The Past Speaks

At least according to the Times of India. Read more here.

In HIST 1406, my Canadian history survey course, I gave two lectures. The first lecture was on the impact of the American Civil War on Canada. (I also spoke about the Underground Railroad). The Google Map associated with this lecture is here.

Studio portrait of the Salem Band, who played for the Elora Volunteer Rifle Company at the time of the Fenian Raids. Archives of Ontario

The second lecture of the week was on Confederation. The Google Map of sites related to Confederation is here.

On Friday, the students handed in the final paper of the term.This paper is on the Manitoulin Treaty of 1862. Manitoulin Island is about 1.5 hours from this university by car, so this paper has some local appeal. More importantly, it deals with issues of national and transnational importance.

For the purposes of this assignment,  the students are to imagine that you are a young and ambitious civil servant in Ottawa.  You have been asked to write a three-page memo on the Manitoulin Treaty of 1862 for the use of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.  In the 1980s, a historian/civil servant names Robert J. Surtees wrote a lengthy report about the treaty, which is online. However, the Minister is a very busy man and does not have time to read the entire report for himself. He wants someone else to read it and boil its contents down to their most salient points. The Minister has five questions about the treaty he wants answered.

First, how were the terms of the 1862 Manitoulin Treaty different from those of the 1836 Manitoulin Treaty?

Second, why did the government renegotiate its arrangement with the Natives in 1862? What were its motives?

Third, what did those individuals who signed the Treaty get in return for giving up their land?

Fourth, why did the band at Wikwemikong refuse to sign?

Fifth, how did Robert J. Surtees find out about the making of the treaty? After all, Surtees was born long after 1862, so he wasn’t an eyewitness. So how did he get his info?

In HIST 3266, I gave lectures on the lives and times of David Suzuki and Barry Goldwater.

In HIST 4135, our readings this week were on the theme of British North America and the Civil War.  The students discussed:

Robin Winks, Canada and the United States: the Civil War Years (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press, 1960) and the following primary sources:

The American war and slavery : speech of the Hon. George Brown, at the anniversary meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada, held at Toronto, on Wednesday, February 3, 1863. CLICK HERE

Primary Source: Toronto Globe for  17 April 1865.

We also listened to a student presentation on the life and times of Benjamin Wier based on his entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography

A big change in the common opinion about markets and innovation, I claim, caused the Industrial Revolution, and then the modern world. The change occurred during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in northwestern Europe. More or less suddenly the Dutch and British and then the Americans and the French began talking about the middle class, high or low — the “bourgeoisie” — as though it were dignified and free. The result was modern economic growth.

That is the opening paragraph of an online essay by economic historian Deirdre McCloskey. For the essay see here. To order the book on which the essay is based, see here.  Other historians have attributed the emergence of industrial society to institutional factors, environmental forces, or the Scientific Revolution. McCloskey says that all of these explanations are wrong.  I’m not entirely convinced by her thesis, but she certainly makes an interesting argument.

Also check out the reaction essays to her piece, especially the one by Greg Clark.

I fully agree with McCloskey about the surprisingly poor ability of incentives alone to account for growth. In order to hold on to the central idea that the …delay in the Industrial Revolution …  was created by a lack of incentives, economists have to maintain the collective fiction that all societies before 1800 were run along the lines of Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. Yet, in case after case, we find, deep in the 10,000 years of economic stagnation, fully incentivized market societies.

Go to any village in Suffolk in England in the years of the Poll Tax, 1377-81 and you will find in the tax lists an abundance of traders, craftsmen, and merchants… Medieval cities were hives of enterprise and industry, taxed lightly by kings fearing to kill the golden goose… The market and incentives predate modern growth by perhaps 10,000 years.

Similarly when we see U.S. cities such as Detroit collapse internally, and revert to wasteland, it is not because the inhabitants of these benighted places were offered any worse incentives than their suburban neighbors. It is because the inhabitants responded differently to these same incentives, and in a way that was destructive to economic activity.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has said that lack of knowledge of Canadian history threatens the future of Canada.

Kenney also took a shot at how Canadian history is often taught, saying there is too much emphasis put on social history and some recounts of Canada’s story make it sound like the country was built of oppression and injustice. “If that indeed is the way in which we seek to teach history, no wonder that young people aren’t particularly interested,” Kenney said.

Kenney also praised the teaching of history in Quebec’s school system.

Kenney called Quebec a model for teaching history to its young people, saying that while some may quibble about how that history is presented, there is no question that students in that province are taught history.

Read more here.

I would like to share a few quick thoughts about what Mr. Kenney has said.

First, what makes Mr. Kenney certain that students would be less interested in “social history” than in “political history”?  I find that students are very interested in social history topics such as Japanese internment or the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South or the history of sex.  Moreover, I would suggest that social history is a particularly important topic to teach given the make up of our current intake of immigrants. Few immigrants to Canada nowadays come from advanced industrialized countries. Many of the people arriving in Canada today come from countries with radically different social histories and very different attitudes towards women, sexuality, and religion. Some might argue that they are at an earlier, more primitive stage in their social history. For instance, India just recently decriminalized homosexuality– legislatively, it is where Canada was in the 1960s.  (I admit this is a topic that  straddles political and social history).  India’s political institutions are, on a superficial level, similar to those of Canada. It is a federation with a Westminster-style parliamentary system.  The cultures, however, are totally different. It would therefore seem to be important to tell immigrants about aspects of our social history, Pierre Trudeau’s famous quip about the state having no place in the bedroom of the nation.

Second, while I’m not certain whether the teaching of Canadian Quebec history in Quebec schools is really a role model for the rest of the country. I’m not terribly familiar with the current Quebec curriculum, but my impression is that the courses on “Quebec and Canadian history” are geared towards promoting a Quebec national identity rather than a Canadian one.  Given that Mr. Kenney’s political party supported a parliamentary resolution declaring Quebec a nation, perhaps this is appropriate.

I have quoted the guide to class on the “History of Quebec and Canad”a from the Quebec Ministry of Education website. This guide outlines the major themes that will be taught to students. Notice how the Quebec experience is emphasized and the rest of Canada is seen as peripheral:

Canada took part in the Second World War, but a movement of resistance to conscription swept Québec, as it had in 1917. The war overshadowed the social debates raised by the Great Depression. In the period of prosperity that followed the end of the war, the development of communications technology opened Québec to a wider range of outside influences, especially from the United States. Immigration and urbanization accelerated. The period was marked by the dominance of Duplessis, but different groups
increasingly began to question the traditional values of Québec society. The Quiet Revolution consolidated this movement and accelerated change by defining the characteristics of a contemporary society. In becoming aware of the richness and cultural diversity of today’s Québec, adult students may acquire a better understanding of the importance of the major debates at the heart of current preoccupations... These will help create a picture of Québec society, enabling adults to grasp the main territorial, economic, demographic, political and social phases of the evolution of Québec society in relation to Canadian society, from the Confederation to the present.
Various issues may be debated in the classroom : the right to strike in the public sector, the demands of native peoples, political evolution since the Quiet Revolution or any other subject dealing with the future of Québec society.

Please note how the document speaks of the relationship between  “Quebec society”  and ” Canadian society”.

Third, Mr. Kenney would seem to be odd person to promote nationalist history. First, his government is strongly supportive of decentralization, provincial rights, regional identities. There is nothing wrong with this, but it flies in the face of traditional English-Canadian nationalism of the sort articulated by the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton.  Mr. Kenney’s government also has a pronounced continentalist, pro-US orientation, which also contradicts  [English] Canadian nationalism– traditionally, Canadian historians celebrated Canada’s distinctive and made anti-American politicians such as John A. Macdonald into heroes.

Anyway, I’m not certain how much Canadian history Mr. Kenney learned as a young man, since his university education was in the United States (!), where little Canadian history is taught. It may be that Mr. Kenney has suddenly became a convert to the cause of Canadian nationalism and [English Canadian] national history, but I am skeptical. The historical section of the Discover Canada citizenship guide his department issued was rubbish– inter alia, it did not mention the following Prime Ministers: Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, John Diefenbaker. The booklet said almost nothing about Canadian political history, perhaps because the minister who commissioned it himself may know little about Canadian political history.

Perhaps it is that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man hopes to be king.

Anyway, I’m not saying that it would be good to teach history from an English-Canadian nationalist perspective. I’m just pointing out some of the internal contradictions of Mr. Kenney’s argument.

National Archives Building

Washington, DC…The National Archives observes the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War with a day-long symposium, The Civil War: Fresh Perspectives on Saturday, November 20, 2010 from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The symposium will feature three panel discussions related to themes found within the National Archives special exhibit, Discovering the Civil War. Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero, will make opening remarks. Keynote remarks will be presented by Edward Ayers, President of the University of Richmond.

Note: The symposium is open to working press, but due to a limited number of press passes, pre-registration is required before October 15. Contact Public Affairs at: public.affairs@nara.gov.

Advanced registration is required along with a fee of $50. Registration opens to the public on October 1. Register online or by phone at (877) 444-6777.
Summary of Panels:

Welcoming and Keynote Address, 9 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

The Home Front, 10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
How did the Civil War impact everyday life, and how did people confront the challenges of living in a nation at war? A distinguished panel discusses the home front in both the Union and the Confederacy and how daily life was affected. Moderated by Gary W. Gallagher, John L. Nau III Professor of History, University of Virginia, panelists include J. Matthew Gallman, Professor of History, University of Florida; Thavolia Glymph, Associate Professor of African & African American Studies and History, Duke University; James Marten, Professor and Chair of History, Marquette University; and Amy Murrell Taylor, Associate Professor, University of Albany, SUNY.

A Global War: International Implications, 2:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.
Through diplomatic negotiations and naval conflicts, the Civil War’s impact extended far beyond U.S. borders. While Union and Confederate troops battled on American soil, a global diplomatic battle ensued. Moderated by Edward Ayers, President of the University of Richmond, panelists include Richard J. M. Blackett, Andrew Jackson Professor of History, Vanderbilt University; Howard Jones, University Research Professor, University of Alabama; Phillip E. Myers, former Director of Administration, Western Kentucky University Research Foundation; and Brian Schoen, Assistant Professor of History, Ohio University.

The Nation Before and After, 4 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
What was the state of our nation before and after the Civil War? Before the war, as southern states were seceding from the Union, few Americans could have imagined a war that would last four years, destroy much of the South, and free four million slaves. How did our injured nation begin to create a new social, political and economic order? Moderated by Eric Foner, Professor of History, Columbia University, panelists include Paul A. Cimbala, Professor of History, Fordham University; Elizabeth R. Varon, Professor of History, Temple University; Eric H. Walther, Professor of History, University of Houston; and Joan Waugh, Professor of History, UCLA.

Reception, 5:30 p.m. – 7 p.m.

Presented in partnership with the Foundation for the National Archives, the University of Richmond, the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia, and the Civil War Roundtable of the District of Columbia.

See more here.

HIST 1406

I gave two lectures this week in my Canadian history survey course. The lecture on Tuesday concerned the history of western North America before 1860. The lecture on Friday was on Aboriginal title, Native land claims, and the students’ upcoming assignment on the Manitoulin Treaty of 1862.

I have encouraged students to watch this excellent video on the land claims process in British Columbia.

HIST 3266

My lectures this week explored the lives and times of Tommy Douglas and John Diefenbaker.

HIST 4135

In my fourth-year seminar on North America in the 1860s, we discussed the second half of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals.

Three separate professors have found themselves the subjects of “gotcha” YouTube segments in recent days.

While the cases differ widely, faculty members at Cornell University, Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge and the University of Central Florida have all seen pieces of their lectures go viral in the last several weeks. Taken collectively, the carefully edited clips play up familiar stereotypes about faculty: there’s the quick-tempered bore (Cornell), the liberal indoctrinator (Louisiana State) and the lazy test-recycler (Central Florida).

Read more here.

The alleged “liberal indoctrinator” is Bradley Schaefer, a professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, who was captured in a video seeming to admonish students who don’t support regulating carbon emissions. The video, posted on the conservative website Campus Reform, was very selectively edited. Campus Reform’s agenda is to prove that professors are biased towards left-wing positions and use classroom time to indoctrinate students.

The video clip was edited by Campus Reform to omit the part of the lecture in which Prof. Schaefer attacked the position of environmentalists. It turns out that Schaefer divided the students in his classroom based on their self-identified political views (i.e., those who favour stringent limits on GHG emissions and those who are skeptical about global warming).  He then set about attacking the assumptions of both groups. This is a classic intellectual exercise which has been done by professors for decades. Schaeffer’s aim was to play devil’s advocate and to force students of every political persuasion to defend their views on how to deal with climate change.