The Kraemenator

Humanity has achieved a great many things during its existence; the Pyramids of Giza, the Roads of Rome and The Taj Mahal to name a couple. But few projects have been so inspiring in their scope and ingenuity as the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Without question, this endeavor had enormous implications for Canada. It’s political, economic and social implications to our country have undoubtedly important implications, but the the building and use of the railroad also had (and still has) important consequences for other countries as well. What were these consequences,? Who did they effect? And were they good or bad?

While some of the effect that the CPR had other countries would be hard or near impossible to know for certain (some decisions may or may not have been made differently if it wasn’t for the CPR), it is possible to know some of the effects it had across our globe.

For obvious reasons, Britain was probably the country the most affected by the CPR. It had veryclose ties with Canada (Canada being a former colony) and it was also one of (if not the) the world’s biggest transcontinental trading empire. Asia at the the time was a very valuable trading destination as they had lots of exotic goods (such as silk), that fetched a very high price back in Europe. However, Britain had a problem getting the goods from Asia to Europe, the problem being that there was no efficient route to get good from Asia (mostly China) over to Britain. As the panama canal did not exist until 1914, British ships would have to sail either around the tip of South America, and across the Pacific or through the Suez and across the Indian Ocean.

The Construction of the CPR changed all this; it, in effect, it eliminated an entire continent from British trade routes. Goods could now sail directly from China (or other parts of Asia) to Vancouver, take the train over to the Atlantic to be picked up and shipped to Europe. This eliminated costly sea voyages and as a result British trade soared.

The British public was also effected greatly by the construction of the CPR. Investors were encouraged to invest in the CPR, and many of them did. This brought prosperity not only to those lucky investors, but it also allowed for the completion of the railway as it would not have been possible without the private sector financing a large part of it.

Many European (and even some Asian to an extent) countries experienced a great number of settlers leaving the country to go settle the Canadian plains. While this was certainly more important for Canada than it was for the European and Asian countries in question, it definitely had an impact.

The United States of America was also affected by the CPR. It competed with American railroads and provided Canada with an effective way of competing with American markets. Probably more importantly, it secured B.C.’s unionization with the rest of Canada. B.C. would only agree to join with the completion of a railroad and if it was not completed, if may have joined with the United States or perhaps have become its own nation.

Though now I’m second guessing history, something best left for people who are bored on a Sunday afternoon. In any case, the CPR affected not just Canada but the world at large. I believe that this is the case with almost all large projects in today’s day and age; they all effect people across the globe, not just those within the country that they are built. What happens in one part of the world affects the rest of it and for better or worse, globalization is here to stay.

I’m sure that everyone’s heard of the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” and I think that most of them agree with that. After all, you can take almost any picture and describe it with a thousand words. I don’t disagree with this, but I agree more with the phrase “a word is worth a thousand pictures”. Evidently, this doesn’t apply to words like “the” but if I say “determination” what comes to your mind? I know that for me, the word determination brings up a multitude of images to mind, and coming up with a thousand images depicting determination would be no harder than describing a picture with a thousand words. Now, of course, you may disagree with me, as many people have been doing over the subject of truth, but that doesn’t change the fact that, when Leanne suggested that our group do a series of wordles to show the Red River Rebellion in four parts, I quickly convinced the rest of my group that this would be an awesome idea. After all, if we made 4 wordles with about 20 words in each of them, and if each word was worth a thousand pictures, then we would have the largest photo-essay in the world.

This was our first wordle that we made. While it is not overly complicated, I think it still represents the first part of the Red River Rebellion quite well. Since the first is the incubation stage, you usually have a people either being oppressed or about to have their freedoms taken away. There is normally an “evil” government or at least one with less than the best intentions for its people. In the wordle I think that all those elements are there (and arranged nicely too). You have the people (Metis), the major problem (discrimination, rights, human) as well as some details that differentiate the RRR from other rebellions(the HBC, land).

Personally I think that this wordle turned out the best. I think that it represents the second stage of rebellion as it occurred in Red River quite accurately, which is to say that people started openly challenging the government, Canadian style (like the rest of the world, just watered down a little). While it is mostly luck that the major part of this stage (negotiation) took the center with all the other bits complimenting it, I honestly think that is almost exactly how the Red River Rebellion’s  ”second stage” turned out. It was mostly about the people of Red River forming their own government and trying to negotiate a deal with the Canadians, although they were largely ineffective at doing this.

Our third wordle, being the one that represents the “climax” of a revolutionary phase (the taking of Fort Garry) seems, to me at least, fitting for this third stage of revolution. All the words are relatively large, representing that the fact that this was the most crucial stage of the rebellion (although still Canadianised, since words like warfare aren’t present in the worldle considering only one guy died). Even though this was the crisis stage, a lot of emphasis is still placed on diplomacy(negotiation, communication) while still having enough going on to make it the crisis stage (action, initiative, force)

Of the four, this is our simplest wordle, and I think that this is both suitable for the final stage and at the same time, not quite. While the major parts (compromise, resolution, agreement etc…) are certainly there, there was also a lot more going on at the time than simple diplomacy. Prime Minister MacDonald sent a force of 1200 men over to red river in order to “keep the peace” and to arrest Louie Riel, who had already fled the country by that point. Evidently, there’s more going on than one would initially assume. However, I think that this is conveyed adequately by the word “double-cross”. It is almost hidden where compromise and resolution meet (you can take that at face value or as deep as a metaphor as you wish).

Wow, for a week of work, my group sure managed to create a lot of images.

Have you ever noticed how Canadians have the stereotype of being really nice in the international community? If you don’t live under a rock, you are probably familiar with this stereotype, however I believe that a large section of the population who don’t live under rocks  have no idea why this stereotype is true. I cannot say for certainty, but I believe that it has a large part to do with how Canadians conduct themselves during a crisis.

My primary example here is that of the Red River Rebellion. The Metis and French people of soon-to-be Manitoba were in danger of being oppressed. They had every reason to believe that when the ownership of their land transferred into Canadian hands, that they would become sub human, and subject to the whims of white Englishmen. Freedom is one of man’s most treasured possessions, and in general, man likes to hold on to his possessions, especially the valuable ones. So you can imagine that when the people of Red River saw land surveyors chopping up land that didn’t even belong to them yet, that they were rightfully frightened.

The people of Red River had every reason to lash out, violently against the Canadian government that was threatening them, but they didn’t. Instead, they formed their own provisional government, peacefully, so that they could negotiate properly with the government of Canada. Now, I don’t really need to point out that people have gone charging at the enemy for far fewer reasons than their freedoms being taken over. The Americans launched into bloody revolution even though they were being treated much better by the British compared to how the Canadians would have treated the “half-breeds”, natives and french-speaking people living in Red River.

Instead of taking up arms and trying to fight the Canadian Government, the people of Red River first decided to create a governmental system of universal suffrage, that genuinely included everyone. First, they tried to talk to the Canadian government, about securing their rights, and when they weren’t listened to, the didn’t so much capture Fort Gary as rent it (albeit forcefully). To me, this shows just how much Canadians are willing to seek out a diplomatic solution before they start to shoot at people.

It is called the Red River Rebellion, but I’m not sure it qualifies as a rebellion. Throughout the entire “rebellion” one person died and that was for an act that probably would have gotten him killed anyways (people didn’t take kindly to death threats against their leaders back then) and the entire thing was resolved peacefully, through negotiation and diplomacy. The seizing of Fort Garry was merely a way to tell the Canadian government that they were a group to be reckoned with. Even in their darkest hours, Canadians still use violence as a last resort and that, I believe is why they are considered to be the nicest people on the planet.

This is a post in response to everybody who blogged about the tear-gas canisters that were “made in the USA”, specifically, Derek, Lexi and Clayton.

First of I’d like to say that, for the most part, I disagree with you. I really don’t see a problem with the Egyptian military/police using tear gas to control the crowds. My view is such because they really don’t have any other effective options for crowd control and from preventing things from getting out of hand. Would you rather they use hand grenades instead? Exactly. I’d also like to point out that, the police and military are only acting upon order from their superiors, and if they were to disagree with those orders, then they would be punished, severely and then all of a sudden their means of putting food on their families table has gone up in smoke. I’m not trying to say that the protesters deserve to have tear gas shot at them, after all, they only want control over their country, but it’s better that the military shoots tear gas than live ammunition at them.

On a much larger scale, I don’t think that the US is the bad buy for helping out Egypt with its military by exporting weapons and helping them out financially. I believe that, opposite to some views, the US is actually promoting peace by helping out Egypt (albeit in a round about way). The reason I think this is due to a concept called MAD or mutually assured destruction. I won’t go into detail, but basically MAD is the concept that, if you have I have a big gun, and you have a big gun, then neither of us will use our respective guns against each other because we’ll end up destroying ourselves. This hold true with Egypt. If Egypt had a extremely weak military, then other, less than friendly nations in the surrounding area would view it as easy and profitable to conquer. Thus, the US has potentially helped preserve peace by making sure that Egypt can defend itself and therefore, prevent an invasion and needless bloodshed.

P.S. I would like to thank Kelsey, David, Daniel, Andrew, Donya, Sepehr, Veronica, Derek, Lexi, Clayton Richard, Stephanie, Conrad and Johnathan for including a picture with their Egypt related post.

Truth. It’s sought after by most people and is, in a way, more valuable than gold. Its knowing has caused nations to rise and fall, and it is a holy thing of its own. Sometimes we take knowing the truth for granted and sometimes we take it for granted that we know the truth. But can we ever, really, know the one, absolute truth? Is there one, absolute truth or are there as many truths as there are people on the planet? Personally, I think that no one person can know the truth, because there is no one truth.

Ask a man what he thinks is the most important quality that one can, as a human being, possess, then ask another the same question, and you may get different answers. Who is right? They are both right and neither of them are right. They are both wrong in the sense that their answer, no matter how much they believe it’s right, is not the universal truth. What may be the most important quality for one person to possess may not necessarily be true for that of another. And in their own opinions, they are both right, for if you believe that honesty is the most important thing that you can have, then you are right, and if you believe that self-motivation is the most important thing that you can have, then you are also right, for in your mind that is the right answer and the truth, but this is not necessarily true in the mind of another.

If there is no one truth, then within two opposing factions, such as there is in Egypt, how do you tell which side is the “right” one? You can form your own opinions based on the “truths” that you think you know, and come to a conclusion of your own and in your mind you will be right, and your opinion will become your truth. However, the opposition is also right and their beliefs are their truths, based upon the information they have received that they believe to be true. For example, the pro-Mubarak people say that he has provided stability to the country and believe that getting rid of him would only cause more problems for Egypt. Are they wrong in thinking that? No, they are not wrong, because relative to them that is the truth just as the fact that Mubarak is a horrible dictator is also the truth relative to the protesters.

Everybody has a truth. Nobody knows the truth, for there is no one, absolute truth. Perhaps there is one single collective truth, one that is composed up of all of the other truths that each individual possesses, but if there is, that is a truth that no one will ever know, for everyone has a piece of the truth, no more and no less than that.