Warrior or Peacemaker? The Battle over Canada’s Identity, 1914-2014

1 07 2013

AS: I am posting the CFP for the next UK Canadian studies conference. Happy Canada Day!

Warrior or Peacemaker? The Battle over Canada’s Identity, 1914-2014
 
39th Annual British Association for Canadian Studies Conference
British Library Conference Centre, London, 25–26 April 2014
 
Opening Keynote Address: 24 April 2014, Canada House, London
General John de Chastelain

Call for Papers 

2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War, a conflict in which several hundred thousand Canadians participated and 60,000 lost their lives.  Governments around the world, including Canada’s, will be actively looking to commemorate key battles and other moments of the war.  In the Canadian case, these efforts follow after an extensive campaign by the government of Stephen Harper to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.  

Controversy, criticism and contestation have abounded over not just the specific commemoration of the War of 1812, but around the place of war and the military within dominant definitions of Canadian identity.  Emphasizing Canada’s military heritage and involvement in past conflicts directly challenges a strong element within a version of the Canadian identity that has emerged since the 1950s. In this identity, Canada is viewed as a “peacekeeping nation” involved in ending conflicts and ensuring peace, not participating in conflicts.  Are these identities fundamentally in conflict with each other or is there room for both to coexist? And do internal conflicts such as the October Crisis or the Oka Crisis fit within either dominant definition?

The British Association for Canadian Studies for its 39th annual conference in London invites papers with direct relevance to the conference theme or the wider field of Canadian studies. Potential topics could include the politics around commemoration and identity, the history of commemoration in Canada, the relationship between Canadian identity and Canada’s foreign policy, gender and constructs of national identity, differences in perceptions of national identity between Quebec and English-speaking Canada  or First Nations and non-indigenous Canadians, the impact of multiculturalism on definitions of Canadian identity, literature and cultural depictions  of war, peace, and identity, spatial depictions of conflict and identity, and comparisons of Canada with other nations in terms of how conflicts are commemorated.  

The conference will take place in London over three days beginning with an opening evening reception and keynote address. The second and final days will feature additional keynotes and panels related to the conference themes or to the wider field of Canadian studies. 

The deadline for paper or panel proposals is Tuesday 31 December 2013.

More details here.

Proposals (panel and individual) and deadline:
Email abstract(s) of 200–300 words and brief CV (please do not exceed one side of A4) which must include your title, institutional affiliation, email and mailing address by 31 December 2013. Submissions will be acknowledged by email. Postgraduate students are especially welcome to submit a proposal and there will be a concessionary conference fee for students. BACS regrets that it is unable to assist participants with travel and accommodation costs for general participants although some limit assistance on a competitive basis will be available for post-graduates presenting papers.





My Panel Selections for the ABH Conference

28 06 2013

Over the next couple of days, I’ll be presenting at/attending the Association of Business Historians Conference in Preston, Lancashire. The conference has parallel sessions, which has forced me to make some hard choices about which papers to go and hear. Here are my choices:
Friday, 28 June

Session I-B: History of Banks and Banking in the 20th Century (GR 202)
Chair: Billy Frank, University of Central Lancashire

Bernardo Batiz-Lazo, University of Bangor: “Cash and Dash: ATMs and the construction of today’s retail payments ecosystem”

Qing Lu, University of Hull: “Subsidiary Competitive Advantages, Parent Company
Management Structure and Post-acquisition Integration of HSBC with Mercantile Bank,
1959-1984”

Scott Taylor and Alan McKinlay, “Strategy, Technology and Gender: Making and Unmaking the Marriage Bar in British Banking, c. 1900-1970”

Session II-B: Decision-Making in British Transportation (GR Lecture Theatre)

Chair: Terry Gourvish, London School of Economics

Roy Edwards, University of Southampton: “The Ministry of Transport and the British
Railways: Conceptualising the Business Model for Freight Transport c1919 – 1947”

Kevin Tennent and David Turner, University of York: “Management and Competitive
Advantage in the public transport industry – London County Council Tramways 1899-
1933”

David Turner, University of York: “Decision-making in the private railway industry – the
quality of management on the London and South Western Railway 1870-1911”

Session III-A: The Company as the Unit of Analysis in Business History: Cadburys (GR
359)

Chair: John Quail, University of York

Emma Robertson, LaTrobe University: “‘The sun never sets on the Cadbury and Fry
flags…’: Manufacturing work, place and gender in empire subsidiaries, 1920-1960”

Vaughn White, University of York: “The Introduction and Development of Costing within
the UK Confectionery Industry: The Experience of Cadbury 1899-1914”

18:00 – 19:00 Drinks Reception, Greenbank Foyer (supported by Taylor & Francis
Publishing)

19:00 – 20:00 Break
20:00 – 22:00 Conference dinner (Tino’s Restaurant)

Saturday, 29 JUNE

Session IV-B: Mass Media (GR 350)

Chair: Mitch Larson, University of Central Lancashire

Candan Celik-Elmer and Mitch Larson, University of Central Lancashire: “Changing Values in American Magazine Advertisements, 1965-2005”

Howard Cox, Worcester College Oxford, and Simon Mowatt, Auckland University of
Technology: “Machinations in Fleet Street: Roy Thomson, Cecil King, and the creation of
a magazine monopoly”

Peter Miskell, University of Reading, and Marina Nicoli, Bocconi University: “For a Few
Dollars More: Film Distribution in Italy, 1958-1971”

Session V-A: British Business Overseas in the 20th Century (GR 347)

Chair: Rory Miller, University of Liverpool

Philip Garnett, University of Durham, Simon Mollan, University of Liverpool, and Kevin

Tennent, University of York: “The Transitory Period in British International Business,
1950-1980: Evidence from the British Overseas Mining Sector”

Andrew Smith, Coventry University: “Delayering the Workforce: HSBC in the 1960s”

Rory Miller, University of Liverpool: “British Merchants on the West Coast of South
America in the Inter-War Period: Growth, Survival and Failure”

Session VI-B: 20th Century British Business History (GR 350)

Chair: Simon Mollan, University of Liverpool

Mark Billings and Lynne Oats, University of Exeter: “Designing a business tax: Excess
Profits Duty in the United Kingdom in World War One”

Julie Bower, University of Birmingham, and Howard Cox, Worcester College Oxford:
“Whitbread, the Whitbread Investment Company and protection from hostile bids”

Stephen Sambrook and Ray Stokes, University of Glasgow: “Bringing rubbish into business
history”

Session VII-B: British Empire and Business (GR 347)

Chair: Stephen Sambrook, University of Glasgow

Billy Frank, University of Central Lancashire: “‘Banking on Empire’: Decisions and
Decision Makers in Britain’s Post-War Colonial Development Planning, 1939–1954”

Timo Särkkä, University of Jyväskylä: “The British paper trade and market regulation: from free trade Empire to the Common Market, 1861–1960”

Vikram Visana, University of Cambridge: “Banks, Bonds, and Business: The Economic
Thought of Dadabhai Naoroji”
Shakila Yacob, University of Malaya, and Nick White, Liverpool John Moores University:
“Malaysianisation and the British family-run business: the case of the Barlow Group in
the 1970s and 1980s”

Due to a timetable clash, I won’t be able to listen to the following presentation, despite its intriguing title:

John Quail, University of York: “Why did US Corporations have Presidents while UK
Corporations did not – and does it matter?”





London Metropolitan Archives Launches Business Archives Collections Guide

27 06 2013

London Metropolitan Archives (LMA), City of London launches a new business archives collections guide
Guide to Business Archives: Unlock the riches of the archives of London commerce and trade with the world

The guide is a comprehensive A-Z to company names and individuals for which substantive catalogued business records are held by LMA. There are two associated indexes – a trade subject index and a geography index for where companies operated outside the UK. There is also an introduction to how the guide works.

This resource will truly help users unlock and access the extensive collections in LMA’s care. For more information and to view the full guide, see here.





Some Thoughts on Confederation 150 and the Dialogue Between Historians and the Heritage Community

26 06 2013

Yesterday, I posted some thoughts about the Confederation 150 conference, which will be taking place today (26 June 2013) at the Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec. Participants will be discussing how the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017 should be celebrated. I objected to the fact that none of the historian who actually study Confederation (including yours truly) were invited to the conference.  The speakers are mostly heritage professionals (e.g., people who work in museums or for broadcasters).

I’m disturbed by the fact scholars who study Confederation won’t be part of this conference. People who organize heritage events should be in a continuous dialogue with working historians (i.e., with people who do primary source research and then publish their findings). It’s dangerous for all concerned if these groups don’t remain in contact. For one thing, you can end up with heritage organization disseminating an outdated or otherwise inaccurate version of history.  This is particularly the problem when historians abandon the task of communicating with the public to journalists, civil servants, and politicians.

In recent years, we’ve seen examples in a number of countries of politicians and journalists either communicating half-truths (e.g., Vimy Ridge was a great WWI battle and the birth of Canadian nationalism) or, in some cases, displaying an astonishing outright historical ignorance. Some readers will recall that in 2006, the British government prepared a guide for prospective citizens that was filled with factual errors about history. In 2012, a minister in the Canadian government declared that France was allied with Britain in the War of 1812, which clearly demonstrates that he knows little about the origins of this war.

Moreover, engaging with the heritage community can keep historians, especially academics, grounded. I’ve always believed that historians ought to write in such a way as to be accessible and interesting to both academics in allied fields (e.g., political science) and, more importantly, to the broader public.

 

 

 

 





Planning 150 / Planifier le 150e

25 06 2013

That’s the title of a conference that will take place tomorrow at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec. Participants will discuss how the 150th anniversary of Confederation will be celebrated in 2017. (The centennial of Confederation in 1867 was marked with civic projects across the country and a world’s fair in Montreal).

Museum of Civilization

I’ve pasted the program below. The curious thing is that while a few of the participants are historians, none of them are experts on Confederation! (Chad Gaffield is a social historian, as is Margaret Conrad).  The 1960s saw a flurry of publications about Confederation.[1] Many of these authors are now either deceased or retired. However, Peter Waite is still an active scholar, although his research interests have moved to more recent periods of Canadian history. I certainly hope that the organizers of tomorrow’s conference at least invited Professor Waite.

Ged Martin is the author of several important works on Confederation. He is very much alive and well and has just published a new biography of Sir John A. Macdonald. I simply cannot understand why the organizers of this conference did not invite him.

His omission from the program is astonishing, as is that of Christopher Moore. (I don’t know whether they invited Moore). I’ve published on Confederation and can assure you I wasn’t contacted.


[1] See: W.L. Morton, The Critical Years: the Union of British North America, 1857-1873 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964); Donald Creighton, The Road to Confederation: the Emergence of Canada, 1863-1867 (Toronto: Macmillan, 1964); P.B. Waite, The Life and Times of Confederation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962).

100, rue Laurier Street, Gatineau (Québec)

 

Program

 

9:00 am– 9:15 am

Opening remarks: Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies

 

9:15 am– 10:30 am

The Road to Confederation Begins in PEI (1)

  • Chair: Professor Chedly Belkhodja, Université de Moncton
  • Penny Walsh McGuire, Executive Director, PEI 2014,
  • Dr. David Keenlyside, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Museum & Heritage Foundation
  • Professor Sharon Myers, University of Prince Edward Island
  • Professor Emerita Margaret Conrad, University of New Brunswick

10:30 am – 10h45 am

Break

10:45 am – 12h15

Marking Canada’s 150th  (2)

  • Chair: Scott Wallace, Canadian Heritage
  • Dr. Colin Jackson, Chair of the Board of Directors, ImagiNation 150
  • Professor Marc-André Ethier, Université de Montréal & Professor David Lefrancois, Université du Québec en Outaouais
  • William B. Chambers, Vice-President, Brand, Communications and Corporate Affairs, CBC (CBC/ViaRail “2017 Starts Now” initiative)
  • Guy Matte, Executive Director, The Canadian Foundation for Cross-Cultural Dialogue

12:15 – 1:15 pm

Lunch

  • Dr. Chad Gaffield, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

1:15 pm – 2:30 pm

 Canadian History, The Study of Canada and Canadian Identities Since the  Symons Report (3)

  • Chair: Stuart Murray, President and CEO, The Canadian Museum for Human Rights
  • Dr. Hector Mackenzie, Senior Historian, International Affairs Canada
  • Professor Barry Ferguson, University of Manitoba
  • Randy Boswell, Carleton University / Post Media News
  • Professor Jocelyn Létourneau, Université Laval

2:30 pm – 3:30 pm

Canada’s History Museum (4)

  • Mark O’Neill, President and CEO, Canadian Museum of Civilization

3:30 pm  – 3:45 pm 

Break

3:45 pm– 5:00 pm

Future Directions and the Challenges of Communicating the History

of Canada (5)

  • Chair: Professor Dominique Clément, University of Alberta
  • Anthony Wilson Smith, President, The Historica Dominion Institute
  • Deborah Morrison, President and CEO, Canada’s History
  • Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies
  • Professor Penney Clark, University of British Columbia / Director , The History Education Network

 

5:00 pm – 7:00 pm – Reception    Marking 40 years of the ACS





When Do Canadians Think Canada Was Founded?

25 06 2013

That was the subject of a recent poll by the Association of Canadian Studies which asked Canadians when their country was founded.

“As Canada approaches the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017, a bare majority of citizens considers the 1867 deal struck by Sir John A. Macdonald and his fellow architects of the BNA Act the “founding” event in the country’s history, according to a new national survey.”  Other Canadians mentioned 1812 and 1608 as Canada’s founding dates.

You can read press coverage of the survey results here.

For some reason, detailed information about this survey is not available on the Association of Canadian Studies website. We do not, therefore, know much about the survey methodology used here. The lack of transparency here is surprising, given that the Association of Canadian Studies a) run by academics, who are supposed to “show their work” b) funded by the taxpayer c) has put detailed information about past surveys online in the past. (For instance, they recently put information about their soccer/turban ban poll online).





“Big players in paper and pulp industry: USA, Canada, Japan and Nordic countries.”

25 06 2013

Pulp and Paper Mill at Night

A paper co-authored by my former colleague in the history department at Laurentian University, Mark Kuhlberg, will be presented at the upcoming European Business History Association conference in Uppsala.  The paper is called “Big players in paper and pulp industry: USA, Canada, Japan and Nordic countries.” 

Mark wrote the parts of the paper about Canada’s pulp and paper industry, which is his  main area of expertise. His co-authors were:  Jari Ojala, University of Jyväskylä, Joonas Järvinen, Aalto University, Anders Melander, Jönköping International Business school, Hannes Toivanen, VTT-technical research Centre of Finland, Tomoko Hashino, Kobe University, Takafumi Kurosawa, Kyoto University.





New Biography of James Muir

20 06 2013

The investiture of James Muir, President of the Royal Bank of Canada, as Hon. Chief Eagle Ribs in the Blood Indian Tribe, Blackfoot Confederacy. 1954

The Dictionary of Canadian Biography has published Duncan McDowall’s new entry on James Muir, 1891-1960. Muir was the president of the Royal Bank of Canada from 1949 to 1960.  In McDowall’s words, “he transformed the bank from an efficient but narrowly defined financial institution reminiscent of the Exchange Bank in Leacock’s turn-of-the-century fictional town of Mariposa into a more diversified and innovative organization that asserted its presence from shopping plazas to corporate boardrooms.”

Read more here.





Canada’s Provinces and the Royal Baby Bill

12 06 2013

The British parliament recently passed a law to amend the rules of the royal succession to permit Kate and William’s eldest child to inherit the throne, regardless of gender. The old succession rules stated that a woman could become monarch only if she had no brothers. Such a rule clearly flies in the face of the principle of gender equality, so it was certainly time to amend the parts of the constitution that govern the succession.

 

The complicating factor is how we to get to there from here. Changing the UK constitution is easy– you can do it through a majority vote in parliament. However, Elizabeth isn’t simply the Queen of the UK, she is the Queen of a 15 other Commonwealth Realms. Concurrent legislation therefore needs to be passed in all of the other states that have Queen Elizabeth as their head of state. Back in February and March, Canada’s parliament passed the requisite legislation with little fuss. At the time, I thought it was odd that the provinces were not asked to passed equivalent bills, as the Queen in right of Canada is also the Queen in right of Ontario, Queen in right of Manitoba, and so forth. Moreover,  Australia is not only passing federal legislation but having each of its state governments approve of the change in the succession rules. (Queensland, which is jealous of its autonomy from the central government, passed its own bill, whereas the other states simply signified their consent through executive action). Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 requires the consent of all ten provincial legislatures and parliament before any change is made to “the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province.” In contrast, most other amendments to the constitution require simply a)  “resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons” and (b) “resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent. of the population of all the provinces.”

 

However, no provincial government objected to this housekeeping matter at the time, so I concluded that the issue was settled, at least insofar as Canada was concerned.  Personally, I thought the failure of any of the provinces to object was unfortunate, because allowing the federal government to alter the constitution unilaterally, even in this benign way, sets a dangerous precedent.

To those who believe that the change to the succession rules are an entirely sub-constitutional change and therefore the consent of the provinces is not required, I would refer you to the British government lawyers who do indeed view this reform as a change to the constitution.

 

It now appears that a group of activists and academics in Quebec are launching a court case to challenge what they regard as a unilateral change to the constitution.

 

It will be very interesting to see how this case develops. I think that a very strong case be made for the position that amending Canada’s succession rules does require legislation in each province’s legislature. The wording of the Constitution Act, 1982 is pretty unambiguous. Moreover, Australia’s states are, nowadays, much less powerful entities than Canada’s provinces and have less sovereignty, or at least they have sovereignty over fewer areas of jurisdiction.  Australia is perhaps the most centralized of all existing federations. Canada is at the other extreme of the spectrum. See here. [Ironically, the Canadian constitution of 1867 envisioned weak provinces and the Australian constitution of 1901 envisioned relatively strong sub-national units.] If the consent of the state governments in Australia was required to change the Australian constitution in this regard, surely the consent of Canada’s provinces must also be given.





Ged Martin’s New Biography of the Dominion of Canada’s First Prime Minister

11 06 2013

Ged Martin, professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, has published his new biography of Sir John A. Macdonald. This long-awaited book includes new information about Macdonald’s drinking problem, his relationship with French Canada, and the scandal that was brewing in the period immediately before his death. (Martin speculates that the Andrew Bancroft scandal may have hastened Macdonald’s demise).

I’m most interested in reading the parts of the book that cover the impact of the 1837 rebellion on Macdonald’s approach to political conflict. It will also be interesting to see what Martin says about Macdonald and race, which is perhaps the most sensitive issue any 21st-century biographer of the man must face.

I understand that Professor Martin is interested in giving interviews about this book. Journalists and others who wish to speak to him can find his contact details by emailing me.