Careless and Wrong: Nationalist Histories<\/h1>\r\nWhat most people think of as the \"proper subject of history\" is the story of regimes. And certainly it is easy \u2014 and meaningful \u2014 to think of historical periods associated with different political organisms. Whether it is New France, Nova Scotia, or Wendake (the Huron Confederacy), each administrative era imposes certain structures on its people and their lives. Harbours get built, systems of land ownership (individual, family, collective) are recognized and sometimes imposed, alliances with neighbours are forged and broken. The little things \u2014 the things that mark the course of a lifetime \u2014 are also associated with regimes. Think of practices associated with reaching adulthood, marriage, burial, and mourning. Spiritual and religious authority has to reside somewhere, even if it is in a common set of non-institutionalized beliefs. And when regimes change, all those practices can be lost. Or, conversely, their preservation becomes a fundamental creed of the survivor population. In any event, history's focus on governments, empires, and nation states has a long pedigree.\r\n\r\nIn Canada the business of establishing a legitimate country with something like a national identity depended on the writing of national histories. The 20th century witnessed a parade of classically trained historians based in the oldest anglophone universities (University of Toronto, McGill, Queen's), developing powerful narratives of the epic of New France, the Conquest, the Loyalists, the rise of liberal-democratic processes, and the achievement of Confederation. George M. Wrong (1860\u20131948), Donald Creighton (1902\u20131979), and J. M. S. Careless (1919\u20132009) were key figures in this phase of Canadian historiography, and all were based in the Department of History at the University of Toronto.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_516\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"300\"]![\"Black-and-white](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/George-MacKinnon-Wrong.jpg\")
Figure 1.14 George MacKinnon Wrong (1860\u20131948).[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThis [pb_glossary id=\"517\"]National\u00a0School[\/pb_glossary] approach\u00a0was essentially small-c conservative in its ideology, Anglican in its creed, and mostly capital-C Conservative in its politics. There were regular challenges from the Left, particularly in the 1930s, but few other historians enjoyed as much influence.\u00a0Certainly feminist challenges were almost impossible with\u00a0the absence of women in any university history departments. The situation was even more parlous for non-Whites, non-Christians, and non-nationalists. The National School only began to face serious challenges in the 1960s, by which time\u00a0there was growing dissatisfaction with it in academic circles.\r\nGeneration gap: The new social history<\/h2>\r\nThe rise of the [pb_glossary id=\"518\"]baby boom generation[\/pb_glossary] brought to universities huge numbers of young Canadians who were concerned with the histories of working people, non-Whites, and women. The topics of race, class, and gender \u2014 formerly untended \u2014 scrambled to the top of the historian's agenda. The rise of [pb_glossary id=\"519\"]multiculturalism[\/pb_glossary] \u2014 as a fact and as an official policy \u2014 facilitated further the growth of layered histories of ethnicities, each of which had a thing or two to say about gender and social class. As well, the Canadian regions and provinces found they had tales to tell that were either subsumed within the larger national narrative or ran in very different, sometimes contrary, directions. The National History School, by contrast, gave centre stage to the accomplishments of elite groups, political leaders, industrialists, and big media. Their representatives in the pages of history books were, of course, all but 100% males and equally white. Their representatives in the history departments of Canadian universities tended to be drawn from the same demographic. Then the ground rather suddenly shifted.\r\n\r\nThe baby boom generation witnessed the\u00a0creation of a new cadre of universities. In the western half of the country alone a half dozen appeared:\u00a0Simon Fraser University and the Universities of Victoria, Calgary, Lethbridge, Regina, and Winnipeg. Each of these became crucibles for new approaches to the field. The [pb_glossary id=\"523\"]civil rights movement[\/pb_glossary] in the United States, protests against the war in Southeast Asia, the rise of [pb_glossary id=\"522\"]second-wave feminism[\/pb_glossary], and the appearance of what became known as the [pb_glossary id=\"524\"]New Left[\/pb_glossary] influenced campuses across North America and beyond. While the [pb_glossary id=\"527\"]Quiet Revolution[\/pb_glossary] was underway in Quebec, English Canada was undergoing significant intellectual and cultural challenges as well.[footnote]On intellectual and cultural changes in English Canada in these years, see Jos\u00e9 Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English-Canada, 1945\u201371<\/em> (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006).[\/footnote] In the field of history all this played out in challenges to the National History School and took the form of the [pb_glossary id=\"528\"]new social history[\/pb_glossary]. A rising generation of historians turned their back on themes like nation building, railways, and political biography, and produced scores of books on the history of labour, women, immigrant experiences, and Indigenous peoples. New thematically oriented scholarly journals appeared, such as Labour\/Le Travail, Urban History Review, <\/em>and Histoire Sociale\/<\/em>Social History<\/em>, and these were joined by regional historical journals like Acadiensis <\/em>and BC Studies.<\/em>\r\nHistory wars<\/h2>\r\nThe old order of historians didn't stay quiet about these changes.\u00a0As the politics of identity gained ground, some scholars began to systematically criticize the fracturing of the historical vision of the country\u2019s past. Fragmentation of the story into smaller identities, they argued, didn\u2019t enhance opportunities to learn a broader range of histories, it undermined the ability of Canadians to learn a common, core story about themselves. By the 1990s the so-called history wars were fully underway. A leading figure in that conflict was Jack Granatstein<\/a>, a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a distinguished historian based at Toronto's York University. Foreign affairs historians like Granatstein were particularly disturbed by the rise of histories of sexualities, women's experiences, counter-nationalisms, First Nations, and many others \u2014 all of which appeared to undermine the possibility of a shared national past. Granatstein sniffed at social history as so much \"housemaid's knee in Belleville\"; needless to say, social historians and feminists were outraged. The CBC television series The Valour and the Horror<\/em><\/a> (1992), about three significant battles in World War II,\u00a0became a lightening rod for this debate, one that even found its way onto the floor of the Senate. Six years later Granatstein would publish Who Killed Canadian History?<\/em>, a polemical attack on the \"fragmenters\" within the academy. The provocative title of his book tells you a lot about how desperate the defenders of conventional approaches had become. What that cohort longed for was a singular story of \"our great nation,\" one that everyone \u2014 more or less \u2014 could agree to, one that new immigrants to Canada could learn as part of the fitting-in process.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the multitude of voices that were being heard and broadcast in the 1990s on the subject of Canadians\u2019 past was cacophonous. Early in this century, however, a growing trend toward [pb_glossary id=\"529\"]interdisciplinary studies[\/pb_glossary] marked the\u00a0beginning of the process of synthesis. Ruth Sandwell<\/a>, a historian of education at the University of Toronto, has addressed the tensions between fragmentation and synthesis in the classroom. She has observed that \u201chistory education in the schools has moved away from a much narrower vision of citizenship education as explicitly patriotic narrative.\u201d This opens up opportunities for historians to use their specialized knowledge \u2014 even in the narrowest of subfields \u2014 to contribute to undergraduate knowledge and social good by focusing on \u201ca disciplinary understanding of what history is<\/em> and what it does<\/em>.\u201d[footnote]R.W. Sandwell, \u201cSynthesis and Fragmentation: the Case of Historians as Undergraduate Teachers,\u201d Active History. <\/em>Accessed January 4, 2015, http:\/\/activehistory.ca\/papers\/rsandwell\/.[\/footnote] Rather than build \"citizenship\" around a history of prime ministers and wars, the key is to \u201cconvey the kinds of historical understanding that scholars are suggesting 'the people' need in a pluralist democracy.\u201d University of Western Ontario history professor Alan MacEachern<\/a> takes this a step further, In his article, \"A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada\"<\/a>, he challenges historians to attempt synthesis to develop a national history \u2014 even if it comes from a fairly small fragment of the larger field. One of the most difficult specialties that nevertheless holds out much promise for a new perspective on the story of Canada would be a very broad history of childhood.[footnote]The work of Neil Sutherland on English-Canadian childhood is outstanding as is Robert McIntosh\u2019s, but a national synthesis is still needed.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n\r\nHistorians on Video<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhen historical research in Canada was contained to a dozen or so universities, it was a small \u2014 exclusively white and almost entirely male \u2014 club. Things changed dramatically in the 1960s, as Eric Sager (University of Victoria) recounts. Here is a link to a transcript for How has the field of Canadian history developed? [PDF]<\/a>.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/DuSh7td7qAM?si=QzoUsnxFY52Z4X7o\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nNothing, of course, stands still for long. The innovators of the 1960s and 1970s have themselves been eclipsed by new approaches. The most advanced and promising of these deal with [pb_glossary id=\"530\"]environmental history[\/pb_glossary]. There is possibly\u00a0no avenue of historical enquiry that is quite so interdisciplinary. Environmental history was once mainly about animals and nature; now it is more concerned with what we think of<\/em> as nature and how that notion has changed historically. Where it was once informed heavily by geography, lately it has become more influenced by philosophy. One understanding of environmental history is provided by Jan Oosthoek, formerly a professor at Scotland's University of Stirling in What is Environmental History? [YouTube]<\/a>.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=KkFdDPBbn20#t=86\r\n\r\nKey Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nEvery generation writes its own history, in part, because:\r\n\r\n \t- Perspectives change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Sources for historical analysis change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Methodological approaches evolve.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\r\n
Figure 1.13 long description:<\/strong> A wooden fishing weir stretches across a large stream. Sticks are tied close together, standing in the river to make a barrier, and are attached to a long log, which spans the width of the stream to trap fish. [Return to Figure 1.13]<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\nVideo Attributions<\/h3>\r\n\r\n \t- Dr. Eric Sager Question 6 - Development of Canadian history.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 2015 by TRU Open Learning<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n \t
- What is Environmental History?<\/a> \u00a9 Jan Oosthoek<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"
![\"An](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/Indian-Salmon-weir-at-Quamichan-Village-on-the-Cowichan-River-Vancouver-Island.jpg\")
Figure 1.13 Fishing weirs like this one from the Cowichan River (c. 1866) were built by Indigenous peoples across Canada long before contact. Wood \u2014 a readily available building material in northern North America \u2014 was used far more widely than stone, but it leaves less evidence behind. [Long Description]<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIt’s one thing to know about some of the key events in Canada’s history;\u00a0it’s another to know a thing or two about how our history\u00a0came to be written.<\/p>\n
Part of the challenge is defining what constitutes history. For example, it is often said that Canada is a young country without much history. A response to that claim is that Canada is actually a few years older than the modern states of Italy and Germany. Doing so, however, is to fall into the trap of thinking that a constitution defines a country and its history. Others point out that the existence of New France stretches back to the early 1600s (which makes Canada quite a bit older still) and before that there was not much going on in the way of settlement. But that perspective writes off entirely the pre-contact experience of Indigenous nations. In response, some people argue that the history of Canada is limited to the literate societies in Canada, and before the arrival of Europeans there existed only illiterate societies. In other words, they argue that no written record = no history.<\/p>\n
This viewpoint is not defensible. In Britain, historians of ancient times don\u2019t fold up their tents when they get into the pre-Roman past. If they did, nothing would have been studied about Stonehenge, for example. The lands that have become Canada are littered with burial mounds, old fortifications, petroglyphs and pictographs, ancient foot trails, bison pounds, and fishing weirs. Intertidal fishtraps in Comox Bay on Vancouver Island have been carbon-dated to at least 800 years before the present; their scale and design are both staggering and beautiful. Oral traditions, moreover, punch a hole through that artificial barrier erected between the colonialist past and that of pre-contact times. This territory that we call Canada has so much history that the greatest challenge is how to organize it and understand it.<\/p>\n
Careless and Wrong: Nationalist Histories<\/h1>\n
What most people think of as the “proper subject of history” is the story of regimes. And certainly it is easy \u2014 and meaningful \u2014 to think of historical periods associated with different political organisms. Whether it is New France, Nova Scotia, or Wendake (the Huron Confederacy), each administrative era imposes certain structures on its people and their lives. Harbours get built, systems of land ownership (individual, family, collective) are recognized and sometimes imposed, alliances with neighbours are forged and broken. The little things \u2014 the things that mark the course of a lifetime \u2014 are also associated with regimes. Think of practices associated with reaching adulthood, marriage, burial, and mourning. Spiritual and religious authority has to reside somewhere, even if it is in a common set of non-institutionalized beliefs. And when regimes change, all those practices can be lost. Or, conversely, their preservation becomes a fundamental creed of the survivor population. In any event, history’s focus on governments, empires, and nation states has a long pedigree.<\/p>\n
In Canada the business of establishing a legitimate country with something like a national identity depended on the writing of national histories. The 20th century witnessed a parade of classically trained historians based in the oldest anglophone universities (University of Toronto, McGill, Queen’s), developing powerful narratives of the epic of New France, the Conquest, the Loyalists, the rise of liberal-democratic processes, and the achievement of Confederation. George M. Wrong (1860\u20131948), Donald Creighton (1902\u20131979), and J. M. S. Careless (1919\u20132009) were key figures in this phase of Canadian historiography, and all were based in the Department of History at the University of Toronto.<\/p>\nFigure 1.14 George MacKinnon Wrong (1860\u20131948).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThis National\u00a0School<\/a> approach\u00a0was essentially small-c conservative in its ideology, Anglican in its creed, and mostly capital-C Conservative in its politics. There were regular challenges from the Left, particularly in the 1930s, but few other historians enjoyed as much influence.\u00a0Certainly feminist challenges were almost impossible with\u00a0the absence of women in any university history departments. The situation was even more parlous for non-Whites, non-Christians, and non-nationalists. The National School only began to face serious challenges in the 1960s, by which time\u00a0there was growing dissatisfaction with it in academic circles.<\/p>\nGeneration gap: The new social history<\/h2>\n
The rise of the baby boom generation<\/a> brought to universities huge numbers of young Canadians who were concerned with the histories of working people, non-Whites, and women. The topics of race, class, and gender \u2014 formerly untended \u2014 scrambled to the top of the historian’s agenda. The rise of multiculturalism<\/a> \u2014 as a fact and as an official policy \u2014 facilitated further the growth of layered histories of ethnicities, each of which had a thing or two to say about gender and social class. As well, the Canadian regions and provinces found they had tales to tell that were either subsumed within the larger national narrative or ran in very different, sometimes contrary, directions. The National History School, by contrast, gave centre stage to the accomplishments of elite groups, political leaders, industrialists, and big media. Their representatives in the pages of history books were, of course, all but 100% males and equally white. Their representatives in the history departments of Canadian universities tended to be drawn from the same demographic. Then the ground rather suddenly shifted.<\/p>\nThe baby boom generation witnessed the\u00a0creation of a new cadre of universities. In the western half of the country alone a half dozen appeared:\u00a0Simon Fraser University and the Universities of Victoria, Calgary, Lethbridge, Regina, and Winnipeg. Each of these became crucibles for new approaches to the field. The civil rights movement<\/a> in the United States, protests against the war in Southeast Asia, the rise of second-wave feminism<\/a>, and the appearance of what became known as the New Left<\/a> influenced campuses across North America and beyond. While the Quiet Revolution<\/a> was underway in Quebec, English Canada was undergoing significant intellectual and cultural challenges as well.[1]<\/sup><\/a> In the field of history all this played out in challenges to the National History School and took the form of the new social history<\/a>. A rising generation of historians turned their back on themes like nation building, railways, and political biography, and produced scores of books on the history of labour, women, immigrant experiences, and Indigenous peoples. New thematically oriented scholarly journals appeared, such as Labour\/Le Travail, Urban History Review, <\/em>and Histoire Sociale\/<\/em>Social History<\/em>, and these were joined by regional historical journals like Acadiensis <\/em>and BC Studies.<\/em><\/p>\nHistory wars<\/h2>\n
The old order of historians didn’t stay quiet about these changes.\u00a0As the politics of identity gained ground, some scholars began to systematically criticize the fracturing of the historical vision of the country\u2019s past. Fragmentation of the story into smaller identities, they argued, didn\u2019t enhance opportunities to learn a broader range of histories, it undermined the ability of Canadians to learn a common, core story about themselves. By the 1990s the so-called history wars were fully underway. A leading figure in that conflict was Jack Granatstein<\/a>, a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a distinguished historian based at Toronto’s York University. Foreign affairs historians like Granatstein were particularly disturbed by the rise of histories of sexualities, women’s experiences, counter-nationalisms, First Nations, and many others \u2014 all of which appeared to undermine the possibility of a shared national past. Granatstein sniffed at social history as so much “housemaid’s knee in Belleville”; needless to say, social historians and feminists were outraged. The CBC television series The Valour and the Horror<\/em><\/a> (1992), about three significant battles in World War II,\u00a0became a lightening rod for this debate, one that even found its way onto the floor of the Senate. Six years later Granatstein would publish Who Killed Canadian History?<\/em>, a polemical attack on the “fragmenters” within the academy. The provocative title of his book tells you a lot about how desperate the defenders of conventional approaches had become. What that cohort longed for was a singular story of “our great nation,” one that everyone \u2014 more or less \u2014 could agree to, one that new immigrants to Canada could learn as part of the fitting-in process.<\/p>\nIndeed, the multitude of voices that were being heard and broadcast in the 1990s on the subject of Canadians\u2019 past was cacophonous. Early in this century, however, a growing trend toward interdisciplinary studies<\/a> marked the\u00a0beginning of the process of synthesis. Ruth Sandwell<\/a>, a historian of education at the University of Toronto, has addressed the tensions between fragmentation and synthesis in the classroom. She has observed that \u201chistory education in the schools has moved away from a much narrower vision of citizenship education as explicitly patriotic narrative.\u201d This opens up opportunities for historians to use their specialized knowledge \u2014 even in the narrowest of subfields \u2014 to contribute to undergraduate knowledge and social good by focusing on \u201ca disciplinary understanding of what history is<\/em> and what it does<\/em>.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> Rather than build “citizenship” around a history of prime ministers and wars, the key is to \u201cconvey the kinds of historical understanding that scholars are suggesting ‘the people’ need in a pluralist democracy.\u201d University of Western Ontario history professor Alan MacEachern<\/a> takes this a step further, In his article, “A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada”<\/a>, he challenges historians to attempt synthesis to develop a national history \u2014 even if it comes from a fairly small fragment of the larger field. One of the most difficult specialties that nevertheless holds out much promise for a new perspective on the story of Canada would be a very broad history of childhood.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\nHistorians on Video<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen historical research in Canada was contained to a dozen or so universities, it was a small \u2014 exclusively white and almost entirely male \u2014 club. Things changed dramatically in the 1960s, as Eric Sager (University of Victoria) recounts. Here is a link to a transcript for How has the field of Canadian history developed? [PDF]<\/a>.<\/p>\n
History wars<\/h2>\r\nThe old order of historians didn't stay quiet about these changes.\u00a0As the politics of identity gained ground, some scholars began to systematically criticize the fracturing of the historical vision of the country\u2019s past. Fragmentation of the story into smaller identities, they argued, didn\u2019t enhance opportunities to learn a broader range of histories, it undermined the ability of Canadians to learn a common, core story about themselves. By the 1990s the so-called history wars were fully underway. A leading figure in that conflict was Jack Granatstein<\/a>, a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a distinguished historian based at Toronto's York University. Foreign affairs historians like Granatstein were particularly disturbed by the rise of histories of sexualities, women's experiences, counter-nationalisms, First Nations, and many others \u2014 all of which appeared to undermine the possibility of a shared national past. Granatstein sniffed at social history as so much \"housemaid's knee in Belleville\"; needless to say, social historians and feminists were outraged. The CBC television series The Valour and the Horror<\/em><\/a> (1992), about three significant battles in World War II,\u00a0became a lightening rod for this debate, one that even found its way onto the floor of the Senate. Six years later Granatstein would publish Who Killed Canadian History?<\/em>, a polemical attack on the \"fragmenters\" within the academy. The provocative title of his book tells you a lot about how desperate the defenders of conventional approaches had become. What that cohort longed for was a singular story of \"our great nation,\" one that everyone \u2014 more or less \u2014 could agree to, one that new immigrants to Canada could learn as part of the fitting-in process.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the multitude of voices that were being heard and broadcast in the 1990s on the subject of Canadians\u2019 past was cacophonous. Early in this century, however, a growing trend toward [pb_glossary id=\"529\"]interdisciplinary studies[\/pb_glossary] marked the\u00a0beginning of the process of synthesis. Ruth Sandwell<\/a>, a historian of education at the University of Toronto, has addressed the tensions between fragmentation and synthesis in the classroom. She has observed that \u201chistory education in the schools has moved away from a much narrower vision of citizenship education as explicitly patriotic narrative.\u201d This opens up opportunities for historians to use their specialized knowledge \u2014 even in the narrowest of subfields \u2014 to contribute to undergraduate knowledge and social good by focusing on \u201ca disciplinary understanding of what history is<\/em> and what it does<\/em>.\u201d[footnote]R.W. Sandwell, \u201cSynthesis and Fragmentation: the Case of Historians as Undergraduate Teachers,\u201d Active History. <\/em>Accessed January 4, 2015, http:\/\/activehistory.ca\/papers\/rsandwell\/.[\/footnote] Rather than build \"citizenship\" around a history of prime ministers and wars, the key is to \u201cconvey the kinds of historical understanding that scholars are suggesting 'the people' need in a pluralist democracy.\u201d University of Western Ontario history professor Alan MacEachern<\/a> takes this a step further, In his article, \"A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada\"<\/a>, he challenges historians to attempt synthesis to develop a national history \u2014 even if it comes from a fairly small fragment of the larger field. One of the most difficult specialties that nevertheless holds out much promise for a new perspective on the story of Canada would be a very broad history of childhood.[footnote]The work of Neil Sutherland on English-Canadian childhood is outstanding as is Robert McIntosh\u2019s, but a national synthesis is still needed.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n\r\nHistorians on Video<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhen historical research in Canada was contained to a dozen or so universities, it was a small \u2014 exclusively white and almost entirely male \u2014 club. Things changed dramatically in the 1960s, as Eric Sager (University of Victoria) recounts. Here is a link to a transcript for How has the field of Canadian history developed? [PDF]<\/a>.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/DuSh7td7qAM?si=QzoUsnxFY52Z4X7o\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nNothing, of course, stands still for long. The innovators of the 1960s and 1970s have themselves been eclipsed by new approaches. The most advanced and promising of these deal with [pb_glossary id=\"530\"]environmental history[\/pb_glossary]. There is possibly\u00a0no avenue of historical enquiry that is quite so interdisciplinary. Environmental history was once mainly about animals and nature; now it is more concerned with what we think of<\/em> as nature and how that notion has changed historically. Where it was once informed heavily by geography, lately it has become more influenced by philosophy. One understanding of environmental history is provided by Jan Oosthoek, formerly a professor at Scotland's University of Stirling in What is Environmental History? [YouTube]<\/a>.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=KkFdDPBbn20#t=86\r\n\r\nKey Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nEvery generation writes its own history, in part, because:\r\n\r\n \t- Perspectives change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Sources for historical analysis change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Methodological approaches evolve.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\r\n
Figure 1.13 long description:<\/strong> A wooden fishing weir stretches across a large stream. Sticks are tied close together, standing in the river to make a barrier, and are attached to a long log, which spans the width of the stream to trap fish. [Return to Figure 1.13]<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\nVideo Attributions<\/h3>\r\n\r\n \t- Dr. Eric Sager Question 6 - Development of Canadian history.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 2015 by TRU Open Learning<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n \t
- What is Environmental History?<\/a> \u00a9 Jan Oosthoek<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"
Figure 1.13 Fishing weirs like this one from the Cowichan River (c. 1866) were built by Indigenous peoples across Canada long before contact. Wood \u2014 a readily available building material in northern North America \u2014 was used far more widely than stone, but it leaves less evidence behind. [Long Description]<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIt’s one thing to know about some of the key events in Canada’s history;\u00a0it’s another to know a thing or two about how our history\u00a0came to be written.<\/p>\n
Part of the challenge is defining what constitutes history. For example, it is often said that Canada is a young country without much history. A response to that claim is that Canada is actually a few years older than the modern states of Italy and Germany. Doing so, however, is to fall into the trap of thinking that a constitution defines a country and its history. Others point out that the existence of New France stretches back to the early 1600s (which makes Canada quite a bit older still) and before that there was not much going on in the way of settlement. But that perspective writes off entirely the pre-contact experience of Indigenous nations. In response, some people argue that the history of Canada is limited to the literate societies in Canada, and before the arrival of Europeans there existed only illiterate societies. In other words, they argue that no written record = no history.<\/p>\n
This viewpoint is not defensible. In Britain, historians of ancient times don\u2019t fold up their tents when they get into the pre-Roman past. If they did, nothing would have been studied about Stonehenge, for example. The lands that have become Canada are littered with burial mounds, old fortifications, petroglyphs and pictographs, ancient foot trails, bison pounds, and fishing weirs. Intertidal fishtraps in Comox Bay on Vancouver Island have been carbon-dated to at least 800 years before the present; their scale and design are both staggering and beautiful. Oral traditions, moreover, punch a hole through that artificial barrier erected between the colonialist past and that of pre-contact times. This territory that we call Canada has so much history that the greatest challenge is how to organize it and understand it.<\/p>\n
Careless and Wrong: Nationalist Histories<\/h1>\n
What most people think of as the “proper subject of history” is the story of regimes. And certainly it is easy \u2014 and meaningful \u2014 to think of historical periods associated with different political organisms. Whether it is New France, Nova Scotia, or Wendake (the Huron Confederacy), each administrative era imposes certain structures on its people and their lives. Harbours get built, systems of land ownership (individual, family, collective) are recognized and sometimes imposed, alliances with neighbours are forged and broken. The little things \u2014 the things that mark the course of a lifetime \u2014 are also associated with regimes. Think of practices associated with reaching adulthood, marriage, burial, and mourning. Spiritual and religious authority has to reside somewhere, even if it is in a common set of non-institutionalized beliefs. And when regimes change, all those practices can be lost. Or, conversely, their preservation becomes a fundamental creed of the survivor population. In any event, history’s focus on governments, empires, and nation states has a long pedigree.<\/p>\n
In Canada the business of establishing a legitimate country with something like a national identity depended on the writing of national histories. The 20th century witnessed a parade of classically trained historians based in the oldest anglophone universities (University of Toronto, McGill, Queen’s), developing powerful narratives of the epic of New France, the Conquest, the Loyalists, the rise of liberal-democratic processes, and the achievement of Confederation. George M. Wrong (1860\u20131948), Donald Creighton (1902\u20131979), and J. M. S. Careless (1919\u20132009) were key figures in this phase of Canadian historiography, and all were based in the Department of History at the University of Toronto.<\/p>\nFigure 1.14 George MacKinnon Wrong (1860\u20131948).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThis National\u00a0School<\/a> approach\u00a0was essentially small-c conservative in its ideology, Anglican in its creed, and mostly capital-C Conservative in its politics. There were regular challenges from the Left, particularly in the 1930s, but few other historians enjoyed as much influence.\u00a0Certainly feminist challenges were almost impossible with\u00a0the absence of women in any university history departments. The situation was even more parlous for non-Whites, non-Christians, and non-nationalists. The National School only began to face serious challenges in the 1960s, by which time\u00a0there was growing dissatisfaction with it in academic circles.<\/p>\nGeneration gap: The new social history<\/h2>\n
The rise of the baby boom generation<\/a> brought to universities huge numbers of young Canadians who were concerned with the histories of working people, non-Whites, and women. The topics of race, class, and gender \u2014 formerly untended \u2014 scrambled to the top of the historian’s agenda. The rise of multiculturalism<\/a> \u2014 as a fact and as an official policy \u2014 facilitated further the growth of layered histories of ethnicities, each of which had a thing or two to say about gender and social class. As well, the Canadian regions and provinces found they had tales to tell that were either subsumed within the larger national narrative or ran in very different, sometimes contrary, directions. The National History School, by contrast, gave centre stage to the accomplishments of elite groups, political leaders, industrialists, and big media. Their representatives in the pages of history books were, of course, all but 100% males and equally white. Their representatives in the history departments of Canadian universities tended to be drawn from the same demographic. Then the ground rather suddenly shifted.<\/p>\nThe baby boom generation witnessed the\u00a0creation of a new cadre of universities. In the western half of the country alone a half dozen appeared:\u00a0Simon Fraser University and the Universities of Victoria, Calgary, Lethbridge, Regina, and Winnipeg. Each of these became crucibles for new approaches to the field. The civil rights movement<\/a> in the United States, protests against the war in Southeast Asia, the rise of second-wave feminism<\/a>, and the appearance of what became known as the New Left<\/a> influenced campuses across North America and beyond. While the Quiet Revolution<\/a> was underway in Quebec, English Canada was undergoing significant intellectual and cultural challenges as well.[1]<\/sup><\/a> In the field of history all this played out in challenges to the National History School and took the form of the new social history<\/a>. A rising generation of historians turned their back on themes like nation building, railways, and political biography, and produced scores of books on the history of labour, women, immigrant experiences, and Indigenous peoples. New thematically oriented scholarly journals appeared, such as Labour\/Le Travail, Urban History Review, <\/em>and Histoire Sociale\/<\/em>Social History<\/em>, and these were joined by regional historical journals like Acadiensis <\/em>and BC Studies.<\/em><\/p>\nHistory wars<\/h2>\n
The old order of historians didn’t stay quiet about these changes.\u00a0As the politics of identity gained ground, some scholars began to systematically criticize the fracturing of the historical vision of the country\u2019s past. Fragmentation of the story into smaller identities, they argued, didn\u2019t enhance opportunities to learn a broader range of histories, it undermined the ability of Canadians to learn a common, core story about themselves. By the 1990s the so-called history wars were fully underway. A leading figure in that conflict was Jack Granatstein<\/a>, a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a distinguished historian based at Toronto’s York University. Foreign affairs historians like Granatstein were particularly disturbed by the rise of histories of sexualities, women’s experiences, counter-nationalisms, First Nations, and many others \u2014 all of which appeared to undermine the possibility of a shared national past. Granatstein sniffed at social history as so much “housemaid’s knee in Belleville”; needless to say, social historians and feminists were outraged. The CBC television series The Valour and the Horror<\/em><\/a> (1992), about three significant battles in World War II,\u00a0became a lightening rod for this debate, one that even found its way onto the floor of the Senate. Six years later Granatstein would publish Who Killed Canadian History?<\/em>, a polemical attack on the “fragmenters” within the academy. The provocative title of his book tells you a lot about how desperate the defenders of conventional approaches had become. What that cohort longed for was a singular story of “our great nation,” one that everyone \u2014 more or less \u2014 could agree to, one that new immigrants to Canada could learn as part of the fitting-in process.<\/p>\nIndeed, the multitude of voices that were being heard and broadcast in the 1990s on the subject of Canadians\u2019 past was cacophonous. Early in this century, however, a growing trend toward interdisciplinary studies<\/a> marked the\u00a0beginning of the process of synthesis. Ruth Sandwell<\/a>, a historian of education at the University of Toronto, has addressed the tensions between fragmentation and synthesis in the classroom. She has observed that \u201chistory education in the schools has moved away from a much narrower vision of citizenship education as explicitly patriotic narrative.\u201d This opens up opportunities for historians to use their specialized knowledge \u2014 even in the narrowest of subfields \u2014 to contribute to undergraduate knowledge and social good by focusing on \u201ca disciplinary understanding of what history is<\/em> and what it does<\/em>.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> Rather than build “citizenship” around a history of prime ministers and wars, the key is to \u201cconvey the kinds of historical understanding that scholars are suggesting ‘the people’ need in a pluralist democracy.\u201d University of Western Ontario history professor Alan MacEachern<\/a> takes this a step further, In his article, “A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada”<\/a>, he challenges historians to attempt synthesis to develop a national history \u2014 even if it comes from a fairly small fragment of the larger field. One of the most difficult specialties that nevertheless holds out much promise for a new perspective on the story of Canada would be a very broad history of childhood.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\nHistorians on Video<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen historical research in Canada was contained to a dozen or so universities, it was a small \u2014 exclusively white and almost entirely male \u2014 club. Things changed dramatically in the 1960s, as Eric Sager (University of Victoria) recounts. Here is a link to a transcript for How has the field of Canadian history developed? [PDF]<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Key Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n
- \r\n \t
- Perspectives change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Sources for historical analysis change.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Methodological approaches evolve.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\r\n
Figure 1.13 long description:<\/strong> A wooden fishing weir stretches across a large stream. Sticks are tied close together, standing in the river to make a barrier, and are attached to a long log, which spans the width of the stream to trap fish. [Return to Figure 1.13]<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n
Video Attributions<\/h3>\r\n
- \r\n \t
- Dr. Eric Sager Question 6 - Development of Canadian history.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 2015 by TRU Open Learning<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n \t
- What is Environmental History?<\/a> \u00a9 Jan Oosthoek<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"
Figure 1.13 Fishing weirs like this one from the Cowichan River (c. 1866) were built by Indigenous peoples across Canada long before contact. Wood \u2014 a readily available building material in northern North America \u2014 was used far more widely than stone, but it leaves less evidence behind. [Long Description]<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n It’s one thing to know about some of the key events in Canada’s history;\u00a0it’s another to know a thing or two about how our history\u00a0came to be written.<\/p>\n
Part of the challenge is defining what constitutes history. For example, it is often said that Canada is a young country without much history. A response to that claim is that Canada is actually a few years older than the modern states of Italy and Germany. Doing so, however, is to fall into the trap of thinking that a constitution defines a country and its history. Others point out that the existence of New France stretches back to the early 1600s (which makes Canada quite a bit older still) and before that there was not much going on in the way of settlement. But that perspective writes off entirely the pre-contact experience of Indigenous nations. In response, some people argue that the history of Canada is limited to the literate societies in Canada, and before the arrival of Europeans there existed only illiterate societies. In other words, they argue that no written record = no history.<\/p>\n
This viewpoint is not defensible. In Britain, historians of ancient times don\u2019t fold up their tents when they get into the pre-Roman past. If they did, nothing would have been studied about Stonehenge, for example. The lands that have become Canada are littered with burial mounds, old fortifications, petroglyphs and pictographs, ancient foot trails, bison pounds, and fishing weirs. Intertidal fishtraps in Comox Bay on Vancouver Island have been carbon-dated to at least 800 years before the present; their scale and design are both staggering and beautiful. Oral traditions, moreover, punch a hole through that artificial barrier erected between the colonialist past and that of pre-contact times. This territory that we call Canada has so much history that the greatest challenge is how to organize it and understand it.<\/p>\n
Careless and Wrong: Nationalist Histories<\/h1>\n
What most people think of as the “proper subject of history” is the story of regimes. And certainly it is easy \u2014 and meaningful \u2014 to think of historical periods associated with different political organisms. Whether it is New France, Nova Scotia, or Wendake (the Huron Confederacy), each administrative era imposes certain structures on its people and their lives. Harbours get built, systems of land ownership (individual, family, collective) are recognized and sometimes imposed, alliances with neighbours are forged and broken. The little things \u2014 the things that mark the course of a lifetime \u2014 are also associated with regimes. Think of practices associated with reaching adulthood, marriage, burial, and mourning. Spiritual and religious authority has to reside somewhere, even if it is in a common set of non-institutionalized beliefs. And when regimes change, all those practices can be lost. Or, conversely, their preservation becomes a fundamental creed of the survivor population. In any event, history’s focus on governments, empires, and nation states has a long pedigree.<\/p>\n
In Canada the business of establishing a legitimate country with something like a national identity depended on the writing of national histories. The 20th century witnessed a parade of classically trained historians based in the oldest anglophone universities (University of Toronto, McGill, Queen’s), developing powerful narratives of the epic of New France, the Conquest, the Loyalists, the rise of liberal-democratic processes, and the achievement of Confederation. George M. Wrong (1860\u20131948), Donald Creighton (1902\u20131979), and J. M. S. Careless (1919\u20132009) were key figures in this phase of Canadian historiography, and all were based in the Department of History at the University of Toronto.<\/p>\n
Figure 1.14 George MacKinnon Wrong (1860\u20131948).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n This National\u00a0School<\/a> approach\u00a0was essentially small-c conservative in its ideology, Anglican in its creed, and mostly capital-C Conservative in its politics. There were regular challenges from the Left, particularly in the 1930s, but few other historians enjoyed as much influence.\u00a0Certainly feminist challenges were almost impossible with\u00a0the absence of women in any university history departments. The situation was even more parlous for non-Whites, non-Christians, and non-nationalists. The National School only began to face serious challenges in the 1960s, by which time\u00a0there was growing dissatisfaction with it in academic circles.<\/p>\n
Generation gap: The new social history<\/h2>\n
The rise of the baby boom generation<\/a> brought to universities huge numbers of young Canadians who were concerned with the histories of working people, non-Whites, and women. The topics of race, class, and gender \u2014 formerly untended \u2014 scrambled to the top of the historian’s agenda. The rise of multiculturalism<\/a> \u2014 as a fact and as an official policy \u2014 facilitated further the growth of layered histories of ethnicities, each of which had a thing or two to say about gender and social class. As well, the Canadian regions and provinces found they had tales to tell that were either subsumed within the larger national narrative or ran in very different, sometimes contrary, directions. The National History School, by contrast, gave centre stage to the accomplishments of elite groups, political leaders, industrialists, and big media. Their representatives in the pages of history books were, of course, all but 100% males and equally white. Their representatives in the history departments of Canadian universities tended to be drawn from the same demographic. Then the ground rather suddenly shifted.<\/p>\n
The baby boom generation witnessed the\u00a0creation of a new cadre of universities. In the western half of the country alone a half dozen appeared:\u00a0Simon Fraser University and the Universities of Victoria, Calgary, Lethbridge, Regina, and Winnipeg. Each of these became crucibles for new approaches to the field. The civil rights movement<\/a> in the United States, protests against the war in Southeast Asia, the rise of second-wave feminism<\/a>, and the appearance of what became known as the New Left<\/a> influenced campuses across North America and beyond. While the Quiet Revolution<\/a> was underway in Quebec, English Canada was undergoing significant intellectual and cultural challenges as well.[1]<\/sup><\/a> In the field of history all this played out in challenges to the National History School and took the form of the new social history<\/a>. A rising generation of historians turned their back on themes like nation building, railways, and political biography, and produced scores of books on the history of labour, women, immigrant experiences, and Indigenous peoples. New thematically oriented scholarly journals appeared, such as Labour\/Le Travail, Urban History Review, <\/em>and Histoire Sociale\/<\/em>Social History<\/em>, and these were joined by regional historical journals like Acadiensis <\/em>and BC Studies.<\/em><\/p>\n
History wars<\/h2>\n
The old order of historians didn’t stay quiet about these changes.\u00a0As the politics of identity gained ground, some scholars began to systematically criticize the fracturing of the historical vision of the country\u2019s past. Fragmentation of the story into smaller identities, they argued, didn\u2019t enhance opportunities to learn a broader range of histories, it undermined the ability of Canadians to learn a common, core story about themselves. By the 1990s the so-called history wars were fully underway. A leading figure in that conflict was Jack Granatstein<\/a>, a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a distinguished historian based at Toronto’s York University. Foreign affairs historians like Granatstein were particularly disturbed by the rise of histories of sexualities, women’s experiences, counter-nationalisms, First Nations, and many others \u2014 all of which appeared to undermine the possibility of a shared national past. Granatstein sniffed at social history as so much “housemaid’s knee in Belleville”; needless to say, social historians and feminists were outraged. The CBC television series The Valour and the Horror<\/em><\/a> (1992), about three significant battles in World War II,\u00a0became a lightening rod for this debate, one that even found its way onto the floor of the Senate. Six years later Granatstein would publish Who Killed Canadian History?<\/em>, a polemical attack on the “fragmenters” within the academy. The provocative title of his book tells you a lot about how desperate the defenders of conventional approaches had become. What that cohort longed for was a singular story of “our great nation,” one that everyone \u2014 more or less \u2014 could agree to, one that new immigrants to Canada could learn as part of the fitting-in process.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the multitude of voices that were being heard and broadcast in the 1990s on the subject of Canadians\u2019 past was cacophonous. Early in this century, however, a growing trend toward interdisciplinary studies<\/a> marked the\u00a0beginning of the process of synthesis. Ruth Sandwell<\/a>, a historian of education at the University of Toronto, has addressed the tensions between fragmentation and synthesis in the classroom. She has observed that \u201chistory education in the schools has moved away from a much narrower vision of citizenship education as explicitly patriotic narrative.\u201d This opens up opportunities for historians to use their specialized knowledge \u2014 even in the narrowest of subfields \u2014 to contribute to undergraduate knowledge and social good by focusing on \u201ca disciplinary understanding of what history is<\/em> and what it does<\/em>.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> Rather than build “citizenship” around a history of prime ministers and wars, the key is to \u201cconvey the kinds of historical understanding that scholars are suggesting ‘the people’ need in a pluralist democracy.\u201d University of Western Ontario history professor Alan MacEachern<\/a> takes this a step further, In his article, “A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada”<\/a>, he challenges historians to attempt synthesis to develop a national history \u2014 even if it comes from a fairly small fragment of the larger field. One of the most difficult specialties that nevertheless holds out much promise for a new perspective on the story of Canada would be a very broad history of childhood.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nHistorians on Video<\/strong><\/p>\n
When historical research in Canada was contained to a dozen or so universities, it was a small \u2014 exclusively white and almost entirely male \u2014 club. Things changed dramatically in the 1960s, as Eric Sager (University of Victoria) recounts. Here is a link to a transcript for How has the field of Canadian history developed? [PDF]<\/a>.<\/p>\n
- What is Environmental History?<\/a> \u00a9 Jan Oosthoek<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"
- Dr. Eric Sager Question 6 - Development of Canadian history.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 2015 by TRU Open Learning<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution)<\/a> license<\/li>\r\n \t