Great Canadian Question: Does History Matter?

 

Title: From Studying History to Being History

By:      Andrew McConnon. Grade 12

St. Michael’s College School

Toronto,Ontario

With the changes to the curriculum in Ontario, educators across the
province are attempting to redraw the curriculum map, along with the
accompanying requirements needed to fulfill a diploma. With the breadth of
subjects increasing and including new technological classes, older (and
now less favoured) disciplines such as history are often pushed to side,
regarded as irrelevant, if not useless. Although history's modern
descendant often comes across as a poor mishmash of dates and events, the
origins of history show that history carries such inherent worth that it
must become mandatory for all students, because it bestows benefits for
both students and society at large.

Michael Ignatieff contributes an important insight by recognizing that
our common cultural capital is not depleting but rather changing; this is
clearly seen on any major street with its vast array of culture on
display. Yet, Michael Ignatieff unlike Jack Granatstein, falls short of
proposing any solid ideas in suggesting what the future shape and face of
Canadian history might promise to look like in the years to come.

Jack Granatstein spends a considerable part of his first article
bemoaning the waning influence of Canadian history, (as he sees it should
be taught). He blames this shortcoming on Canadian history having been
historically presented as a string of sins and errors, a characteristic
that he describes as " victimology". One of his tenets that surfaces is
his desire that history should be presented to students in a balanced
manner, which he adds should include emphasis on both social and political
history. Nevertheless, Granatstein falls prey to his own biases in Article
1 by stating that the "core" of history- "the politics, diplomacy and
warfare", are being either neglected or pushed to the periphery in their
importance. From this perspective, Granatstein's critique exposes a
glaring truth about the fate of Canadian history, and reflects a problem
that bedevils the thrust of his thesis. The importance of this truth bears
relation to the teaching of the discipline; history can't be taught by a
uniform code, void of ideological differences. Teachers bring to their
respective classroom varying interpretative lenses, which naturally
produces differences in the style and manner that history is being
transmitted. These differences should be welcomed largely because it
teaches students the dynamics and analytical difficulties of doing
history. In order to arrive at historical truths, Canadian schools should
place a higher premium on promoting a diversity of views, both teacher and
student, and abandon Granatstein's search for the proverbial cohesive glue
that binds us together under a shared history.

Although one must admire Jack Granatstein's dedication to a contested
discipline, many of his propositions are greatly misguided. Namely, his
proposition to increase awareness of generally disappearing historical
ideals: impose the values and traditions of Canadian life on immigrants.
History would show, however, that this should also include British and
French descendants, moreover, who should be expected to adopt the values
and traditions of the aboriginal people, the original inhabitants of
Canada. Yet, somehow, one does not envision this as Granatstein's idea;
rather he would like new immigrants, like Russians or South East Asians,
to be force fed the values of previous immigrants, for example, British,
ideas. Such a pedagogical attempt would further distance and alienate
students from the discipline, especially those immigrants whose sense of
history is being misrepresented through the mainstream medium of thought.

The true nature of history can often be lost in its modern application.
Curriculum advisers trying to probe the future of Canadian history in
schools can do great justice to the system by beginning to ask what should
be taught in schools at the expense of something else, and why.

The word history originates from the title Historias, (Histories in
English) a work by the Greek historian of antiquity, Herodotus. Roughly
translated its English meaning is inquiry or investigation. For the
numerous classical authors of the past, history was much more than just
simple dates and events. It was interpretation, an attempt at gaining
insight, searching for a lesson and a guide to future behaviour. This is
where the modern Canadian high school has been led astray, and without
this crucial element, history has become dilapidated and pointless in its
endeavour. Undoubtedly, Jack Granatstein is correct in saying that in our
attempt to make schools value freedom, we have abandoned the most crucial
aspect of history: interpretation via independent thought. Ironically, it
is in our attempt to make history more enticing to all by taking away any
values that we have in fact made, thereby diminishing the strides we have
steadily made in espousing Canadian values. However, history without
interpretation and the questioning of values becomes largely reduced to a
barrage of dates and noteworthy deaths which consequently robs history of
its value, and is therefore seemingly a type of history that should not be
made mandatory even for high school students. Instead of expecting
students to blindly embrace "Canadian" values and traditions, an open
discussion over what constitutes Canadian ideals, if any, would be more
rewarding and educating. For it is only then that students begin to think
argumentatively, and only then does independent thought arise. Only when
students discuss the reasons for the rise of the Third Reich, for example,
will they develop an understanding with respect to the delicate nature of
democracy and the inherent rights of people of all races.

Perhaps the nature of history is debatable, but its necessity is not.
By making history mandatory for graduation, the province of Ontario, and
to a greater extent, the whole dominion of Canada, will in fact put the
emphasis of public education on independent thought, which can only serve
to empower the future generation of students. It is not coincidental that
in Orwell's 1984 that Big Brother attempted to erase a knowledge of
history from its society, because history serves as a meter stick for
conduct, a scale with which to measure ideas and values. If we were to
continue the dangerous path towards a "history-free" future, then in fact
we will become history