Hello! So there are 2 sections here, you have to choose one question of each section and answer them in essay format. So at the end you must have 2 essays (one for each question). One for section 1 and another one for section 2. EACH essay must have 1000-1100 words (PLEASE RESPECT THE WORD COUNT IM ASKING) Section 1: You must answer one of the following three questions. Question 1: Cecil Foster’s proposed model for a “Genuine Multiculturalism” seeks to use citizenship as a panacea for a great number of social inequities and cultural preconceptions. How does his model propose to address these issues and arrive at a balance of interests between old stock Canadians and recent immigrants? Would balancing these interests and expectations provide a more equitable society, and if so, how? Finally, insofar as Foster proposes a model based on citizenship, who may not end up being equitably covered by this model and why? Question 2: Joclyn Maclure illustrates a unique school of thought on the formation of collective identity within French Canada, and Quebec in particular. What can we take away from his examination of the Montreal School of Political Scientists, Historians and Sociologists, and the contributors to Parti pris? What collective inheritance potentially burdens Quebec’s ability to both construct a shared civic identity amongst all of her citizens and address the patrimony of the historical record? Question 3: Jacques Mathieu reflects upon memory in a rather positive fashion that contrasts strongly with Joclyn Maclure’s examination of the analytical perspective of the Montreal School of Political Scientists, Historians and Sociologists, and the contributors to Parti pris. Refus Global by Paul-Emile Borduas et al also paints a critical portrait of French Canada’s past, focussing in particular on the role of the Catholic Church. The power of the Catholic Church is broken in Quebec, and the Quiet Revolution started 70 years ago. Do echoes of this historical burden still impose themselves on this contemporary, secular society, and if so, how are they manifest? Section 2: You must answer one of the following three questions. Question 4: Amarasingam et al speak of Canadian multiculturalism functioning as a ‘banal nationalism’ amongst Sri Lankan Tamils in Toronto. What is the nature of this understated form of nationalism, and given Canada’s powerful regional and provincial attachments and local identities, can ‘banal nationalism’ act as a successful template for reconciling a national identity with these sub-national realities? If so, how so, and 1 what groups might well be left out of such an arrangement. If the arrangement would not work, why? Question 5: The two readings by Clairmont and Barber on Halifax’s Africville illustrate a self-rationalising series of racist policies that, when examined in light of our historical relationships with Japanese, Chinese, and other Canadian minorities provides a damning judgement upon our social record. Yet, the Canadian state opted for multiculturalism as a formal policy half a century ago, and the policy remains popular amongst Canadians. How can we reconcile these two realities, one of historic racism and another of a presumed multicultural egalitarianism? Has multiculturalism changed our historical relationships with the ‘other’ or is the policy more about perception than reality? Question 6: Nelson Wiseman’s examination of Alberta’s political culture speaks strongly to a provincial identity unique within Canadian confederation. He describes a culture as different from neighbouring western provinces as it is in many ways from Ontario and Quebec. What are the cultural components in Wiseman’s Alberta that are so different from the rest of Canada? Given these differences, can we ever speak of a unified Canadian western culture? What important cultural components found in the rest of Canada are especially muted in Alberta’s culture? I will upload some sources you will need in order to answer the questions. Cite everything you need to. Include a Bibliography at the end please.