Student Name: Lyndsey Cox

Great Canadian Question: Does History Matter?

Title: Achieving Historical Consciousness: How Can We Get There?

By: Lyndsey Cox

Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario

In a 2002 CTV poll of 1000 Canadian adults aged 18-34, only 46 per cent could correctly identify the "Father of Confederation who became Canada's first Prime Minister."[i] The fact that half of my peers could not name Sir John A. MacDonald is a clear indication that the history currently taught in our schools is not significant in the minds of Canadians. This year, as a potential vote of non-confidence threatens our government, I am realizing for the first time that analyzing our nation’s past is of great importance.

This revelation is long overdue, as I was once the quintessential skeptic of the importance of Canadian history. Ultimately, I think that my history classes failed me. The material presented did not seem relevant in today’s world and always struck me as “unbalanced historical nonsense,” an opinion shared with Jack Granatstein. I found Canadian history lacking in powerful moments. For example, there was no dramatic “conquest” of New France in 1759. Upper and Lower Canada ultimately came together as a product of European horse-trading! It also struck me as unimpressive that Canada’s past seemed wholly formed by other world powers, first Europe and later America. We have a record of being followers, as was exhibited in the recent Balkan crisis, and when Canada matched the US Federal Reserve’s move on interest rates. To me, Canadian history never felt like our own, and was not reflective of the increasingly multicultural Canadian population. As Granatstein points out, this method of presentation in schools leads students to think that “facts are boring, dates are unimportant…so why bother?”

The answer to this question came to me on June 28^th of last year as I stood in my tiny voting booth at a total loss. While I was familiar with the Canadian political system, I did not feel as though I had the background information necessary to make a rational decision. I realized then and there that Canadian history does matter. We need to learn from the past so that we can shape the future. While this past may at first seem repetitive, it is this continuity that makes Canadian history relevant. I now understand that it is not so much recurrence, as staying on course. While New France may have had no “great battle,” the issues that were dealt with by federalists and sovereigntists are currently being repeated in present-day Quebec. On Election Day I became conscious of the fact that the historical education I had thus far was nowhere near what it needed to be. Since then, I have attempted to expand my knowledge of Canadian history, the disputes and the solutions, so that next time Election Day arrives, I will be able to make a sound voting decision.

It now seems that this day will arrive earlier than expected. The past year has been characterized by turmoil in parliament unlike anything my generation has ever witnessed. Without background knowledge, the threat of government dissolution would be terrifying. How could we be sure that such an event would not lead to chaos or violence? History provides us with the comfort of knowing that Canada has withstood several governments dissolved by votes of non-confidence, most recently in 1980. We can be confident with the knowledge that while this is a disturbing event, it will be dealt with and resolved according to law and procedures established in our constitution. Historical consciousness provides Canadians with reassurance of the strength of our nation, and gives us confidence that we will be able to successfully deal with future issues.

The questions today are “how should Canadian history be taught in schools?” and “how should it be conveyed to increase historical consciousness?” While I am in agreement with both Granatstein and Ignatieff that more Canadian history needs to be integrated into the classroom, I think that the concept of a “common cultural capital” is more wide-ranging than Mr. Granatstein illustrates in his essays. It is our extensive historical variation of traditions and ethnicity, our multicultural capital that makes Canadians who we are today. Although history lessons would be much simpler and more straightforward if our instructors taught a condensed “shared history,” students would leave the classroom feeling unsatisfied. By setting eyes upon our peers, it is clear that we do not all have the same roots.

And yet, Canada’s history must be taught as all–inclusive. How can we “force-feed Canadian traditions” to children of immigrants, when their backgrounds have contributed just as much? Michael Ignatieff points out that “the ordinary people have come back in to the story where they belong.” Rather than setting a cultural capital in stone, we need to incessantly develop our core history to include those citizens as the variation in our population continues to increase. Is it at all possible that the Canadian hockey team would have become world champion if all had the same upbringing and used strategy that was developed years before? Their strength was a result of strategy and tactics learned across the country, with up and coming westerners like Jerome Iginla collaborating with seasoned cross-continental players like Steve Yzerman. An all–inclusive background brings out the best in all parties and cultures.

I disagree with Jack Granatstein’s declaration that political correctness is dominating history classes. Incorporating the broad-based cultures that make up our nation is not being done for the sake of politeness; it is essential to seeing the complete picture. For example, Canada has benefited from including the strong work ethic of Chinese Canadians and the value that Indian families place upon the community in a new collective history. This nation has become a melting pot of perspectives, opinions and cultures that unites the history and values of our vast multicultural society. The origins of this melting pot are what students should be analyzing in our history lessons. Studying history is not unlike science; in that there will be new updates to our historical core every day as Canada’s constituents continually change. We will never stop learning, and piecing together all of the racial upbringings that make our country proud.

But how can we make history classes more effective, so that students leave the classroom and apply their learning to the world today? Michael Ignatieff emphasizes that rather than a patriotic civics lesson, history should be taught as “the story of our arguments.” Learning to dissect and reflect upon these arguments is much more worthwhile to students than a simplified account of their resolutions. Canada’s history of the “real people,” and the different cultures butting heads is just as much at the core of history as “the story of Cartier and Champlain.” I do not believe that the conventional textbook reading and fact memorization that are currently employed as educative methods in our schools are adequate, because they provide no way for students to reconcile the different outlooks in the multicultural society that we are today. By modifying our studies to a critical historical discourse, we can have class discussions about accounts that contradict each other. I believe that it is self-defeating when teachers attempt to resolve those arguments in order to provide us with a finished truth. Rather, we need to bring the arguments into the classroom and confront the multiple interpretations of the Canada’s past. Once we have learned to do so, we can apply our learning outside of the classroom and shape the history lessons taught to future generations.

Until recently, I had never understood where Canadian pride came from. It is clearly all around us; “My name is Joe and I am Canadian!” resonates at every commercial break. I now realize that Canadians are proud of our history. As Granastein himself states, “to anyone with eyes to see, Canada is an overwhelming success.” Canadians already have confidence in our country; however, we all need a deeper understanding of why we have this confidence. Studying our past disputes will invite Canadians to reflect on our history instead of mindlessly memorizing facts that do not seem to connect with society today. Instruction must also change to accommodate Canada’s increasingly multi-cultural makeup. Our common cultural capital will not “fritter away” or become “fragmented,” but it will hopefully continually grow to incorporate all citizens.

Endnotes: