ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Subject & Level: English A30
Topic: Analyzing the play Only Drunks and Children Tell The Truth
Start Date: Thursday, April 14th
All Assignments from completed layers are due:
Outcome(s):
1. CC A30.4 – writing a literary essay
2. CR A30.2 – responding to a variety of FNMI and other literature
______ Layer C - PROGRESSING – 65% MAX. (55 pts. MIN. to move to level B)
NOTE: ** Indicates REQUIRED assignments
B4 = Do this assignment before reading the play.
Assignment
Possible Teacher
**B4: Complete the reading and note-taking chart for the article
10
titled “The 60’s Scoop: How Canada’s Best Intentions Proved
Catastrophic.”
B4: Read about the author, Drew Hayden Taylor, and about “Native Wit”
5
(readings provided by teacher) and summarize the information.
B4: Watch several video clips (provided by teacher) related to topics
found in the play. Summarize the content of the clips and debrief the
10
content and your insights about the videos with your teacher.
**B4: Complete a webquest (provided by teacher) of important
5
terms and concepts found in the play.
B4 and while reading: Complete several journal entries (prompts
10
provided by teacher) related to events and ideas found in the play.
**Read the play as a class and write a 1-page journal response to
20
what was read…10 marks = reading the play/being in class; 10 =
quality of response.
During reading: Choose an essay topic and while reading, prepare a list of
10
(at least 10) quotes from the play that might help in addressing your topic.
After reading: Create a “concept map” of the ideas/people/places found in
10
this play. Map must include at least 20 concepts (ideas/people/places).
After: Complete a basic outline (provided by the teacher) for your literary
5
essay topic (topic choices provided by the teacher).
Total Points Earned ____________
Teacher Initials ___________
Earned
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
______ Layer B – MEETING – 85% MAX. (75 pts. MIN. to move on to level A)
**Indicates REQUIRED assignment
Assignment
**Write a thorough literary analysis essay OUTLINE for your
essay topic related to the play (outline template provided by
teacher).
** Write an MLA-formatted formal literary essay on your
chosen topic.
View the Duncan C. Scott visual provided in class. Respond to
the questions posed about the visual in a 1-page journal entry,
explaining your interpretation of the visual and its connection to
the play. Discuss this information with the teacher.
Possible
Teacher Earned
10
10
5
Points Earned ____________
______ Layer A - ESTABLISHED - Choose ONLY one question to investigate and report on
for 25 pts.
Assignment
Create and present a multimedia presentation about the
information learned and analyzed in your essay
Create and present a monologue, of at least one page in length,
that might have been given by one of the characters in the play.
Include appropriate costuming, props and dramatic expression.
Lines must be memorized, OR, memorize and present lines
already found in the play. Can be done with a partner or solo.
Do you have another idea that reflects your insightful analysis
and application of ideas from the play in a creative and/or
thought-provoking manner? Come talk to me and let’s negotiate.
Student Comments:
Total Points Earned ____________
Teacher Comments:
Possible Teacher Earned
25
25
25
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
The Sixties Scoop: How Canada’s “Best Intentions” Proved
Catastrophic
By Lloyd Dolha
March 24, 2009
http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2009/03/the-sixties-scoop-how-canadas-best-intentions-proved-catastrophic/
In his seminal work, Native Children and the Child Welfare System, researcher Patrick Johnston
coined the term “Sixties Scoop” to describe an alarming national phenomenon in which Status
Indian children were taken from their homes and communities by provincial child welfare
authorities to be placed in non-aboriginal foster homes for adoption. It is a term now deeply
rooted in the Canadian political lexicon. In a 1983 report for the Canadian Council for Social
Development, Johnston revealed a number of major factors that congealed in the 1960’s to
facilitate the Sixties Scoop of aboriginal children across the nation.
In this chapter, we will examine the causal factors that underlie this alarming national trend, the
current state of aboriginal child welfare, and the numerous First Nations initiatives that have
emerged to combat this national tragedy. It is important to remind ourselves of these underlying
causes because the negative effects of the Sixties Scoop live on today and are still being played
out in the tragic stories of individuals in aboriginal communities and cities across Canada.
Indeed, many would argue that the Sixties Scoop never ended and has instead increased in its
intensity and scope.
As we have seen, the residential school experience was a devastating catastrophe for First
Nations people. Thousands of aboriginal children were forced to attend these schools with the
stated objective of cultural assimilation into the wider Canadian society. The residential school
experience, in which physical and sexual abuse was common, left many Status Indians hostile
and bitter. Aboriginal children placed in these schools often lost all meaningful contact with their
families and communities.
The legacy of the residential school system had (and continues to have) profound negative
impacts on aboriginal people. The loss of cultural values and self-esteem has clearly contributed
to alcoholism, family breakdown, and violence. Alcoholism became rampant, in some cases
consuming whole communities. Decades of forced assimilation into residential schools produced
a widespread generational phenomenon among aboriginal children, their parents, and
grandparents known as Residential School Syndrome (RSS).
It was in this context that provincial governments began to extend child welfare services to First
Nations reserve communities across Canada through agreements reached with the federal
government in the early and mid 1960’s. The move to extend these services was the result of
major revisions to the Indian Act that were introduced in 1951. One of those changes was the
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
addition of Section 88 of the Indian Act. Section 88 made provincial laws of “general
application” that apply to all people (subject to certain restrictions) applicable to Status Indians
on reserve in any province. Under the Canadian constitution, laws of general application such as
child welfare legislation, fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while the federal
government has the exclusive authority to enact legislation for “Indians and lands reserved for
the Indians” under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act.
The Indian Act holds no provisions for the delivery of child welfare services, and while Canada
has the constitutional authority to enact legislation on behalf of Status Indians, it has never
chosen to do so. As an area of exclusive provincial responsibility, each of the ten provinces and
two territories developed their own child welfare legislation with their own policies and methods
for delivering those services.
The extension of child welfare and other social services on-reserve may have been seen as the
most practical way of dealing with problems associated with life on Indian reserves in the
1960’s, and it may have been done with the best of intentions, but “little attention was paid to the
effect that extending provincial services would have on Indian families and communities. Nor
did there appear to be any concern that provincial services might not be compatible with the
needs of Indian communities.”
Therein lies the heart of the problem that manifests itself even today. The major limitation of
provincial jurisdiction is that as “laws of general application” the standards adopted under
provincial legislation are necessarily standards required to serve the general population.
Provincial legislatures of the day could not enact laws that specifically applied to the Indian
population because that authority rested exclusively in the domain of the federal government.
Thus, the special needs of Status Indian children could not be directly dealt with under existing
provincial laws because Section 88 of the Indian Act relinquished the federal government from
enacting specific First Nations child welfare legislation, despite the federal government’s
constitutional responsibility for Status Indians. Johnston points out that as a result of the
jurisdictional dispute, there has been a continual argument over which level of government has
the legislative responsibility to provide child welfare services to First Nation reserves and who
should pay for it.
The results of the expansion of provincial child welfare services were profound in their effects
on aboriginal communities nationwide. Noting the scarcity of reliable data in the mid-60’s,
Johnston showed that in 1955, less than 1% of the children in the care of British Columbia’s
child welfare branch were Status Indian children. By 1964, approximately 34 % of the children
in care in B.C. were Status Indians. In other words, in less than ten years, the number of Status
Indian children in B.C.’s child welfare system had jumped from almost zero to more than onethird—a pattern that was repeated in many other parts of Canada as well.
The actual term “Sixties Scoop” came from a long-time employee of the B.C. Ministry of
Human Resources whom Johnston personally interviewed. This person “admitted that provincial
social workers would, quite literally, scoop children from reserves on the slightest pretext. She
also made it clear, however, that she and her colleagues sincerely believed that what they were
doing was in the best interests of the children. They felt that the apprehension of Indian children
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
from reserves would save them from the crushing poverty, unsanitary health conditions, poor
housing, and malnutrition which were the facts of life on many reserves.”
According to Johnston, by the 1970’s Status Indian children represented between 40 and 50% of
children taken into care in the province of Alberta. In Saskatchewan, they represented between
60 and 70% of the children in care, while in Manitoba, Status Indian children represented 50 to
60 % of the children in care. He estimated that nationally, Status Indian children were 4.5 times
more likely than non-Indian children to be in the care of child welfare authorities. Rather than
being an act of last resort, the apprehension of Indian children became the standard operating
procedure.
In Manitoba, aboriginal people were increasingly disturbed by the removal of hundreds of their
children in the Sixties Scoop. Statistics of the day revealed that in 1981 as many as 55% of
aboriginal children in care were shipped out-of-province to the United States for adoption. By
1982, Manitoba was the only remaining province that allowed adoptions outside of Canada. In
the face of emotionally-charged allegations by aboriginal leaders, the provincial government
ordered an all-out stop to the practice of out-of-province adoptions and appointed Associate
Chief Judge Edwin C. Kimelman of the provincial court’s family division, to lead an inquiry into
the province’s child welfare system and its effect on aboriginal people.
In March 1982, Edwin Kimelman began hearings across the province about the phenomenon of
the white adoption of aboriginal children from Manitoba First Nations. Kimelman reviewed 93
cases of adoption and found that no attempt had been made to secure aboriginal homes for
aboriginal children. Over a period of 20 years, from the mid-1960’s to the early 1980’s,
Manitoba lost about 3,000 aboriginal children to white adoption. Kimelman concluded in his
publication No Quiet Place: Review Committee on Indian and Métis Adoptions and Placements
(1985) that “cultural genocide has taken place in a systematic and routine manner.” Kimelman
further commented on the tendency of “social workers to make idealistic judgements about
family functioning and [suggested that they] may view situations as neglect where no actual
harm is likely to occur.” He said child welfare workers were “overzealous” in applying their
authority, saying the workers were “well-intentioned, but misguided.”
Kimelman agreed with aboriginal leaders that their children were the victims of a policy of
“wholesale exportation” to other provinces and the United States. He admitted, “It would be
reassuring if blame could be laid to any single part of the system. The appalling reality is that
everyone involved believed they were doing their best and stood firm in their belief that the
system was working well … The miracle is that there were not more children lost in this system
run by so many well-intentioned people. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and
the child welfare system was the contractor.”
The Kimelman report recommended sweeping changes to the province’s child welfare legislation
so that the determination of the best interests of the child would include the consideration of “the
child’s cultural and linguistic heritage.” The goal of child welfare, said Kimelman, should be to
strengthen family ties, not to sever them. The Kimelman Report urged the province to make
efforts to contact aboriginal children adopted out-of-province and offer them help in reconciling
with their natural families and home communities
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
After the hearings concluded, Judge Kimelman stated, “When the Indian residential schools were
operating, children were forcibly removed from their homes for the duration of the academic
year. The children were punished if they used their own language, sang their own songs, or told
their own stories. But at least under that system the children knew who their parents were, and
they returned home for the summer months. With the closing of the residential schools, rather
than providing the resources on reserves to build economic security and providing services to
support responsible parenting, society found it easier and cheaper to remove the children from
their homes and apparently fill the market demand for children in Canada and the U.S.”
According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP 1996), statistics from the
Department of Indian Affairs revealed that a total of 11,132 Status Indian children were adopted
out largely to white, middle-class families between 1960 and 1990. That number is believed to
be a conservative figure because many aboriginal children were not recorded as Status Indians in
adoption or foster care records, nor were many Status Indian children recorded as such after
adoption. Of the thousands of aboriginal children placed in foster or adoptive care, RCAP
estimates that about 70% of those were adopted into such homes.
In the early 1980’s, First Nations and tribal councils who sought more culturally appropriate
approaches to aboriginal child welfare developed a number of models for child and family
services agencies. In recognition of this, by 1990 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
brought forth the national First Nations Child and Family Services program to fund First Nations
Child and Family Services (FNCFS) agencies. To facilitate these services, FNCFS agencies
entered into two separate agreements, first with provincial or territorial governments, and second
with the federal government. The provincial/territorial government agreements transfer authority
to First Nations or tribal councils to administer child and family services on-reserve under
provincial child welfare legislation. FNCFS agencies must then enter an agreement with INAC
for funding to administer child and family services on reserve. This is done under INAC’s
“Directive 20-1,” which is the national funding formula administered by the department
(effective since April 1, 1991). It restricts funding to eligible children on reserve 0-18 years of
age. Thus, the level of federal funding varies according to population and geographic location.
The directive’s policies further dictate that in most provincial jurisdictions, FNCFS agencies
must be incorporated under existing provincial child welfare legislation, which requires that they
comply with provincial legislation and standards. There is one exception in Ontario, where
FNCFS agencies are funded by the province and later reimbursed by the federal government.
Consequently, there is a complex three-party relationship between FNCFS agencies, the
provinces, and INAC, all of whom are responsible for the funding and delivery of child and
family services for First Nations in Canada. In June 2000, a joint policy review of Directive 20-1
by the Assembly of First Nations and INAC resulted in 17 recommendations for improvements
in the current policy. Despite advances in provincial government policies in aboriginal child
welfare and increasing First Nations control over child welfare structures, First Nations children
are still three times more likely to be in state care than non-First Nations children. Conventional
wisdom places the number of aboriginal children in care today at about 27,000, but best
estimates place the number in care between 22,500 and 28,000.
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
During the Sixties Scoop, children were often sent to other provinces, the United States or even
overseas. The white, middle-class families who took them in had no concept of the significance
of aboriginal culture with its emphasis on the extended family or tight-knit community. Many of
these children grew up largely alienated from their families and communities with little or no
understanding of their own culture and identity. In their new environments, they were often
discriminated against because of their race, and by the time they reached their mid-teens, the vast
majority were running away repeatedly, abusing drugs and alcohol, or turning to crime as a result
of identity crises.
Though many adoptive families were well intentioned, literature on cross-cultural or trans-racial
adoption in Canada has found that aboriginal trans-racial adoptions consistently failed. Recent
studies have shown that such adoptions deteriorate rapidly in the teen years regardless of age of
placement, and according to recent statistics, a stunning 85 to 95 percent of aboriginal transracial adoptions ultimately fail by the time the adoptee reaches adolescence. As a result, the
majority of the aboriginal children adopted as a result of the Sixties Scoop now struggle with a
number of identity issues as adults today.
Dr. Leo Steiner, a former director of the Aboriginal Community Crisis Team at the Toronto East
General Hospital, said in an affidavit to the Family Court in 1990 in a case regarding crosscultural adoption, “A child who is conflicted about his identity is severely handicapped. He may
have developed a host of functional skills, but he is also subject to a gnawing, chronic selfquestioning. The child becomes a victim of a self-fulfilling prophecy, self-sabotaging his own
attempts at success, for he strongly believes he is doomed to failure. With low self-esteem and a
confused sense of self, the child is ill equipped to form healthy and mature relationships with
others. He is more likely to seek short-term pleasures rather than more productive realistic longterm goals. Unable to interact meaningfully in adulthood, he often develops a self centered,
impulse-pleasing self-destructive lifestyle.”
In Ontario, the Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFST) provides child welfare
related services to an estimated 60,000 aboriginal people in the greater Toronto area. It provides
a full range of prevention programs, as well as treatment and healing services. The NCFST is a
licensed foster care provider, manages a large aboriginal child welfare caseload, and has an
extensive for street youth. The centre is unique insofar as it is Ontario’s full service off-reserve
child welfare initiative under the direct control and management of the urban native community.
Among youth on the street in Toronto, the typical profile is that of a young aboriginal male,
often a runaway from an adoption home since about 14 years of age. A significant number of
people served by the centre have experienced cross-cultural adoptive breakdowns.
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
“The Sixties Scoop: How Canada’s Best Intentions Proved Catastrophic”
By Lloyd Dolha
Your Tasks:
1. Read the following article and textcode it as you read (underline and make notes about
things you agree and/or disagree with, ideas that surprise you, points you don’t
understand and/or questions you have as you read).
2. Reduce this reading to its main and supporting points using the chart provided. Keep
in mind that if I’ve provided you with a full page on which to track these main and
supporting points, that I expect you to fill the page (goal: find at least THREE main points
with at least three supporting points for each main point). There is not one right way to
do this, but do it thoroughly. Staple additional paper to this pkg if needed.
Main Idea
Supporting Points/details
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Native Wit
by Colin Thomas on March 25th, 2004 at 12:00 AM
http://www.straight.com/article/native-wit
Playwright Drew Hayden Taylor Anoints His Audiences With The Healing Salve Of First
Nations Humour
Drew Hayden Taylor is probably the most produced Native playwright in the world. He's
certainly one of the funniest. Taylor has more than 60 mountings of his work under his belt, eight
of his scripts have been published, and he has authored six books of essays, humorous articles,
and short stories. Asked how he manages to be so prolific, he replies over the phone from his
home in Toronto: "I subcontract. I have a Jewish writer in New York. I just change everything
from Jewish to Ojibway."
Taylor's latest comedy, The Buz'Gem Blues, runs at the Firehall Arts Centre from Wednesday
(March 31) to April 17. This piece is the third part of a comic quartet of plays that the selfdescribed "blue-eyed Ojibway" has been putting together. He has already produced The Baby
Blues and Bootlegger Blues; he'll start work on the final piece, Berlin Blues, next year.
On its surface, Buz'Gem, which means "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" in Ojibwa, looks like it's all
about romance. The action unfolds at a Native elders' conference in a university setting. A nonNative academic named Dr. Savage is taking advantage of the occasion to research his report: An
In-Depth Analysis of the Courting, Love, and Sexual Habits of the Contemporary First Nations
People as Perceived by Western Society, Vol. I or The Natives Are Restless. But comedy is about
mistakes, not love per se, and beneath the flirting and repartee, Buz'Gem is about foolish
assumptions and misplaced identities.
One of the characters, a young woman named Summer, is doing her best to spin her one-64th
Native heritage into a full-fledged identity. She covers herself in First Nations jewellery, speaks
a smattering of several indigenous languages, and whips up cross-cultural culinary treats,
including salmon milk shakes. Perhaps the best jokes come at the expense of a Native guy who
calls himself Warrior Who Never Sleeps. He will not rest, he explains, "until our people are free,
our customs respected, our culture honoured". When he introduces himself to a young woman
named Marianne, she suggests that perhaps he'd like to meet her mom, Mother Who Always
Says "I Told You So". Marianne's mom, Martha, who is an elder, cracks, "I don't suppose you
ever met my ex-husband, the Warrior Who Never Puts the Toilet Seat Down?"
Some of Taylor's jokes have even more bite. When Dr. Savage is trying to convince an elder
named Amos to consent to an interview, he sets off the following exchange:
"I assure you everything is confidential and private. No one will get hurt."
"Said the white man to the Indian."
"I have a release form, a legally binding contract that will guarantee it."
"Again, said the white man to the Indian."
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
You could say that Taylor wrote the book on Native comedy and you'd almost be right; he hasn't
written it yet, but he plans to. The 41-year-old author has pitched a nonfiction text called
Whacking the Indigenous Funny Bone to a publisher. In 2000, Taylor directed a documentary on
Native humour for the National Film Board; Redskins, Tricksters, and Puppy Stew will be
screened at the Firehall next Sunday (April 4) at 8 p.m.
He says that, inevitably, the first scripts written by Native Canadians were a bit bleak: "There's a
quote that Thomson Highway likes to use: 'Before the healing can take place, the poison must be
exposed.' When an oppressed people gets its voice back, they will write about being oppressed.
There's cathartic value in that." Taylor has penned his share of issue-oriented plays. AlterNatives,
Someday, and Only Drunks and Children Tell the Truth deal with serious themes, including the
residential-school system and cross-cultural adoption. "We've pointed out the problems," he
continues, "and it's time to start healing them. There's no greater healing factor than a really good
belly laugh. I've travelled to over 120 Native communities, and everywhere I've been I've been
greeted with a laugh and a smile and a joke. Let's celebrate that, for Christ's sake!"
Taylor has obvious affection for everybody who shows up in The Buz'Gem Blues, even Dr.
Savage and Summer, the non-Native fools. "I really think that you should enjoy your characters
like you would enjoy a dinner party," he says. "And one of the things I've learned is that humour
should amuse, not abuse. I'm not out to hurt anybody; I don't see the point in that."
Although he insists that there are universal factors in humour--"There's no Native way to boil an
egg"--he says that Native people tend to enjoy a particular kind of spin. "A lot of our humour is
self-deprecating," he begins. By way of illustration, he quotes from a routine by Native standup
comic Don Burnstick: " 'If you know how to filet balogna, you might be a redskin. If you use
your probation officer as a reference, you might be a redskin.' " And then he tells his favourite
First Nations joke: "A Native woman goes to the window and yells out, 'Honey, my kid and your
kid are beating up on our kid!' "
He goes on: "The second characteristic that I find in Native humour is teasing. Oftentimes, you
don't know that you've been accepted into a community until they start teasing you, because it's
impolite to tease a stranger, at least to their face. There's actually an anthropological term for
that: it's called permitted disrespect."
Despite the comic riches he brings to the stage, Taylor says that he has had problems getting his
comedies produced in this country. "I think that reflects the Canadian theatrical establishment:
that comedies are bad, or Native comedies are bad. Our Indians should be tragic."
Reacting to that notion, Taylor has a very clear idea of what he hopes audiences will get out of
The Buz'Gem Blues. "I want them not to believe that Native people exist completely for land
claims, alcoholism, and oppression. I want them to see the humour that we have. I want them to
see that we laugh, we cry, we have cathartic moments. I want people who see my play to
acknowledge the fact that we have a multifaceted life, that it's not all the gloom and doom you
see on North of 60. It's a sense of humour that's allowed us to survive the darker aspects of our
history."
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Know These References Before you Begin…
Record a definition for each term or person listed below. You won’t fully understand what the
characters are talking about if you don’t fully appreciate these references…
Act 1, Scene 1:
Term:
Record your definition/research here:
1. Tonto
2. Six Nations (p. 16)
3. Tyendinaga (p. 16)
4. Goodwill (p. 16)
5. Al Waxman (p. 16)
6. Maxine Noel (p. 17)
7. Odjig (p. 17)
8. Roy Thomas (p. 17)
9. C.A.S. (p. 19)
10. Chi-meegwetch (p. 19)
11. Wendo (martial art) –
p. 20
12. O.P.P. (p. 25)
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
References Continued…
Act 1, Scene 2:
Term:
Definition/Research:
1. Animosity (p. 28)
2. Land Claim (p. 28)
3. Ojibway (p. 31)
4. “Blood is thicker
than water” (p. 33)
5. Pow wow (p. 36)
6. Ricky Ricardo (p. 38)
7. Amelia Earhardt
(p. 39)
8. Turtle Island (p. 43)
9. Kemosaabe (p. 49)
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Only Drunks and Children Tell the Truth
Journal Entries
Each entry must be at least 1/3 of a page in length (MLA formatted) but aim for longer to ensure
a full mark. Mark is based on thoughtfulness and evidence of clean writing/proofreading.
1.
Before we begin reading this play, explain what you think the play will be about,
simply based on the title. Use your imagination to consider who the characters might be
and what the conflict of the story might revolve around.
2.
At some point before and/or while reading the play, respond to at least one (but more
is better if you’re looking for a mark of 80%+) of the following prompts:

It's true: If you have a sound understanding of where you come from, then you’ll have a
better understanding of where you’re going to.

Some people are happy being where they are.

Families were created for weaknesses.

“Blood is thicker than water.”

Everybody has a choice.

People may learn a few facts or stories over the years, but all the real important things in
life we know at birth.
3.
Halfway through the play, complete an entry in your journal on the following topic:

Imagine that you are a character in the play. Think about the decisions that you would
make. How would the plot progress for you from this point on? How would you feel in
this situation? What do you already have in common with the character? What is
different in your life compared with this character?
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
First Nations Stereotypes
1. Thomas King on First Nations Stereotypes: “I’m not the Indian you had in mind”
http://www.nsi-canada.ca/2012/03/im-not-the-indian-you-had-in-mind/
2. Wab Kinew on First Nations Stereotypes (2 minutes)
http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/canada/soap-box-wab-kinew-on-first-nations-stereotypes.html
3. Youtube: “Wab Kinew on Strombolopolous – full interview” (15 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbYcuHtvulI
4. Youtube: “Our Canada: Are We Racist?” (20 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ET8KyiY_Nc
To Do:
1. Watch all three clips and thoroughly summarize the information you have learned from
each video. Be sure to include headings to differentiate each video.
2. Show these notes to the teacher and be prepared to have a conversation about what
you have watched.
3. If notes are messy and/or minimal, and/or if you cannot prove you actually watched the
video(s) through conversation with me, your mark will be affected accordingly.
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Literary Analysis Essay Topics
Choose ONE of the following topics as the subject of a formal literary essay.
1. Analyze the effect(s) – emotional, psychological and/or physical - of the “60’s Scoop” on
one or more of the characters in the play.
2. Examine the development of one significant theme in this play. Theme is developed
through the development of character, conflict/plot, setting, etc . (Definition of
“theme”: a phrase or sentence that expresses a universal truth running through the
literary work but is never explicitly stated).
Some theme ideas:






Some people are happy being where they are.
Families were created for weaknesses.
“Blood is thicker than water.”
Everybody has a choice.
Coming to terms with the realities of one’s life
There are others – come talk to me if you have another idea…
3. “Humor often plays an important role in the literature and other media created by First
Peoples.” Use the play Only Drunks and Children Tell the Truth to explain and support
what is meant by this quote.
4. What does it mean to be “family”? Should family only be defined by one’s blood
relations or can/should it be more than that? Answer this question using the conflict
and character development found in this play to support your answer.
5. Do you have another idea for an essay topic? Come speak to me about your proposal.
Keep in mind that in a literary analysis essay, the topic must be one that can be
addressed solely by looking to the literary piece itself for the answer…it is not requiring
any outside sources to be referenced in order to adequately address the question (i.e. as
in a research essay or compare/contrast essay).
ELA A30 – Module 4 – CDN Play Fehr-Rose
Name_________________________________________________________________________
BASIC Outline – Literary Essay for ODACTTT
Topic (write out from essay options provided):
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
THESIS STATEMENT: aka – main argument of whole essay stated in one, concise sentence. It
appears as the last sentence in the introductory paragraph.
Topic Sentence for FIRST body paragraph – clearly connected to thesis statement:
Topic Sentence for SECOND body paragraph – clearly connected to thesis statement:
Topic Sentence for THIRD body paragraph – clearly connected to thesis statement:
THESIS STATEMENT – restated in different words. Found within the concluding paragraph.