Wellington, Stanley, Macdonald

8 07 2010

Municipal politicians in Ottawa are debating whether to rename Wellington Street after Sir John A. Macdonald, the Dominion of Canada’s first Prime Minister. See here. The Duke of Wellington was the British military and political leader who planned the Rideau Canal, which connects Ottawa to Lake Ontario.  The campaign to rename the street has been spearheaded by an amateur historian named Rob Plamondon.

The campaign to rename Wellington Street come after two other recent initiatives to replace British place names in Canada with more distinctly Canadian ones. The name of the Queen Charlotte Islands was recently changed back to its traditional aboriginal name, Haida Gwai. In the last year, there was a campaign to rename Stanley Park in Vancouver, “Xwayxway” which is the name of the aboriginal village that formerly stood on the site of that popular tourist attraction.

Several heritage organizations have joined the debate over Wellington Street. “The president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, Andrew Cohen, is strongly in favour of the change, but says his organization simply supports having the debate. A prominent board member of the institute, Rudyard Griffiths, said he hopes Ottawa quashes what he views as a “whitewash” of history, just as it did on the Stanley Park debate.”

I have a few thoughts about these controversies.

First, what would Macdonald have wanted? Wellington was a hero to conservative Canadians in the 1850s, when Ottawa was designated the capital. Macdonald probably admired the Iron Duke, so I suspect he would have been against the name change.

Second, while I am moderately sympathetic to the campaigns to restore traditional native place names, I think that we would do better to concentrate on  improving measurable health, education, and employment outcomes in First Nations communities.

Third, does changing a street name from “Wellington” (a British general) to “Macdonald” (a British immigrant who remained a proud British subject until his death), really advance the agenda of Canadianization? Macdonald, like Wellington and Stanley, is a British Isles name. If the federal government wanted to follow up its recent apology to the First Nations for the residential school program with a symbolic name change, they would give aboriginal names to streets in the capital rather than the name of one of the authors of the residential school program.

Fourth, why is the proposal to rename Wellington Street being made now?  That’s a mystery to me. The bicentennial of Macdonald’s birth is still 5 years away. Are people already looking ahead to it? Do some people feel nostalgia for the Centennial Era, when many things were renamed after Macdonald? In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sustained campaign by Liberal governments to remove the symbols of Britishness in Canada. In 1965, the Red Ensign was replaced with a distinctly Canadian flag. The words “Royal Mail” and the royal coat of arms were dropped from mail boxes, although the mailboxes remained red. There was also discussion within the federal government of abolishing the monarchy, although it was decided that doing so would be more trouble than it is worth. The name Wellington Street survived that craze to get rid of references to colonialism. Today, the federal government has very little interest in such symbolic politics. Both the Tories and the Grits have made it clear that they think that a long debate on getting rid of the monarchy would be a waste of time.

Fifth, is it really a good idea to name things after dead Prime Ministers? Won’t this feed the egos of present and future Prime Ministers and contribute to the presidentialization of our politics? In the United States, it has long been customary to name things such as airports and dams after Presidents. Travel around London and you will see very streets or buildings named after former British Prime Ministers. Monarchs and their family members have many things such as the Royal Albert Hall named after them, but former Prime Ministers do not.  One of the nice things about a Westminster-style system is that the head of the government is less likely to acquire the inflated ego for which heads of state are known.

A Prime Minister is simply first among equals in his cabinet and in terms of ceremonial precedence ranks below the Governor-General. In the past, Canadian Prime Ministers were known for being modest and unassuming. Macdonald and Laurier walked to work carrying briefcases. The Governor-General had an official residence and a carriage, but not the Prime Minister. Until the 1950s, Canada did not have an official residence for its Prime Minister– the purchase of 24 Sussex Drive as an official residence for Louis St-Laurent was a major step towards the presidentialization of our politics. The Liberals made Laurier’s house in Ottawa a sort of shrine to liberalism and renamed the nearest street after him. The postwar period also saw the introduction of the American practice of naming things after dead Prime Minister– Lake Diefenbaker, Pearson Airport, and, more recently, Trudeau Airport. This practice would have been unthinkable in the lifetimes of Macdonald and Laurier.  Even then, our Prime Ministers were still far more modest than American Presidents. Diefenbaker lived in a modest bungalow when he became Prime Minister. Pierre Trudeau would walk with his sons to a shawarma restaurant in the Sandy Hill area of restaurant accompanied by only a single unarmed security man.

More recent Prime Ministers have aped American practice by riding around in expensive motorcades, sealed off from ordinary citizens. Even Jean Chretien, who depicted himself as a regular guy, travelled in a motorcade, albeit in a bullet-proof Chevrolet. Under the current Prime Minister, this tendency towards Americanization has gone even further. I am told that Stephen Harper was extremely upset when he found out it was not customary for military personnel to salute the Prime Minister. He has effected a change in protocol so that he is now saluted.  My own preference would be to abolish the official residence, cut the salary of the Prime Minister to the average male wage, and give the guy a bus pass. I suspect that this reform would result in better public transit for starters. Allowing Prime Ministers to develop too great an impression of their own importance is dangerous.

Sixth, does renaming streets after historic figures really promote the rigorous study of history? I am of two minds on this subject. I teach a course on the Life and Times of Macdonald, so I might welcome attention being paid to him in this way. However, naming a street after a historical figure implies that they are a hero, someone to be praised. The reality is that Macdonald’s legacy was very mixed, at best. Heritage and history are not the same thing. Buying Robin Hood flour or going to see a Hollywood film about Robin Hood is heritage. Reading a serious book on peasant life in the Middle Ages is history.





Should the Entire English-speaking World Adopt American English?

7 07 2010

They are currently debating that point on The Economist website. Check out the live discussion.

MagicMonkey, a modest Canadian commentator on the discussion thread, believes the world should adopt  Canadian English on the grounds that it is “an ideal compromise between British English and American English”.





New History of Banking

5 07 2010

Unsettled Account: The Evolution of Banking in the Industrialized World since 1800
Richard S. Grossman

Cloth | 2010 | $39.50 / £27.95
400 pp. | 6 x 9 | 44 line illus. 18 tables.

e-Book | 2010 | $39.50 | ISBN: 978-1-4008-3525-6

Commercial banks are among the oldest and most familiar financial institutions. When they work well, we hardly notice; when they do not, we rail against them. What are the historical forces that have shaped the modern banking system? In Unsettled Account, Richard Grossman takes the first truly comparative look at the development of commercial banking systems over the past two centuries in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia. Grossman focuses on four major elements that have contributed to banking evolution: crises, bailouts, mergers, and regulations. He explores where banking crises come from and why certain banking systems are more resistant to crises than others, how governments and financial systems respond to crises, why merger movements suddenly take off, and what motivates governments to regulate banks.

Grossman reveals that many of the same components underlying the history of banking evolution are at work today. The recent subprime mortgage crisis had its origins, like many earlier banking crises, in a boom-bust economic cycle. Grossman finds that important historical elements are also at play in modern bailouts, merger movements, and regulatory reforms.

Unsettled Account is a fascinating and informative must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the modern commercial banking system came to be.





AHR still the historical journal with the greatest impact

4 07 2010

My fellow members of the American Historical Association will be pleased to learn that “the American Historical Review continues to have the highest “impact factor” among history journals, according to the new Journal Citation Reports from Thomson Reuters.

The impact factor measures how often articles in a particular journal are cited by peer-reviewed journals in their database. While this is a rather crude gauge of the actual value of recent articles in these journals, it provides one of the few objective measures for testing the overall influence of journals.

The AHR ranks well above the other history journals measured in the report. The second-highest ranked journal in the study was the Journal of Environmental History, which had an impact factor of 0.750 (as compared to a factor of 2.114 for the AHR).

An eclectic array of articles provided particular lift to the Review’s ranking this year with three or more citations. The article earning the most attention was William J. Novak’s “The Myth of the “Weak” American State,” in the June 2008 issue, which is also the subject of a forum in the June 2010 issue (now in the mail)”

See here.





1930s Redux?

3 07 2010

“The world’s rich countries are now conducting a dangerous experiment. They are repeating an economic policy out of the 1930s — starting to cut spending and raise taxes before a recovery is assured — and hoping today’s situation is different enough to assure a different outcome.”  From David Leonhardt in the New York Times. See here.





Thoughts on the Size of Nations

1 07 2010

My PhD thesis was on Canadian Confederation. [You can read the book based on it if you really want]. Confederation took place in the 1860s and 1870s, when the separate colonies in British North America agreed to federate and give up control over many important matters to a central government in Ottawa. My PhD thesis was focused on the political economy of Confederation.

I’m also a card-carrying interdisciplinary historian. History is an empirical discipline, which is one of the reasons ordinary people can enjoy books written by history professors. However, I also believe that, in many cases, it is appropriate for historians to draw on theories created by other social scientists, particularly political scientists, economists, and anthropologists. Theory can help us to make sense of the jumbled facts of reality and to discern broader patterns. I’ve long been interested in the fact there was a worldwide trend towards territorial unification in the 1860—the unification of Italy and Germany and Canadian Confederation all took place at roughly the same time. My hunch is that new technologies had a great deal to do with this  trend. Some contemporaries thought that this was the case.

By the time of Confederation, British North Americans had come to associate the revolutionary effects of Morse’s electric telegraph, which was commercialized in the 1840s,  with the creation of the larger political units. In 1862, Amor de Cosmos, the editor of Victoria’s British Colonist advocated the union of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia on the ground that it was “the age of the electric telegraph and the railroad.” Shrinking distances required larger political units. In the debates on Confederation in the parliament of Canada in early 1865, a supporter of Confederation named Charles Alleyn declared that “the telegraph has annihilated time, railroads and steamers have devoured space.” He said that these new technologies had caused a worldwide drive for “territorial aggrandizement, this gathering together of the disjecta membra of nations.” Alleyn referred to the recent steps to unify Italy and Germany, Russia’s absorption of small countries in the Caucausus and Central Asia, as well as the strengthening of central government authority in Mexico and the United States.  Another supporter of Confederation, Hector Louis Langevin, spoke of the vast improvement in communications which had occurred since the union of Upper and Lower Canada. In 1841, telegraphy in Canada had consisted of a single semaphore used to relay messages between the Quebec Citadel and some nearby islands. But as Langevin observed, the capital could now communicate instantaneously with “the most remote districts” of the Province. Political union with the other colonies, he suggested, was the natural extrapolation of this technological development, of the death of distance.

Given my interest in interdisciplinary history and the processes of territorial unification and sub-division, I was naturally intrigued by a recent post over on the Thousand Nations blog. This blog was put together by a group of people who believe that, in general, the more nation states there are in the world, the better off we will be. There reasoning is similar to that of the people who favour competition in the mobile phone business—with more competition for your business, consumers will benefit from better service and lower prices. The creators of this blog say that the world is a much better place today, when there are nearly 200 members of the UN, than when there were just sixty UN member nations, in the late 1940s. In fact, they argue that the world would be better off if this trend continued and there were 1,000 sovereign countries in the world. To achieve this, each American state, Canadian province, and French department would have to become independent and start issuing passports. The creators of the blog also say that it would be tragedy if the world’s existing states were consolidated into a few big continental blocks, a North American Republic, a federal  European Union, etc.

I’ve always been inclined to the view that it is usually better to have many small political units than a few big ones. I came to think this way after reading some of the works of the late Jane Jacobs. My small-is-beautiful philosophy is but one of the reasons I think that Canadian Confederation was a mistake foisted on British North America by a clique of megalomaniacs. You may or may not share my view that it is better to have more states than fewer, but the Thousand Nations blog has certainly posted some interesting data in the last few days. For instance, have a look at these numbers:

Decade-by-decade breakdown of how new UN member states were created:

Decolonization:
1970s: 23
1980s: 8
1990s: 2
2000s: 0

Secession:
1970s: 1
1980s: 0
1990s: 20
2000s: 3

Reunification (each decreases the # of states by 1)
1970s: 1
1980s: 0
1990s: 2
2000s: 0

The recent blog post that caught my eye examines the political economy literature on why states consolidate and split up. The post was written by Brad Taylor. Several political scientists and economists have advanced general theories trying to explain what accounts for territorial consolidation and sub-division.  Taylor begins his literature survey by pointing out that: “While the size of nations is normally taken as an uninteresting brute fact by political economists, there have been some notable attempts to explain what causes a country to be a particular size and what size a country should be.” Taylor then examines the theories of such writers as David Friedman, Alberto Alesina, and Enrico Spolaore. David Friedman, it should be noted, is the son of the late Milton Friedman and the father of Patri Friedman, one of the creators of the ThousandNations website.

I’ve read all of the scholars Taylor discusses before. To repeat, I am very open to the possibility that there is a grand political-economy theory that explains why territorial consolidations such as Canadian Confederation take place.

The theories discussed in Taylor’s post are all rather interesting, but to my mind none of them is terribly convincing or fits the facts of the cases with which I am most familiar. Until a political economist comes up with a more plausible general theory, we will have to fall back to the position that each act of territorial consolidation and division should be regarded as a special case, sui generis, to be studied and understood on its own terms without references to other nation-building acts of territorial unification.






Acanademics on the G20 Protests

30 06 2010

Acanademics has a funny post on the G20 protests in Toronto.





Two New Active History Posts

30 06 2010

Japanese Canadian Fishing Boat Being Seized, 9 December 1941

The activehistory.ca blog recently carried two posts that caught my eye. The earlier post is by Laura Madakoro and deals with government apologies for historical injustices such as Japanese internment and Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland. It is a fine piece of work on comparative social memory that is also rather personal. Ms. Madakoro writes: “My grandfather was a fisherman in Tofino (on the west coast of Vancouver Island) when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. His boat was taken by the Canadian government. My father, who was 2 years old at the time, and his parents were interned.”

Cacao Production

The second post links historical with ongoing injustices and is about the use of coerced labour (i.e., slaves) in the production of chocolate. Karlee Sapoznik’s post notes that consumers boycotts against slave-produced sugar were part of the abolitions campaign. She also reports that “up to 40% of the chocolate we purchase, bring into our homes and eat may be contaminated with slavery”. I like this post because it reminds us that slavery is still a live issue, not something that was totally finished in 1834 or 1865.

40% evil? Or just 40% lipids?

Activehistory.ca has become a very good blog.





Nazi Weather Station in Labrador

29 06 2010

The owner of the Beachcombing blog has asked me to link to a post about one of the more curious footnotes about the Second World War in Labrador. In 1943, the Germans set up an unmanned weather station on the coast of Labrador. The remains of the station were only found in 1981. See here.





Textbooks in the Ipad Age

28 06 2010

Should paper textbooks be replaced with e-books suitable for Ipad? Some historians appear to think so. Check out historian Sean Kheraj’s new blog post on the subject.

Dr. Sean Kheraj of UBC

I like some aspects of this idea. A digital textbook on Ipad can include cool moving images like this:

The relevance of animated maps to the teaching of history hardly needs additional comment.

Moreover, digital textbooks _might_ be a way of reducing the costs of textbooks, which is currently way too high. However, the savings to students from going paperless might be outweighed by the costs of new technologies is everyone has to invest in Ipads or other electronic readers.

As well, I can sniff a conspiracy of textbook companies here. Textbook publishers are notorious for issuing new editions of core textbooks in quick succession in order to sabotage the development of a secondary market. This is a big problem in economics and chemistry courses. The discipline of chemistry doesn’t change that quickly, so students ideally should be able to save money by purchasing versions of the course textbook published a few years back. However, some courses are designed around the newest version of each textbook, which forces the students to buy a new book. This is planned obsolescence at its worst.

Ok, this ad from 1958 isn't for a GM product, but you get the idea

It reminds me to a General Motors in the days of Alfred P. Sloan– each year there were lots of superficial changes to the cars designed to encourage people to sell last year’s model.

A typical university bookstore-- scene of a thousand fleecings

In the Canadian history survey course I teach, I use a textbook called Origins : Canadian history to Confederation by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, Donald B. Smith,   6th ed. (Toronto : Nelson Education, 2009). On the first day of class, I urge the students to try to buy used copies of this book, either online or from someone on campus. I also tell that it is ok if they buy the 5th edition, which came out in 2004. When I give weekly textbook readings in the course outline, I give relevant page numbers for both editions of the book. I’m certain the publishing company would prefer it if I told my students to only use the 6th edition and to buy only new copies, but I understand that they need to save cash. There isn’t a big difference between the 5th and the 6th editions.

One problem with switching over from hard-copy textbooks to books on Ipad is that it will kill off the secondary market. When I pay to download a song to my Ipod, I am buying a bundle of rights I can’t resell. Textbooks and digital rights management will allow textbook companies to do what they have always dreamed of doing– shutting down the secondary market.

The textbooks on Kindle project at Princeton flopped. Let’s keep in mind that Princeton is a rich American university, where people tend to have more money for technological experimentation than they would at a typical Canadian university.

Another potential pitfall is this– looking at a computer screen for too long is hard on the eyes. I’m told that the Ipad is different that it is less painful to look at for extended period, but until I’m convinced of this I won’t be investing in an Ipad. If I could rent an Ipad for 24 hours I might be willing to experiment with the technology, but spending $500 on something that might hurt my eyes is simply too expensive.