Historian Andrew Ross on Canada’s National Hockey Team

1 12 2009

Image Source: Library and Archives Canada, via Wikimedia Commons

The image above is of boys playing hockey in Sarnia, 29 December 1908. Source: Library and Archives Canada.

Andrew Cohen, Ottawa-based public intellectual

Historica-Dominion Institute, the Canadian history think-tank, recently published the results of a survey on Canadians and hockey. The poll reveals that a third of Canadians believe that the Montreal Canadiens best represent Canada’s sport. Andrew Cohen, the representative of the institute, was interviewed about the results of the study. Interviewed by CBC Montreal, Cohen said he actually thought support for the Habs would be higher. “A third of Canadians — which is still higher than any other team — is still a substantial number of Canadians,” he said. “It may be because the Canadians haven’t won a Stanley Cup since 1993, and when you’re not winning, as it were, you’re not top of consciousness.” In an interview with Montreal’s La Presse, Cohen attributed the popularity of the Canadiens to “le populaire livre pour enfants «Le chandail de hockey» de Roch Carrier”.

Andrew Ross, Canadian Historian

Andrew Ross of the Department of History, University of Guelph has some thoughts about this poll on his blog. Dr Ross has written about the history of the NHL and is probably the leading academic historian of professional hockey in Canada. Ross is also an economic and business historian and is currently working on a business history of the NHL. His other publications include  “Arenas of Debate: The Continuance of Commercial Hockey in the Second World War,” in John Wong, ed., Coast to Coast: Hockey in Canada (University of Toronto Press, forthcoming);  “The Paradox of Conn Smythe: Hockey, Memory, and the Second World War,” Sport History Review 37 (May 2006), 19–35; “‘All this Fuss and Feathers’: Plutocrats, Politicians and Changing Canadian Attitudes to Titular Honours,” in Colin M. Coates, ed., Majesty in Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2006), 119–141; and “Hockey Capital: Approaches to the Study of Sports Industry,Business and Economic History On-Line 3.





Toronto Star on Inuit Relocation

29 11 2009

During the Cold War,  a group of Inuit were relocated to a remote and inhospitable location in the High Arctic as part of a Canadian government effort to assert Canadian sovereignty in the face of the United States the Soviet Union. The move was a disaster for the Inuit involved, since the area to which they were shipped had little food.

Today’s Toronto Star has a lengthy and well-researched article on this topic.





Historian Joe Martin Quoted in Globe Article on the CN Strike

29 11 2009

Joe Martin, director of Canadian business history at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, is quoted in a Globe and Mail article on the ongoing strike at CN, the former Crown Corporation. His point is that the strike may have a greater effect on the Canadian economy than the last CN strike, which took place in 2007 when the economy was much more resilient.





BBC News – Commonwealth summit opens with Queen’s climate speech

28 11 2009

The Queen has urged Commonwealth leaders to take action on climate change, a statement that some people see as a rebuke of Canada’s go-slow approach to the issue. I wonder if the Queen’s statement will influence the debate over the future of the monarchy in Canada, since it may alienate people on the right of the political spectrum, especially those in the Alberta oil patch. I don’t like the monarchy, but on this issue the Queen is saying something important.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 





Krugman on the Tobin Tax

28 11 2009

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman has come out in favour of imposing a small tax on each financial transaction. The tax, which would be a small fraction on one percent of the value of each transaction, would have a trivial impact on long-term investment but would discourage short-term speculation on the price of stocks, currencies, and other assets.  Krugman’s proposal has been inspired by the work of the deceased economist James Tobin and by Gordon Brown, who recently mused that a Tobin Tax would be a good idea. CNBC’s Jim Cramer, who is neither a Nobel Laureate nor a world statesman, has also endorsed a sort of Tobin Tax.

I suspect that if all of the world’s actual and potential financial centres implemented such a tax, large financial institutions would have no choice but to pay. But   what if one or two countries refused to implement this tax? Wouldn’t currency speculators move to that country?  Financial services are highly mobile. After all, the SarbOx legislation in the US caused much business to shift from Wall Street to the City of London.

Toronto's Financial District Today

It seems to me that if the other Western countries implemented a Tobin Tax, there would be a golden opportunity to make Toronto a global financial centre. The Canadian government could simply announce that is had no intention of imposing a Tobin Tax.

For more on this issue see here, here, and here.





Andrew Cohen on the New Citizenship Guide

27 11 2009

Andrew Cohen, Ottawa-based public intellectual

Andrew Cohen has published some thoughts on the new citizenship test in the Ottawa Citizen. He is much more positive in his assessment of the guide than I am, but he also points out its many curious omissions. He points out that there is no mention of Prime Ministers after Sir John A. Macdonald. As he puts it, “Jim Balsillie (Research In Motion co-founder) and Dr. John A. Hopps (inventor of the pacemaker) are in, but not Mackenzie King or Lester Pearson. Peacekeeping is a footnote. The Golden Age of Diplomacy is ignored.”

Cohen is right to comment on the guide’s silences on huge swathes of Canadian political and diplomatic history. Any guide that is supposed to cover the recent political history of Canada but which leaves out the Prime Ministers and the names of the political parties is clearly not doing its job!  It would be unfair to ask prospective citizens to memorize all of the Prime Ministers, given that some of them were in office for very short periods. I confess that when I am lecturing to university students, I go over the Prime Ministers between Macdonald and Laurier rather quickly. Joe Clark and John Turner also get rather cursory treatment in my course for first-year students. I have to prioritize.  But surely being an informed citizen means knowing a little bit about, say, those Prime Ministers important enough to have international airports named after them. Most immigrants enter Canada through Pearson airport. Shouldn’t they know a few key facts about Pearson?!?!?

Cohen also mentions that “The Constitutional Wars are largely unmentioned, as is the FLQ. This is uncomfortable, but, if we can speak of domestic violence, why not domestic discord?” This is another major omission from this guide. This guide isn’t even good political history (it gets a key date wrong), and it also avoids any discussion of social history. The really big trends of post-1867 Canadian history (i.e., urbanization, industrialization, de-industrialization, secularization, the Demographic Transition) all go unmentioned, which is especially problematic when we consider that most of our immigrants now come from countries that are only have half modernized themselves.   This guide is terrible. Since it will have to be reprinted anyway to deal with the factual errors pointed out by Christopher Moore and myself, it makes sense to start talking about what sort of omissions should be recitified.

After reviewing some of the faults of this guide, Andrew Cohen describes it as “splendid”. I respect Andrew Cohen, but I am at a complete loss to understand how he could use the adjective “splendid” to describe this piece of crap. The fact the old citizenship guide was even worse and essentially ahistorical does not justify praising the new guide to the skies.

Check out Christopher Moore’s list of factual errors in DC.





Historian Matt Hayday on the Vancouver Olympics and the Canadian Identity

26 11 2009

University of Guelph history professor Matt Hayday published a podcast on the Olympics and the Canadian identity crisis. The podcast is part of the Globe and Mail’s Intellectual Muscle series.

The student newspaper at the University of Guelph has published this summary of his talk:

“Because the Olympics are such an international forum, it’s a way of showing excellence on an international scale [it’s] almost like Canada breaking out of its little bubble of self-doubt, of constantly being in the American shadows… Canada seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis.  As a country that was founded as a colony for France and England, four hundred years later we appear to be having a tough time trying to figure out our national personality. After World War II, some realizations seemed to emerge for Canadians: we are not American, we need to be recognized on the international stage, and sporting heroes provide a rallying point for us to do it.”

Update: for more on the history of the winter Olympics, see here.





Onion Video News on Facebook

23 11 2009

I promise a more serious post in the near future, once I finish my current pile of marking.





Department of the Absurd: Apology to the Home Children

17 11 2009

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

16 11 2009

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