on good relationships with the natives. Pierre de Chauvin, given a trade monopoly, set up a fort on the Saguenay river, and established a military alliance with the Innu in 1600: the French could settle there if France would protect them from other native groups. When Chauvin came back, he brought Samuel de Champlain (1608) to map out the area. When there, Champlain established another fort in Quebec, and extended the French alliance with the Huron’s and Algonquians. Once he had relationship, they would come and bring him furs. With this method, the French monopolized the Fur trade until the 1650s. 2. What challenges and possibilities does oral testimony offer Canadian historians Oral History offers challenges to Canadian historians in that it can be unstable and much is lost, but it can offer possibilities to historians as well, as oral history tells us much about the native culture. The beginning of history is generally defined as a set of written records outlining the experiences and cultures of a preceding heritage. It is a faulty definition because it makes it seem like the native cultures do not have a history, but in reality, their history is simply not written down.At the same time, it is an attempt to protect the legitimacy and accuracy of history. When the aboriginals encountered the Europeans they were amazed at the possibility of a written history because their oral history was unstable; much was lost from it. It is hard for historians to map history when relying on an oral history. Much was lost in disease, when entire races were destroyed; we know nothing about them without written records. As the older, first hand witnesses of oral history die off, the younger men who take their places may not have a clear understanding of the information they are destined to pass down generationally, and some of the meaning and influence of oral history is easily lost. On the other hand, Oral history tells historians much about the native culture.Although it is still getting documented now, the Native cultures are the only ones who have the authority to interpret how the oral history influenced their tribes and peoples. 3. In what sense could aboriginal groups on the pacific northwest coast be called “distinct” from other groups Unlike the aboriginal groups in the Boreal forest and the plains/tundra areas, who were reliant on hunting to survive, the groups on the pacific coast (haida for example) had bigger populations because their resources were more plentiful. They were also more open to trading (because of plentiful resources) and so were wealthier. They had more availability of time, leading to a more solid hierarchical system. They were less mobile because as a farming community they didn’t have to move around as much. They were able to prepare for the future by drying foods and such. They were more likely to have hereditary chiefs and slaves. The Europeans, especially missionary groups, liked them best because they were farmers, so it was easier to connect with their life styles. They did a little bit of hunting and stuff in the summer, with farming, and in the winter, they prepared skins and all that jazz. They had much more leisure time. 4. Who held more power in 1600 – European women or aboriginal women? Briefly justify your answer Aboriginal women held more power than European women.Aboriginal family life was divided equally with the women in charge of the home and personal farms, and the men were in charge of the hunting and trading. In Europe, on the other hand, women were subservient to the male domination. The gender roles were separated into spheres, the private sphere belonging to women, and the public sphere belonging to the men. Bullshit the rest? Haha I have no idea what else… Women in Europe were given little to no responsibility unless they were in the working class, in which they were given little or no respect or power. Aboriginal women, on the other hand, were respected to make their own decisions from an early age, ensuring that they could take care of themselves and their families when needed. They were valued for their knowledge and skill. • Family/Kin o Equality of the sexes?  Men and women had different tasks • Women’s world = in camp, making camp and food, farming • Men = fishing and hunting  But in many cases, equally valued tasks  o Some evidence when women were not well treated in marriage (domestic  violence) or instances where baby girls were more likely be sacrificed at a  time of famine  • Political Structure o Flexible  Hierarchy  o Consensus decision making   Trying to come to decisions of where to go and how to relate to  other groups were made in groups (men and women) • Women in charge of nominating men who were to make  decisions 5. How did the increasing power of monarchs in 16 century Europe benefit merchants o 16thC = era of worldwide colonization and conquest  Thus need for explorers o King holds more power because distanced himself from the church o Fish and furs gave the European monarchs a vested interest in exploration, colonization o Increasingly merchants are supported and financed by the king o King sends them on the missions to find new land, or resources o Increasing nationalism – merchants feel as if they are representing their monarchs o Increasingly demographic growth (large populations), therefore needed new territory’s and more goods – finance merchants to find it all o This leads to economic growth o This leads to more people paying kings taxes o Major economic growth was where people began taking bigger risks and forming partnerships, enabling large sums of money to be invested. o People became wealthier causing a bigger consumption of goods and luxuries, making merchants and traders wealthy 6. What do historians mean by “Agency”? Give examples of the agency of th native peoples in 17 C Northern NorthAmerica. • Agency = power to control ones life • Hunting, harvesting, etc. • At this point in time, European travellers were new to Canada and were unfamiliar with the land, meanwhile Natives knew the land well and were able to show Europeans the way around it • Natives were able to negotiate more with the Europeans as to what goods (copper cauldrons, iron knives, axes, glass beads, mirrors, etc.) they wanted in exchange for their goods (furs) • I HAVE NO IDEA 7. What were the consequences of the epidemics that affected the Huron in the 1630s Smallpox, measles, scarlet fever and influenza. Took a toll specifically on pregnant and breast-feeding women. Incident of disease was high, and mortality rate was roughly 50 percent as a result, Huron’s witnessed changes to their political process, economic activities, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Two of the most significant cultural consequences was warfare with the five nations, and loss of faith in their traditional beliefs.Affected the power and prestige of Huron women, as the effect was specifically deadly to them. long time enemies of the Huron took the opportunity to fight the weakened nation, and Huron were dispersed, survivors leaving for lands farther west like Canada and Michigan. The epidemics also had cultural consequences.As a result of epidemic disease, the Huron’s witnessed changes to their political processes, economic activities, cultural practices, and spiritual beliefs. Two of the most significant cultural consequences of contagious disease were warfare with the Five Nations and the loss of faith in traditional beliefs. Each of the cultural changes instigated by contagious disease affected the power and prestige of Huron women. The impact of contagious disease on Huron women was overwhelmingly negative. 8. Why were French people reluctant to emigrate to new France? Who settled there and why? The French were reluctant to settle in New France because it was a harder way to live. People were scared of the Native population. They also saw many people going and those who had the means often returned and told stories of rough climate and unsettling peace and war between Europe and the natives. The people who did go were: (OSSSM) Officials: people sent to represent the king. They were in charge of finances, economy, trade, justice, and civil legislation, and ruled under the custom of Paris, bringing Canadians andAcadians under the legislation of the French Government. Soldiers: were sent as a paid, standing army to protect Canada from the Iroquois and other European countries. Built up the colonies defense, especially evident in Plaissance, Newfoundland, to defend fishing forts. Also, well positioned to defend the St. Lawrence. Settlers: indentured laborers and soldiers who went over then ended up staying because they had land paid off and available. Traders, some stayed, although not many, most left when trading was over.Aboriginal wives and families, there were not many European women who weren’t nuns there. Fille du Roi, young women sent to marry men who were already there and start a family, mostly made up of orphans. They weren’t stuck or forced into going; they had a choice to come back home if they weren’t happy. Seigneurs: most had land in Canada but did not live there.Areplication of the French land system, farmers of the land became censitaires. Mercantilism: tried to make new France a colony, and withAcadia, a part of their growing empire. The colonies existed to serve the mother country and were seen as a market for European goods. 9. Describe the main differences between towns and rural areas in Canada in the 18 C. wh8at was the result of differences in the way Canadian society developed? • Rural Areas o Manorial lords were at the top of the social ladder. o Peasants constituted the largest percentage of the rural population; many owned land. o Landless workers earned the lowest wages. • Towns: o More hierarchical  More apparent  Nobles of France who came as merchants lived in these towns • Merchants (bourgeoisie) were among the wealthiest and most powerful.  Colonial elite are found in towns and centers • Great sense of British culture  The poor laborers • Artisans were skilled craftsmen such as weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, etc (often belonged to guilds). • Laborers did mostly low-skilled jobs for low wages o Towns were a symbol of French power in the colonies I DON’T KNOW HOW TOANSWER THE SECOND PART? 10. Discuss the strategic importance of Garrisons on theAtlantic for both the French and the English in the 18 C.h • Garrisons: body of troops stationed in a particular location, originally to guard it • Garrison is usually in a city, town, for or castle • During the 18th century, the British–French struggle in Canada intensified as the rivalry worsened in Europe • Expensive garrisons were maintained at distant fur trading posts • The first garrison towns were Placentia and St John's (Nfld), Port-Royal and Canso (NS), and Québec City • European garrisons had been stationed in Newfoundland since the middle of the 17th century • Until 1815 their purpose was primarily one of protecting the fishery • French used their garrisons to guard the gulf of the St. Lawrence and used it to raid the English fishing villages of the eastern part of the island o The French got to maintain their fishing rights – however that is not what the British were after o They were after the strategic importance o Made little effort to send people to Newfoundland  more of a military effort • The advantages of having a garrison were significant.At a time when there were no institutions or mechanism to deal with poverty and destitution, the garrison could sometimes be relied upon to assist by distributing military rations • In peacetime, the garrison also provided the town with pomp and ceremony. This quality must not be dismissed lightly. The presence of the military helped lend an air of spectacle to an otherwise miserable environment. • Garrison was therefore developing into an important part of community life, and was recognized as a valuable addition to the local economy and society • Later garrisons remained in place purely for reasons of imperial strategy • Thus the military presence in Newfoundland before 1815 did more than provide the fishery with protection. The garrisons also played an important role in local economies, and helped stimulate the diversification of the society by bringing out women and children to Newfoundland, as well as domestic servants, skilled labourers, tradesmen and artisans. It provided pomp and ceremony, and added to the quality of social life 11. Why did French authorities forbid French people from travelling in le Pays d’en Haut The French authorities considered it illegal to travel in le pays den Haut because the considered it immoral. The church was against the trade of guns and alcohol that dominated the expositions, and the premarital and immoral activity that was going on in their relations with the native people • Following the Huron-Iroquois war, the French’s allies were forced to move west of Lake Michigan o Threat of Iroquois attack, reduced the fur trade (shrunk the number of trips made into the interior) o Alot o the traders in Montreal were not ready to give up o Some started to travel themselves into the interior  French called this area “Les Pays d’en haut” (aka. Up Country) • Montreal-funded trading expeditions o Established a fort “Fort Michilimackinac” o Benefited from that they already had a supply of knowledgeable explorers • Led by coureurs du bois o They really supplied the colony with a group of men who were experience travellers, explorers and survivors in the interior o French sent them even deeper • Illegal o Due to matter of control o And the Church found it very troublesome, because the Church was worried that if Europeans went into the interior they were taken away from European culture and the ways of life In New France and going into Native country which would expose them to sin and temptations • Concerning to church, state officials • Growing influence = alcohol – traded for furs o Missionaries worried that the traders were drinking too much and having relationships with native women o Problem trying to restrict this trade: if they stop them, the English will take over 12. Explain the significance of the geographic location of Canada compared to Acadia Acadia was a smaller island and was used as a pawn in the naval battles between Britain and France. It went back and forth several times. The influences of colonization didn’t affect them as much as it did in upper and lower Canada because they were never really SETTLED as a colony with exports that could be sent back to the mother country. In addition, they were much closer to Europe than Canada was, so there were fewer questions about the land itself, and fewer opportunities as far as the trading and fishing business was concerned. o Acadia  Accessible by sea and was exposed and open to attack by any imperial  rival of France  Farmland retaken from the sea • Diking the land  Acadians lived a lot closer to each other  Changed hands so many times • Hard to assert control over a land • How much can you call Acadia French  Free range colony • Less subjected to the authority of the Crown • Hard to exert your authority when it changes hands so many  times • Had less interaction with officials • Acadians wanted t
More Less

Related notes for HISTORY 2HI3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.