Plains of Abraham

9 09 2009

The National Battlefield Commission, the federal agency responsible for the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City, has decided to allow a controversial event to proceed. The event, which has been organized by a group of Quebec nationalists, will include a reading of the FLQ 1970 manifesto. (For the benefit of non-Canadian readers, I should point out that the FLQ was a terrorist organization whose antics resulted in the imposition of martial law in Canada for a brief period in 1970).  Some critics regard the forthcoming event as glorifying terrorism. (See here as well).

I have two thoughts about the decision of the Commission to allow the event to go ahead. First, I’m struck by the tremendous symbolic importance that Canadians, particularly Quebeckers, still attach to the Plains of Abraham. Earlier this year, there was a media firestorm in both English- and French-speaking Canada over the issue of whether or not a re-enactment of the famous battle should be allowed to take place. (See here, here, and here).

Second, the decision of a federal agency to allow an event that appears to commemorate the FLQ to take place on federal property illustrates that the October Crisis has now become just another historical event. The majority of Canadians now alive were born after 1970, and the major protagonists involved in the crisis (Trudeau, Bourassa, Cross) are now dead.  Not a single member of the House of Commons that voted in favour of imposing the War Measures Act in 1970 is still in parliament. I suspect that in 1990, just twenty years after the October Crisis, it would have unthinkable for a federal agency to have allowed this event of this sort of go ahead. But memories and passions appear to have faded enough for the October Crisis to no longer be a painful memory. Indeed, for most Canadians, it is not a memory, simply something learned about in history books.





Canadian Historian in the News

7 09 2009

University of Saskatchewan historian Bill Waiser is quoted in a Canadian Press story about the recent conversion of two municipalities in Saskatchewan from town to city status. Professor Waiser discusses the growth of these communities in light of Saskatchewan’s recent strong economic performance.  Waiser remarks that “There’s a great significance to yet another city in Saskatchewan because in the national consciousness, Saskatchewan is a place that time forgot – of rural roads, country elevators, wheat fields.” Waiser points out that today’s Saskatchewan is essentially urban and has a dynamic economy.

Waiser is the author of Saskatchewan: A New History.





PetroChina and the Oil Sands

3 09 2009

The Canadian media has generated a host of stories related to PetroChina’s purchase of a large stake in the Alberta oil sands. See here, here, and here. The Calgary Herald is advocating that the federal government block the sale. The Economist has coverage here. Some of the discussion revolves around whether the federal government will allow PetroChina, a state-owned company, to complete the purchase. The existing legislation governing foreign takeovers of Canadian companies is nebulous on the subject of state-owned enterprises. Interesting, the deal has been opposed by some Americans, who object to the Chinese acquiring energy resources in America’s “backyard”. (Apparently, these people believe that the United States has some sort of prior claim on Canada’s resources).

I’m interested by the possibility that this controversy might be the beginning of a contest between two economic giants, the United States and China, for Canada’s resources. For decades, Canada has been firmly in the economic orbit of the United States. I would welcome such competition for Canada’s energy. First, from a strictly economic point of view, it is better to have multiple parties bidding for one’s assets. Second, from a political point of view, I think that it is important to have a force in Canada that can counter-balance the overwhelming influence of the United States. One of the broad lessons of Canadian history, in my opinion, is Canada is most likely to maintain its autonomy vis-à-vis its superpower neighbour by associating itself with powerful nations off the continent. In the past, the off-continent partner was the United Kingdom. In the future, it may be China.

There is more about PetroChina here.





Are History Teachers Trustworthy?

31 08 2009

The CanWest newspapers on Saturday carried a story about a survey of Canadian attitudes to different sources of information about the past. The survey, which was conducted by a team lead by Peter Seixas of the University of British Columbia, found that teachers were considered less trustworthy than “museums, historical sites, books and even family stories” as sources of information about the past.

I’m not certain what the significance of this survey finding is. I would be interested to know what others think.

For a summary of the survey’s findings, click here.





Kevin Rudd on History Wars

27 08 2009

Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister of Australia, has called for an end to that country’s “history wars”.  See here, here, and here. The Australian history wars were between a group of professional historians and educators who wanted to emphasize the negative things in Australian’s past, the so-called “black-arm band” school, and a group of academic and educators whose political sympathies were largely with the political right. The debate centred on Aboriginal history and became wrapped up in the debate over  whether the Australian government should formally apologize to the country’s Aboriginals for past mistreatment. The leader of the second group was Keith Windschuttle, who argued that left-wing historians had essentially fabricated evidence in order to depict Australia’s first white settlers in the worst possible light. Windschuttle’s claims led to a fierce argument over whether the demise of Tasmania’s indigenous population could legitimately be called a “genocide”. This debate had obviously political overtones or implications. One of Kevin Rudd’s first acts as Prime Minister was to issue an apology to the country’s Aboriginal population, something John Howard, his centre-right predecessor, had repeatedly refused to do. [Note, John Howard has been quick to reply to Rudd’s statement regarding the history wars].

As a Canadian, I’m interested in the Australian history wars for a number of reasons. First, they have some definite parallels between the Australian history wars and the rather more muted struggles that took place within the Canadian historical profession in the 1990s. [In the 1990s, there was an acrimonious debate between Jack Granatstein, an outspoken historian of Canadian politics, and left-wing social historians. In his book Who Killed Canadian History, Granatstein suggested that the left-wing historians’ emphasis on Canada’s failings (e.g., racism towards Natives and Asian immigrants) had the tendency of undermining the patriotism of students.] Moreover, the issue of an apology also have Canadian overtones, although the preference of Canadians for more consensual modes of politics have meant that the differences between the two major parties on Native policy and related issues of historical interpretation are pretty minor. In Canada, it fell to the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to issue an apology for the government’s residential school program (which saw Native children snatched from their parents and educated by missionaries). Had the Liberal Party been in office at that time, it probably would have issued basically the same apology.   In Australia, it seems that the two major political parties are much further apart from each other when it comes to Aboriginal policy. This probably contributes to the acrimonious and highly politicized nature of the debate over Aboriginal history in that country.





Discovery of Rare Document Related to Newfoundland History

27 08 2009

Today’s National Post contains a story about the curious case of a document dating from 1499 that relates to an early English voyage to Newfoundland.  (See also the Daily Mail and the BBC). The document is noteworthy because it is the oldest extant document containing the phrase “new found land” to describe the territory discovered a few years earlier by Columbus.

I don’t think that this document will revolutionize our understanding of early English exploration and settlement in Newfoundland, but it’s an interesting find. Kudos to Dr Evan Jones of the University of Bristol. The document was discovered in an archive in the 1970s but has not come to light until now for complicated reasons described in the NP story.Perhaps the most interesting twist to this story relates to the researchers themselves. At the time of her death in 2005, Dr Alwyn Ruddock (see here and here) was writing a book that promised to change our understanding of John Cabot. For reasons that are unclear, Dr Ruddock ordered the executor of her estate to destroy the book and her research notes. It seems that Evan Jones had been able to use third-party sources to recontruct some of the evidence that Dr Ruddock was planning to use.

Jones’s research on this topic was original published in 2007. I’m left wondering why the media has latched onto it right now.  Slow news day, perhaps? Still, I’m glad that historical research is attracting the attention of the public.





Simpson on First Nations

25 08 2009

Jeffrey Simpson has an interesting piece in today’s Globe and MailFirst nations aren’t big enough for true sovereignty: Aboriginal nationhood goals crash repeatedly against the reality of the numbers

Simpson’s argument in superficially plausible, at least insofar as it applies to very small Native bands living in regions in which Natives are the majority. (Simpson, however, overlooks small European microstates like San Marino which are indeed sovereign). Moreover, Simpson’s argument doesn’t really apply to regions where Natives are still in the majority, which is much of Canada’s landmass. The Inuit of Greenland are currently debating independence from Denmark. If Greenland can become a UN member state, than Nunavut probably could also. Moreover, Canada’s legal claim of sovereignty over much of the Arctic rests on Inuit sovereignty/nationhood. See Terry Fenge, “Inuit and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement: Supporting Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty” (Dec. 2007 – Jan. 2008) Policy Options .





European Versus American Way of Life

25 08 2009

Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has published a blog post entitled:  “Touristic Bias: Why Americans Overrate Europe, and Europeans Underrate America”.

His basic argument is that while a typical European city centre is more picturesque than the average American city, Americans have a better quality of life than people in Europe. Most Europeans, he points out, don’t live in tourist destinations like the Left Bank in Paris. I thought that Caplan’s article was interesting but a little short on statistics, especially when you consider that he is an economist. The absence of really basic stats like life expectancy and the murder rate is really noticeable. Some of the people who commented on his blog replied to Caplan by citing figures that show the American-style suburban car culture that Caplan praises is actually pretty widespread in many European countries. For instance, a reader in Sweden pointed out that some European countries have roughly as many cars per capita as the US (500 per 1000 inhabitants). This fits with my own observations: the UK has massive Tesco supermarkets that are roughly the same size as any Wal-Mart, drive-thrus, and roadside restaurants that are basically the same as the US chains. The cars are bit smaller, but car culture is entrenched. Outside of London and a few other the UK’s other big cities, it would be rare to see a man of working age on a bus during the middle of the day, which would also be the case in the US or any other New World Anglo-Saxon country.

When I read the column, I was left wondering whether Caplan has ever lived and worked in a EU country. I checked his CV and turns out he hasn’t, so I’m not certain why he thinks he is more qualified to write this article than the zillions of academics who have lived and paid mortgages in multiple countries. (I would be interested to hear the Australian perspective on this debate). I have a lot of respect of Caplan and his research, but I think that this particular piece is poorly thought out. Not his best work. A powerful piece of evidence that Caplan could have cited in support of his position but which he did not is that the most EU countries, including the UK, experience net emigration to the USA (i.e., more Britons move to the US each year than Americans came to Britain). I’m perplexed as to why Caplan didn’t cite this data, which could have bolstered his case.

Another big problem with Caplan’s piece is that Europe, unlike the United States, consists of many radically different countries (Sweden versus Moldova). I know that some people like to talk about the EU as a sort of United States of Europe, but it’s not a single country. If you want a fairer comparison, contrast life in the EU with life in the three NAFTA countries: the gap between Manhattan and southern Mexico is probably as great as the different between London and, say, Tirana.

The other flaw with Caplan’s piece, which appears on a pro-free-market or libertarian website is that he appears to suggesting that because life in the market-oriented USA is better than life in the more socialist EU, this somehow proves that deregulation and the free market are the way to go. (He doesn’t say this explicitly, but this appears to be the thrust of his article).

There are several problems with this argument. 1) Caplan hasn’t proven than life for Americans in better than life for (West) Europeans. 2) Life could be better in the US simply because of lower population densities rather than because of differences in how societies organize themselves. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are essentially more socialist versions of the USA (wide open spaces with a bit more social spending). 3) I’m not convinced that all Europeans countries are less “free” economically than the USA. Some EU countries have policies that American libertarians admire. The USA can be very statist in some areas and some of most prosperous EU countries (e.g., Denmark) are actually quite market-oriented, at least according to the measures used by an international organization of free-market think tanks.

Update: Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Magazine has posted some thoughts on Caplan’s piece. (McArdle’s piece is better thought out than that of Caplan and the resulting discussion thread contains posts of higher average quality, in my opinion).  I liked the fact that she mentioned Toronto in her post for several reasons. First, I’m from there. Second, bringing a third territory, in this case (Canada) into the discussion helps us to clarify our thinking about the differences between the US and “Europe”. It is hard to compare two thing unless you have at least one other thing as reference point – this is true in geometry and true when comparing countries.





New Season of “Mad Men”

16 08 2009

The season premier of the hit TV series Mad Men was broadcast on the US cable channel AMC tonight. Sadly, AMC isn’t available in Canada (unless you have a grey market satellite dish), so I will have to wait a bit to see this episode, which will eventually be carried on the Canadian channels Showcase and CTV. (Episodes from the first two seasons of Mad Men can be downloaded from the CTV website).

In case you don’t know, Mad Men is a TV show set in New York advertising agency in the early 1960s. I’m told by somewhat who was an adult at that time (my father) that the show captures the feel of the period quite well. The most striking thing for the modern viewer is the casual sexism the male characters display for towards their female co-workers. Unlike so many period pieces, this show goes beyond recreating the period and gives us believable characters and a very compelling story line. Mad Men is one of my favourite shows. It’s also one of the most popular dramas out their. Indeed, the show is so popular that it has a started a mini-trend of people emulating the 1960s fashions of the Mad Men characters. Banana Republic, a US chain, has launched a Mad Men line of clothing, which is being promoted by actors from the show.

Frank Rich had a piece about the launch of the third season of Mad Men in Sunday’s New York Times. Today’s Toronto Star carried lavish praise of the show.





German Hyper-Inflation

14 08 2009

This article on German hyper-inflation in the 1920s should interest many economic historians.