The Agenda – Broadcast – Michael Gravelle | Dalton McGuinty’s Vision of Northern Ontario

Check out this interesting panel discussion about the future of northern Ontario’s economy.

more about "The Agenda – Broadcast – Michael Grav…", posted with vodpod

Calling All Interdisciplinary Historians: Steven Pinker Talks About a Forthcoming Book on the History of Violence

In this Bloggingheads divalog, Harvard evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker discusses his forthcoming book on the history of violence. He attempts to explain why the world has become less violent over the last few centuries. (Pinker promises to provide lots of hard data to prove that such a decline has taken place). Although Pinker is a psychologist rather than a historian, this sounds like an important book that will start a conversation in which historians can participate. Fast forward to 38:00 into the divalog to hear Pinker talk about the book.

more about "Calling All Interdisciplinary Histori…", posted with vodpod

Landry vs Granatstein Podcast

Benjamin West's Death of General Wolfe

Last week, I posted about an upcoming debate in Toronto on the consequences of the British conquest of New France. A podcast of the debate is now available online. The debaters with Bernard Landry and J.L. Granatstein.

Bernard Landry is a Quebec lawyer, teacher and politician. He served as Premier of Quebec (2001-2003), leader of the Opposition (2003-2005) and leader of the Parti Québécois (2001-2005). In 2008 he was appointed Grand Officer of the National Order of Quebec, the highest civilian honor in Quebec.

Jack Granatstein is a Canadian historian who specializes in political and military history. He is the Distinguished Research Professor of History Emeritus at York University and the author of more than 60 books. In 1992 the Royal Society of Canada awarded him the J.B. Tyrrell Historical Medal and in 1997 he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Desmond Morton is a historian who specializes in Canadian military history. Morton is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and in 1996 was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. He is also the Hiram Mills professor of History at McGill University.” He published an article on the Plains of Abraham in the National Post on 10 November 2009.

Thanks to the PR staff at the ROM for alerting me of the podcasting going online!

My Teaching This Week

In my Canadian history survey course, I spoke about the Canadian West before 1864 in Monday’s lecture. I talked about the First Nations, the fur trade, and the origins of the Métis population. I discussed how and why the border was drawn along the 49^th parallel. I said a little bit about Oregon, “54-40 or fight”, and the creation of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. I used the life of Sir James Douglas to draw many of these different threads together.  On Wednesday, I spoke about Manitoulin Treaty of 1862, a treaty between First Nations and the Crown. The students are doing an assignment on the Manitoulin Treaty that involves answering four questions about the treaty. I designed this assignment because there are appropriate sources and it’s a topic that seemed likely to interest my students. Manitoulin Island is not far from Sudbury, so many of my students are familiar with the geography. It’s also a good topic because it deals with some really important national themes. A great case study for my students.

In my honours seminar on Canada in the Confederation period, our focus was on crime, crowds, disorder, and social control. One of the methodological themes I wanted to deal with in the seminar was the relative strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative approaches to social history. The students conclude that both types of social history have merit and that the best research will combine quantitative data (e.g., store records or census material) with contemporary books, poetry, etc. Our readings were: Douglas McCalla, “Upper Canadians and Their Guns: an Exploration via Country Store Accounts, 1808-1861” Ontario History 97 (2005): 121-37; Willeen Keough, “‘Now you vagabond [w]hore I have you’: Plebeian Women, Assault Cases, and Gender and Class Relations on the Southern Avalon, 1750-1860,” in Two Islands: The Legal Histories of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, ed. Christopher English (Toronto: University of Toronto Press with the Osgoode Society, 2006): 237-71; Bryan Palmer, “Discordant Music: Charivaris and Whitecapping in Nineteenth-Century North America” Labour/Le Travailleur, 3 (1978), 5–62. The reading by McCalla seemed to be the favourite of the male students, perhaps because it dealt with guns and hunting! The article by Keough was popular with the female students. As one student put it, “there were some crazy chicks discussed in that article.”  The students also like the article by Palmer. Several students noted how the article could be related to Ian McKay’s Liberal Order Framework, which we read about a few weeks back.

We also read and discussed Hereward Senior’s piece on Ogle Robert Gowan in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Gowan was Grand Master of the Orange Lodge in British North America. This generated a discussion of the Orange Lodge. To give student a sense of Orange parades were like, I showed some video clips in class. One concerns the annual marching season in Ulster, where Orangeism is very much alive and well.

The second clip was of a recent Orange parade in Hamilton, Ontario. I told the students that I was astounded that the Orange Lodge still existed in Ontario. One student said that it was active in her home town. So I learned something in the class!

TVO Agenda Panel on the Canada-UK Relationship

more about “TVO’s Agenda Panel on the Canada-UK R…“, posted with vodpod

 

Department of the Absurd: Apology to the Home Children

The Australian government has apologized to the Home Children, British orphans who were sent to that country in past decades. The government of Canada, the “white Dominion” to which the largest number of Home Children were sent, has said that it has no plans to formally apologize to its Home Children. Canada does, however, plan to issue a commemorative stamp. New Zealanders are debating whether an apology is in order. Britain plans to apologize to all of the Home Children next year.

For British press coverage of this issue, see here, here, and here. For Australian news reports, see here, here, and here. For Canadian press coverage, see here, here, and here.

The ongoing campaign for an apology in Canada is as ridiculous as the one in Australia. It would be odd for Canada to apologize for accepting British child immigrant so soon after it apologized for excluding Chinese immigrants during roughly the same historical period! Both policies stemmed from the same racist-imperialist ideology: the Dominions wanted to get as many British people in as possible and to exclude those it deemed racially inferior. In both Canada and Australia, the Chinese were the victims of the immigration policies and the Home Children were the beneficiaries! One could argue that the aboriginal populations of the Dominions also suffered from the arrival of the Home Children and other subsidized British immigrants, since they had to share their countries’ resources with yet more white intruders.

As for the kids themselves, the children who came to the Dominions were better off as orphans in the Dominions than as orphans in Britain. We forget that  because incomes in the UK are today equivalent if not higher than those in the former white Dominions.  But in the early 20th century, an unskilled labourers could earn roughly twice as much in an hour in North America or Oceania as in Europe. Perhaps Canada should apologize to the whites who bought Japanese-Canadian businesses at fire-sale prices in 1942.  Maybe the government of South Africa should apologize to whites who benefited from the famous job-reservation rules under apartheid!

I would like to point out two historians who can speak on some authority about this topic. One is R. Douglas Francis of the University of Calgary, who is both the son of a Barnardo boy and one of the authors of the  textbook used in most Canadian history survey course. The second historian is Dr Tanya Evans, a research fellow at Macquarie University. It would be interesting to know what their views of the apology demands are.

Economist Videographic on Global Migrant Flows

Another cool videographic from the Economist on an important topic, global migrant flows. Check out the videographic on fertility trends as well.

Empty City

This video isn’t really related to Canadian history, but I feel compelled to share it nevertheless because the visuals are so stunning. Those who believe that the twentieth century will belong to Canada that the twenty-first century will belong to China would do well to watch this video:

 

 

There is a great deal of Laurieresque style exuberance about China’s economy right now. All I can say is that I hope they don’t build too many transcontinental railways!

 

 

Discover Canada Errors

I’m posting some quick thoughts about the Discover Canada handbook.

I was struck by the fact the authors of this pamphlet decided to focus on abstract rather than practical knowledge about life in Canada. The citizenship test and pamphlet in the UK assesses knowledge of historical facts and political institutions, but it also tests practical knowledge, such as the emergency number or how to pay a gas bill.  In contrast, the Discover Canada document betrays the ivory tower origins of the people who worked on it.

I respect the academics who worked on this document, including Jack Granatstein, Margaret MacMillan of St Antony’s College Oxford, and fellow WordPress blogger Janet Ajzenstat. I like the life of the mind, but I’m also down to earth.I pride myself on my ability to socialize with people in a wide variety of occupations and do an ever-growing number of practical things with my hands. I’d like to think I’m a better academic for stepping outside the ivory tower every now and then.

I say this to explain why I am so appalled by certain parts of this document. This document suggests that it was written by people who are totally out of touch with modern-day Canadian popular and political culture. It’s a document for people who meet Prince Charles more frequently than they pump their own gas.

I listed the consultants on this document in an earlier post. They include a variety of academics, a former governor-general, a retired army officer, the spouse of a former governor-general, civil servants who work for Rideau Hall and other individuals drawn from the elite of various branches of the public sector. I don’t think any people who have had careers in the private sector (net taxpayers) were consulted. The consultants are mostly people who live and work in Ottawa or who have lived there in the past.

This document’s version of Canada is distorted by the Ottawa-centric and anglophile biases of its creators. Among other things, Discover Canada is dripping with the colonial cringe and monarchism so typically of upper-middle class “intellectual” Canadians. The document is replete with references to the Queen and Canada’s British heritage, etc. One feels tempted to pronounce the word tomato tomAHto just reading it. The ghost of Vincent Massey stalks the land.

It would have been nice had the document been vetted by a randomly-selected group of Canadian adults. The result would probably have been a much greater emphasis on practical knowledge. The document would have been less politically correct. In fact, maybe we should investigate using a Wikipedia-type process to write a real guide for new citizens. A more widely distributed process would be best way of coming up with a statement of consensus values in modern-day Canada.

Section 1. Inaccuracies in the History Section (Non-Exhaustive List):

“Cartier heard two captured guides speak the Iroquoian word kanata, meaning “village.” By the 1550s, the name of Canada began appearing on maps.”

This is misleading because it presents a disputed theory as fact.

“At the time of Confederation, the vote was limited to property-owning adult white males.”

Simply not true at all. Newfoundland had manhood suffrage—there was no property qualification. Moreover, the last provincial election in Nova Scotia before Confederation was also on the basis of manhood suffrage: all male British subjects over 21 were allowed to vote, regardless of their wealth or property.  No statute in British North America prohibited Blacks from voting provided they fulfilled the other criteria. Natives near Brantford Ontario voted in federal elections until the 1880s. Natives and Chinese were disenfranchised well after Confederation.

“The “Roaring Twenties” were boom times, with prosperity for businesses and low unemployment.”

True in the US, not really true in Canada. Sadly Canada experienced in the prosperity of the United States in the 1920s to a very limited extent.  The 1920s were tough for Canada because of the many barriers to cross-border trade, even before Smoot-Hawley kicked in.

Important Omissions from the History Section (Elephant in the Room Department):

There is no mention of the two conscription crises, or the fact the Great War set Quebec at odds with English-speaking Canada.

There is nothing here about gay history and the dramatic transformation of Canadian attitudes to homosexuality over the course of the 20th century. This is something I talk a bit about in the first-year Cdn history survey course. This is an important bit of our history for immigrants to know, especially those who come from non-Western countries (the vast majority nowadays).

Section 2. Questionable historical interpretations in the document.
“Canadian television has had a popular following.”

That’s not what the ratings say. Maybe this was true in 1955, when CBC was the only channel available in most of Canada. Maybe the guy who wrote Discover Canada doesn’t have cable.

“Canadian society today stems largely from the English-speaking and French-speaking Christian civilizations that were brought here from Europe by settlers.”

This is really debatable. Canada is more of a Western country than a Christian one. (Serbia and Ethiopia are parts of Christendom, but they aren’t part of Western civilization). It is more accurate to say that our civilization, based as it on railways and jet aircraft and so forth, is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment.
“The great majority of Canadians identify as Christians. The largest religious affiliation is Roman Catholic, followed by various Protestant churches.”

Yeah, for census purposes. But immigrants should be informed that this is now a predominantly secular country. They need this fact to understand the society in which they are living. The authors of the document have ignored our history, or at least a major theme in Canada’s 20th century history (secularization).

“Most Canadians were proud to be part of the British Empire.”

Debatable, since Gallup polls didn’t start in Canada until 1940. It would be more accurate to say that the political class, including MPs and newspaper writers, were strongly pro-British. The generally low enlistment rates in the First World War in small-town English-speaking Canada suggests that the average Canadian farmer was a North American who didn’t give a crap about the British Empire except insofar as it influenced the price of wheat.

Section 4. Comments on the Non-Historical Sections of the Discover Canada document.

1) Sports

“Canadian football is the second most popular sport. Curling, an ice game introduced by Scottish pioneers, is popular. Lacrosse, an ancient sport first played by Aboriginals, is the official summer sport. Soccer has the most registered players of any game in Canada.”
By which statistical measure is “Canadian football” the second most popular sport in Canada? No way! The authors of this section must have been on crack appear to have grown out of touch with Canadian culture in the decades since the advent of cable TV. Most young Canadians are unaware of the existence of the CFL. If they watch football at all, they watch the NFL or U.S. college football—or Toronto FC. Few of my students would be able to name three CFL teams, but they could all name a dozen NFL or professional baseball teams based in the US.

2) One of the defining things about Canada is that it is automobile-based society. This fundamental fact about Canada goes unmentioned here. Outside of the CBDs of the largest cities, one must have a car and driver’s licence to be a fully functioning member of society. The centrality of the car to Canadian life should have been stressed in Discover Canada, perhaps with a sentence reading “In Canada, it is expected that all able-bodied men and women will know how to drive a car”. Too many immigrant women are trapped in their homes because they don’t drive.
3) My major disappointment with this document is that the authors chickened out and refused to deal with the issues of arranged marriage and inter-ethnic marriage, a big issue for 2nd generation immigrants.  To be fair to its creators, the document did contain the following statement regarding gender equality:

“In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.”

Criticizing spousal abuse is relatively uncontroversial. As someone who has heard immigrants from backward cultures say truly appalling things, I would have liked the document to have gone further. Perhaps it should have included a statement about contemporary Canadian sexual mores:

“In Canada, most people meet their life partners through a process called ‘dating’.  Parents are expected to respect the romantic choices of their adult children. Because you are now living in a modern society, it is probable that your children will marry someone of a different ethnicity and religion. Intermarriage had been an important theme in Canadian history for centuries, which is why many Canadians are of some sort of mixed ancestry. Modern Canadian society does not attach a positive value to female virginity or having an intact hymen. Virginity at marriage is nowadays regarded as, at best, neutral. It is normal for both men and women to have had a variety of sexual partners before marriage. In Canadian society, homosexual children are increasingly accepted by their parents. If this makes your uncomfortable, you may wish to leave Canada. P.S., if your daughter doesn’t want to wear a headscarf, you shouldn’t make her.”

Now that would be a “muscular” citizenship guide. This guide is anaemic and, in its own way, far too politically correct.

Christopher Moore has more on this. Historian Jerry Bannister also has some thoughts. For press commentary, see here, here, and here.

New Canadian Citizenship Guide

The government has unveiled its new guide to Canadian citizenship, known in English as Discover Canada. The contributors who helped to write the guide include a number of academics, including several historians:

Dr. Janet Ajzenstat

Mr. Curtis Barlow

Dr. Randy Boyagoda

Mr. Marc Chalifoux

General John de Chastelain

The Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson

Mr. Andrew Cohen

Mr. Alex Colville

Ms. Ann Dadson

Dr. Xavier Gélinas

Dr. Jack Granatstein

Mr. Rudyard Griffiths

Dr. Lynda Haverstock

Dr. Peter Henshaw

Dr. D. Michael Jackson

Senator Serge Joyal

Dr. Margaret MacMillan

Dr. Christopher McCreery

Mr. James Marsh

Fr. Jacques Monet, SJ

Dr. Jim Miller

Ms. Deborah Morrison

Dr. Desmond Morton

Mr. Bernard Pothier

Mr. Colin Robertson

Dr. John Ralston Saul

Organizations that assisted with the prepartion of the guide include: Canada’s National History Society; Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA); Historica — Dominion * Institute for Canadian Citizenship.
I will post some thought about the historical section of the guide later today. These thoughts will include a list of the historical inaccuracies and serious ommissions I discovered.