Many have been spreading around the idea that confederation would be beneficial in British North America, but as a strong leader in Prince Edward Island, I will be sharing the truth in this article: that confederation would be detrimental to our colony.
One of the reasons why many say we should confederate is that British North America would be able to put together our resources and create a railway across this nation, that we haven’t been able to afford in our individual colonies. This ‘great’ railway that is being proposed to run all across Canada may be of benefit to the rest of British North America, but the fact is that Prince Edward Island is composed of a small number of hard working citizens, that cannot afford such a vast project as this ludicrous railroad. It would send us into debt, rather than helping to improve the economy as is promised.
Furthermore, confederation may be of benefit to some other colonies who are struggling in their current positions, but confederation would not help us. Our colony already has what we need. We have a strong identity, an economy that is flourishing, and we already trade with other American states and Atlantic colonies. The railway that comes with confederation promises trade with other colonies, but we have no need to trade with the other colonies of British North America because we are doing just fine on our own, and therefore there is no benefit to confederating.
Finally, confederating would minimize the voice that PEI has. Prince Edward Island is a small colony, and when put in a large parliament, with other large colonies, our voice would be lost and we wouldn’t have as much say as we do now. We would submit our rights and our prosperity, in a measure, into the hands of the general government and our voice in the united Parliament would be very insignificant. Confederating would put large colonies like Canada West in a position of power over us.
Prince Edward Island should not join confederation because we cannot afford the cross colony railway, we are already in a good position as a colony, and confederating would minimize PEI’s voice. Don’t fall for the luring but false voices of pro confederation politicians like George Brown and Sir John A. Macdonald.
For my independent investigation, my inquiry questions was “To what extent was Thomas Scott’s execution fair compared to the values of 1870? I chose this question to research because Louis Riel was such an influential person and had a huge impact on our country. He was the founder of Manitoba, and a leader for the Metis people. He was one of the first people to start spreading the idea of
equality and having the indigenous people thought of as equal to non-indigenous people. He did a lot of great things for our country, which is why some consider him a hero. However, he also did some not so great things which is why many consider him a villain. Louis Riel’s impacts on Canada are what make this event a historically significant one, and are why I chose this question. The execution of Thomas Scott is what has kept me from believing that Louis Riel is a true hero, but this research may give me some more insight into the situation.
To begin this process, I did some research, and got an idea of how Thomas Scott’s execution played out. This is a summary of what I found:
In 1870, John Christian Schultz and his men planned to attack Fort Garry, so Louis Riel took 45 of his men prisoner. Schultz escaped, and other prisoners were released in February 1870. Later this month, Schultz’s men got together to attack again, and once again were taken prisoner in Fort Garry. One of these men was Thomas
Scott. He was a rude prisoner, insulted Riel’s men, and said that if he ever got free, he would shoot Riel. Because of this, Scott appointed a military tribunal to try Thomas Scott for treason. He was accused of defying the authority of the Provisional Government, fighting with guards, and slandering the name of Louis Riel. This tribunal showed Thomas Scott to be guilty, and he was executed by a firing squad in the courtyard of Fort Garry on March 4th, 1870. He was not the only one sentenced to death for treason, but he was the only one that they actually executed.
Scott’s trial was held by Ambroise Lepine. They charged him of having “taken up arms against the provisional government” and having “struck one of the guards”. Riel was one of the three witnesses against Scott, and the prosecutor of the trial. Thomas
Scott was not allowed any witnesses on his behalf, and he was sentenced to death. Most of the trial was in French and Scott couldn’t understand this language so he may not have even known what was going on. Some even say that Scott didn’t know what he was accused of, he was just told he was a “very bad man and must die”. He was executed by a firing squad of six intoxicated Metis, and a group of around 100 spectators. The part of his death that was particularly inhumane was that multiple reports have said that he didn’t die right away from the shots, due to the poor aim of the intoxicated firing squad.
After this execution, whether it be determined ‘fair’ or not, Louis Riel was now branded as a murderer. There were many people that protested Thomas Scott’s death, even in the crowd at the execution itself. Nowadays, there is still a lot of controversy as to whether Thomas Scott’s death was fair to the values of the time. Some people say that Scott was only ‘murdered’ to show the power of a provisional government, and some say that Scott committed treason and within the rules of the time, death was an acceptable fate. Some also say that Riel saved lives by killing Scott because he could have been a danger and stood up to the government.
To find an answer to my inquiry question, I also did some research into the rules around execution at the time so that I could assess whether the execution of Thomas Scott was ‘fair’ at the time. Here is what I found:
Before Confederation, many offences were punishable by death (including being found disguised in a forest), and execution was something that happened often, and in front of a large crowd. However, after Confederation, before Louis Riel executed Thomas
Scott, the number of offences that you could punish by execution were brought down to three: murder, rape, and treason (and Thomas Scott did commit treason). The location of the execution must also be within the confines of the prison instead of publicly (this is a rule that Riel did not follow). Capital punishment was not completely abolished until 1976, which means that Louis Riel was still roughly following the rules of the time when he executed Thomas Scott. However, if the execution of Thomas Scott was considered to be murder, then that means that Louis Riel should be executed according to the laws at that time.
This brings me to the answer I came up with to my question, which is that Riel’s actions did roughly follow the laws of 1870, but they were still ethically questionable for that time. Thomas Scott did commit treason, so Riel did have the right to execute him. He also did get a trial, although it might not have been one of the fairest trials. There are only secondary sources that state the more detailed facts of the trial, so these details may not be correct, but most sources state that Thomas Scott was not allowed witnesses on his behalf, and therefore he did not have a chance of coming out of this trial as innocent. As well as this, there were other prisoners that had committed the same sort of crimes as Thomas Scott had, but none of them were executed, which may have contributed to the protesters at his execution. Louis Riel clearly broke the law of having executions held within the confines of the prison, as the execution had a crowd of 100 people viewing it. As well as this, if Thomas Scott was to be executed, he deserved to get a sober firing squad that would end his suffering quickly, and he did not get this, which contributes to Louis Riel being morally wrong, but not technically breaking laws. This research has allowed me to look further into why there is controversy as to whether Louis Riel should be viewed as a hero or as a villain. I still have not reached a conclusion as to which I believe. If Louis Riel had executed Thomas Scott in this day and age, then he would definitely be considered a murderer and a villain, but everything changes when you consider the values of the 1870s.
This research also allowed me to see how different laws and values are now in Canada compared to how they were in the 1870s. Back then, execution was considered a normal thing for people to witness, and before confederation it happened even more often, for things as simple as stealing a turnip. Luckily, this violence in our country has been stopped, and the last two executions to happen in Canada were in 1962. I can’t imagine living in a time where the values were similar to the way they were when Louis Riel was alive, but I’m sure the people in that time thought that those rules were for the best.
I still don’t have a definite answer for my inquiry question, but I have learned a lot more about the execution of Thomas Scott, and I still believe that this inquiry project was a success.
In June 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released the Truth and Reconciliation Report. The Commission was officially established on June 2, 2008, and was completed in December 2015, when the Report was completed. The goal of the
TRC was to “guide and inspire Aboriginal peoples and Canadians in a process of reconciliation and renewed relationships that are based on mutual understanding and respect” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada). The document contains 94 points about how Canada can improve on their relationship with the indigenous people in our country. It includes areas such as apologies, education, child welfare, and justice. The link to this document is as follows:
This document continues to have a huge impact on Canada and Canada’s identity in all four quadrants (social, political, environmental, and economic). In the social area, a big change is that Canada is striving to achieve mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous communities and individuals. The curriculum in schools has been changed to include more accurate history of indigenous people, so that non-indigenous people can learn about all of the history of Canada, and not just hear a single story. A second change in the social side of things which also factors into the economical quadrant is that in the 2018 federal budget that was just released, it states that $1.4-billion over six years will be designated to First Nations child and family services. The money will “help alleviate pressures on child and family services agencies and increase prevention resources in First Nations communities so families can stay together” (2018 Federal Budget Highlights). Moving on to the economical side of things, also released in the 2018 federal budget was a proposal to invest $447-million over five years to create a new Indigenous Skills and Employment Training Program. This will “help close the employment and pay gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people by focusing on training for higher-quality, better-paying jobs” (2018 Federal Budget Highlights). This shows that the Truth and Reconciliation Report has affected where the Canadian Government is putting their money and how they are distributing their budget. As for environmental impact, a lot of indigenous people’s fundamental beliefs are based around respecting nature and the land. Greater respect for indigenous viewpoints therefore means greater respect for the environment. As well as this, land is being acknowledged at the beginning of any gathering as traditional First Nations territory more universally. Finally, the Truth and Reconciliation Report was a political document, which relates it to the political quadrant. It has had impacts on the federal budget as discussed above, meaning that this document has affected the way the government spends their money, therefore impacting the political segment.
The release of this document definitely leads to the idea of having a “postnational” state, as Justin Trudeau calls it. The document encourages diversity and the celebration of different cultures. By spreading the idea of mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous people within Canada, it also spreads the idea of mutual respect between all people in Canada, no matter what ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. By embracing diversity, Canada is straying away from the idea of putting everyone under the umbrella of one ‘Canadian identity’ and more towards a ‘postnational state’ where everyone is free to have their own identities.
I believe that although countries have been thought to have had identities for many years, we should try to abandon this idea. A country’s identity becomes just one more label that is put on every person living in that country. Everyone is unique, and when taking 36.3 million individuals, I don’t believe it’s possible for everyone to share the same identity, unless that identity is diversity. I believe that every country should be trying to separate themselves from the stereotype or identity of that country, and focusing instead on the diversity that the country contains.
This year, I set out to educate myself and others on Gordon Ramsay’s eminence and influence and to battle his reputation as a lunatic chef who’s only talent is weaving colourful insults.
I met my goal to understand what Gordon has contributed to our world. He is an incredibly hardworking chef who has acquired a number of Michelin Stars most chefs could only dream of. He manages these businesses while filming TV shows, documentaries, and the like which all work towards educating the public on the world inside the kitchen, and in some cases, outside (in shows such as The F Word where he investigates where food comes from). He has written multiple books. He influences a vast number of people all around the globe with his ideas, recipes, and shows. He has participated in a wide variety of charity work. Gordon and his wife have established the Gordon and Tana Ramsay Foundation to support seriously ill children in the UK. He speaks out against shark fin hunting, drug addiction, and more. The Queen has awarded him an OBE for his services to the culinary industry. Of course, Gordon is not a perfect person who has made some problematic statements in the past, but I believe I have educated a few people about how Gordon is not just a television personality.
I could improve by taking more notes. This project, I found that I wasn’t taking many notes because I would write my notes down on a post-it note and stick in inside his biography for reference. I would also like to do more research on the darker side of Gordon and why many people may not find him to be an inspirational figure. I glanced over some questionable stuff he has said in the past (sexist remarks, other generally rude and disrespectful remarks) but I mainly focused during this project to prove why he is eminent.
What I will remember about Night of the Notables was my speech. I had a lot of fun formulating and performing my speech this year. It felt amazing to have people laughing at the humorous words I wrote. I’ll also remember how smoothly the project seemed to run for me this year. Likely this was because I began planning my grade 10 eminent project the summer of grade 9. I would recommend grade 9s to give Eminent a little bit of thought during the summer to prepare. In grade 9, I chose someone I was not passionate about, but only chose because she was like me. This year, I chose someone I was interested in and was excited to learn about.
I’m thankful for my interviewees who took time out of their schedules to speak to me for my project. I really appreciate Jiwon’s help with my learning centre, because she went out of her way to bring me the electric element for my learning centre. I would love to thank and recognize Mr. Morris for taking on such a large project for the first time this year. I really appreciate how l be created new criteria to make the project easier to follow. He was also gracious in accepting critiques and suggestions about the project.
Ramsay, Gordon. Roasting in Hell’s Kitchen: Temper Tantrums, F Words, and the Pursuit of Perfection. HarperCollins Entertainment, 2007.
This autobiography offered meaningful insight into Gordon’s character, childhood, influences, and motivators. I learned about his miserable history with his father, his unfortunate accident that forced him to quite football (something he may have had a career in if it weren’t for the injury) and many of the more important life experiences Gordon had when starting out as a chef. It’s one shortcoming was that it’s a bit dated, written in 2007.
Ramsay, Gordon, and Emily Quah. Gordon Ramsay’s Sunday Lunch: and Other Recipes from the f Word. Alhambra, 2006.
Here I really learned about what the essence of Gordon’s cooking was/is (when it comes to Sunday lunch). He’s all about connection, pushing the philosophy that all families should have Sunday (or any other weekday) lunch together and offers recipes to strengthen the bond of a communal meal. Offering recipes that are not quite basic, but not quite restaurant quality, I really started to understand some of his beliefs and ideals when it comes to food and recipes.
This is an interview with Marco Pierre White, Gordon’s former mentor (turned enemy? Not quite sure what to call it). Gordon writes in detail about his ill experiences with White, and I was interested to hear about the other side. Marco describes Gordon as disloyal to someone who gave him his “big break”. This interview showed me how Gordon’s peers may perceive him and his actions.
Gordon Ramsay’s website, of course. To me, his official website emphasized his enormous reach and business. This a website for the “Gordon Ramsay” brand, not the person. It was helpful for providing updates information about his whereabouts, recent activities, and all the restaurants, books, and other products under his name. This is where I got my idea for a Gordon Ramsay “Masterclass”, which is a class they offer to book on their website.
Wikipedia! Though this site is sometimes frowned upon, here I gathered basic information such as birthday, family members, etc. It was almost like a mini biography and offered a fact-based story of Gordon’s life, which helped put some outsider context into Gordon’s emotionally fueled stories in his autobiography.
An interview with Gordon about the opening of his then-new restaurant, Petrus. The interviewer/journalist speaks a little about their own perspective on Ramsay, which was great to read and understand how the world saw him during that time. This was when the world still only saw Gordon as a raging, wild, foul-mouthed chef. It’s interesting to see how the his TV persona has evolved.
Gordon Ramsay’s Youtube channel. Like the website, it’s likely not run by him. The channel has excellent videos showcasing Gordon’s restaurants, adventures, personality, recipes, and much, much more. I learned a lot about his demeanor that I tried to emulate in my speech and learning centre.
This is the cheesecake recipe I followed to create the food that was at my learning centre.
Gordon’s infamous Twitter for his well-known insults and clapbacks. It gave me a great idea of how Gordon stays relevant by constant “fan” (I’m not sure if that’s the right word?) interaction. He, or rather, his brand, are much more prevalent on social media than other famous chefs of current times. I have a feeling that his Twitter is not self-run, like his website and YouTube channel.
I think this interview is great. It expresses much of how I feel about Ramsay, saying things like Ramsay, a Brit, had come to this country to serve the most mocked cuisine in the world. and History might well record that this moment, or some time near it, was a turning point in British food. and Gordon Ramsay, the only chef in London honored with three stars by the Guide Michelin, is not a monster.
My favorite parts from the revolution were fighting in riots like
storming the Tuileries and the September massacres, because I feltlike I was important and part of a team for once! I had lived so long before, not enjoying my life, but not realizing that I had a chance to change it. I thought that I just lived and how I was born to live, and that was it. However, I was wrong. I finally got to stand out and do something to change my life for the better!
I am proud of my participation in this revolution! The only thing that I regret is that the revolution didn’t happen earlier. Maybe if it did, my family wouldn’t have died, and I could have had a real childhood rather than working ever since I was able to. I could have lived more of my life being happy, rather than selling disgusting bread that no one wants to buy… There’s no use being sad about that now though, because the revolution has succeeded!
As for my future, I have high hopes. I do basically want the same
things as I did before the revolution, which are money and food, but now I actually have a realistic hope of getting them! I want to build myself a new house as soon as I get more money, and I want to learn how to bake bread that actually tastes good. Who knows? Maybe I’ll eventually even live on my own land! I know it’s unrealistic, but then again, so was the revolution!
I hear you ask: Who are you and why are you here? Well, this my answer be: My master scheme years and years ago was to fool the cardinal into thinking I was a representative of the queen, and lied that the queen wanted to buy a diamond necklace, but wished no one to know that she was spending taxes on luxury. There was forgery, disguises, prostitutes involved – the whole shebang! When the public realized the “greedy queen” had “bought” a diamond necklace with copious amounts of money, they were outraged, thinking that this confirmed that the queen was greedy, immoral, and seduced by luxury! (Which is not untrue.) This pushed the Revolution movement’s wheels a’turn.
So, the Revolution. I cannot say whether I was supportive of this movement or not – all I do know is that I wanted money – and plenty of it. In fact, looking back, I may not have been in support at all! I wished for a lavish lifestyle, and the monarchy system would have allowed me to be prosperous once my money was in hand! During the revolution, wealthy people were forced to flee. If not for my capture and death, would I have been one of them? Ah, but what do I know? I am just a ghost.
Hello everyone, my name is Bernyce, and I am a baker. I like to call myself Bernyce the Baker. I am 23 years old, and I have no family. They got sick of living as peasants and decided to just run away, around 6 years ago. I’m pretty sure they all died. I do just fine on my own though. I have friends that replace my family, like Felicie the
farmer. We’re buddies, although we almost never see each other. We are too busy working and trying to survive, because the stupid royals (AKA MAKIE ANTOINNETE!!!!) won’t give us any of their money. It’s not like they need all of the jewels they have, but for some reason they don’t understand that we deserve to live too! This is why my only hope is the revolution that everyone is talking about. I could live so much better! I could bake proper bread, and live in a house that I can actually walk around in!
I only really have one objective in life. I want to make money and live. I don’t even have enough money to do my job properly! I can’t afford
ingredients to make bread, so I have to put in woodchips, dirt, and sometimes even animal feces, just to make my ingredients go far enough (don’t tell anyone that buys my bread)! I live day by day, just trying to survive, and a lot of days I have one or no meals. I just want the revolution to happen so that I don’t have to be so worried about starving to death.
Now getting more money is not an option for me right now sadly. I have zero power. Naughta. None. I can’t bargain anything, or I will
get killed! I already live on the King’s land. I don’t have any way to make my way up in the social rankings. This is just how it is right now. The government/royals are my obstacle, and are making it impossible for me to live my life.
The action that I need to happen is the revolution. I really really really really want that revolution to happen. It is the only way I can get a shot at a better life. I will try to be a better baker and salesman in the mean time, but I mean, how great can bread with wood chips in it taste? Not that great. I don’t really have much power in making the revolution happen either, but I will do everything that I can do to help it along.
While listening to everyone’s talks on the different Hamilton songs, as well as being amazed by the songs, I created a mind map, to keep track of all of the themes and big ideas that were connected to each other. After we got through all of the songs, I discovered that Hamilton has way too many themes and ideas, and they are all intertwined. Thus, my first mind map turned out like this picture. Not exactly a legible map that you can make any sense of. I had no idea how I was going to make it understandable, but that’s when Mr. Jackson said we only needed one big idea, which makes things a lot simpler.
I decided on three main ideas that I already had, which were Legacy, “In New York you can be a new man”, and “I’m not giving away my shot”, but I couldn’t narrow it down from there. I decided to combine the themes into one big theme statement, which is “a person’s legacy is one of the most important parts about them, yet nobody can have control over what their legacy is, or who tells it”. I then used my original themes as examples for that theme, and kept my connecting ideas. Now somehow, my mind map with just one main idea came out just as big as my mind map with all of them, but hopefully, it is a little less confusing. I made a legend, which is the picture above, to help you understand what everything means.
So first, I will explain why I chose my theme statement. I noticed that legacy just kept getting repeated, over and over, in almost every song. It came across in a lot of different ways, and through a lot of different melodies and lyrics, but it was always encourperated somehow. It also was the reason Alexander Hamilton and a lot of other people did what they did. Legacy is the reason that Alexander’s life was the way it was, and it basically guides the whole story.
One example of how prominent legacy is in the musical is the line “In New York you can be a new man”. This is why Alexander went to New York. He wanted to create a legacy for himself, and he wanted to have a new shot at life, thus his “moto”, which is “I am not throwin’ away my shot”. He moved to New York to get his “shot”. He
introduce himself to people saying “Just you wait”, meaning just you wait until you see what a great legacy I’m going to create for myself. This also connects to him marrying Eliza, and also disparities in power. He wanted to marry someone rich, so that he could have a good legacy. Because Eliza’s family was so rich, Alexander immediately went to that family, not even considering a family that was less well off to marry into. He also wanted people to think good of him, so they would tell is legacy in a good way. This is why he denied so many job offers. They were only offering him a secretary position, and he didn’t want to be just the “measly secretary”. He wanted to be the leader. He wanted to be the boss. He wanted to write history to create a legacy for himself, and that’s what he did. Because of his legacy there is now a musical about him!
Now, all of those examples that I just listed are mearly a few of the impacts that legacy had on Alexander Hamilton’s life, but there are so many more.You could even say that he died for his legacy. He would have never been in that duel, if it weren’t for legacy. I tried to put as many of these connections as I could in my theme map, but it is impossible to connect everything.
In conclusion, I have really really enjoyed this Hamilton unit! I got really interested in history, because of Hamilton. All of the songs are amazing, and I ended up learning a whole bunch about history without even realizing it. This unit is the reason that I am now listening to the entire Hamilton track on repeat while I do this homework!
As indicated above, the theme I chose to express from Hamilton was “True good versus evil does not exist.” If that isn’t clear enough, basically my point is that nothing and no one is ever 100% pure or 100% evil.
My examples were The conflict between Hamilton and Burr, the conflict between Seabury and Hamilton, the two duels that took place in the musical, and Hamilton’s affair with Maria. Through my map, I highlighted some main points in those conflicts, and how neither party was the “good” or “right” party, or the “bad” one. Even if one person seemed to be the most at fault, there were always evidence that the other contributed negatively to the problem as well, leaving a blurry line between good vs evil.
I included some quotes from the musical that highlight that each character had their shortcomings, but also their ethics and reasons for carrying out the actions that they did.
The reason this theme resonates with me is because we’re presented, from a young age, this storybook idea of “bad versus good” and obviously, that’s not the case. It’s really important to consider perspectives; for example, In the fateful duel between Hamilton and Burr, Burr may have been the one to kill the other man, but he had reason to, as clearly depicted in the line “He will not make an orphan of my daughter,” displaying Burr’s fear of leaving his daughter behind after his potential death.
Even when we talk about figures or events that seem purely evil (i.e. Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump) it’s important to understand that what they did or will do in the future are not necessarily the acts of the devil, but may have had some good consequences too. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying they’re good guys. But they weren’t, y’know, evil. It’s a very arguable subject.) It works for “good guys” too. Though Hamilton is the protaganist of our story, there are an abundance of acts that he did that can be perceived as wrong or bad.
I kind of touched on what my theme reveals about history in the earlier paragraph – horrible events, like 9/11 or the World Wars seems like terrible, dreadful things that we would have been better off without having, but if if you dig, positives came out of every situation, so it’s impossible to deem it fully sinful. (Sometimes you have to really, really, dig.) It’s like what we read in the article “History Tells us what may happen next with Brexit & Trump” by Tobias Stone.
One of the big ideas my theme connects to is “Emerging Ideas and Ideologies profoundly influence societies and Events” because new ideas about how we look at events and figures in the past change how we see what came after. Hamilton the musical itself is a great example – Hamilton used to be unknown and not recognized for his accomplishments, and now, years later, he is getting that recognition because of a new idea.