Source one depicts the Tennis Court Oath in 1789 which was a major event during the french revolution. It was right after 3rd estate was supposedly locked out of the estates general meeting, though it has never actually been proven, and crossed over into a nearby tennis court. Once there, members of the National Assembly formed a pro-revolutionary group pledging not to disband until certain changes were to happen. A big change eventually happened in the form of “The declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” which guaranteed everyone equal rights. And it also resulted in the monarch being overthrown. The main purpose of the Tennis Court Oath was to gain support for the revolution. Most of the supporters were mainly revolutionaries of the…show more content… The source is directly saying how nationalism is not purely an ethnic principle. Instead it's based on individuals coming together on their “citizenship”. He believes that we can't act on the principle of ethnic nationality otherwise our nations and countries would be divided upon ethnic lines instead of borders. Federalists, like Trudeau, don't care about a person's ethnicity or religion but believe that the nation comes first. This is why federalists would agree with Trudeau putting their nation as a whole before any ethnic differences. However, certain cultures such as the First Nations of Canada would most likely counter against Pierre Trudeau because they were here together as their own culture before any government or “nationalism” was even set up. This is why this source relates to both ethnic and political nationalism as it deals directly with both affairs. Since Trudeau is a federalist who believed in Canada as a whole he would have written the source to show readers how cultures may believe they are more important but ultimately the nation-state must come first or it could cause great damage and devastation. Results of cultures putting themselves before the nation can include things as extreme as genocides. Like in Rwanda, the separate cultures believed they were superior resulting in mass killings of innocent…show more content… All of the sections are related in that they all want the same thing which is to be separate but also are angry towards the government because they are not being helped out. it is somewhat ironic in that the only way the federal government can help the provinces is to be united in a country. If the regions truly wanted to separate then they wouldn't complain for help and special favours from the federal government. The individual sections like Alberta and the plains regions would support what the cartoon is depicting in that they believe they have the rights to be separate but aren't getting enough of the governments help to do so. The federal government would not agree with what the provinces of Canada are trying to do, they all want to be separate but yet are all complaining to the federal government because they still want their help. Federalists would also counter against the source because they believe in a country as a whole and they would not be in favour of something that would tear the country apart and physically divide it. This source also relates to civic nationalism due to all of the provinces shared political background and being controlled by the federal government. The author tries to show the perspective of the federal government who sees all these different sections of Canada trying to be independent but still
