By: Chris Schonfeldt
South Delta Secondary School
Delta, British Columbia

Welcome to the age of the individual; the age of relativism. Modernism has given way to post-modernism, and the cultural paradigm has shifted so far into self-definition that we dare even ask ourselves if the study of history is necessary.

The society of our modern, post-Cold War world celebrates the individual. Every choice is debatable, every belief valid, every opinion sound and every viewpoint equally deserving of our attention. This trend towards individualism affords us an incredible amount of freedom of thought and action without fear of political or social persecution, but it is also unfortunately a cause of great self-doubt and disorientation.

Relativism can be roughly defined as the idea or theory that all human truths, beliefs, and morals are without a common reference - that they vary from culture to culture, depending on a variety of factors. In relativism, truth and fact become skewed by perspective. Where nation-builders of eras past may once have been able to hold truths as self-evident, our society today accepts that almost any truth is as valid as it is to a given individual. In many ways, this is a considerable strength, and an overwhelming freedom. However, at the same time, it is a great responsibility and an occasional stumbling-block.

If we truly accept that an individual has the right to discover their own truths, how are we to define or communicate any recognizable common truths? Are there no standards to which we must adhere? Is there no argument that can be won or lost, due to our insistence on the importance of accepting the legitimacy of disparate perspectives? Can one successfully assert that their own version of history is as valid as the generally accepted version, simply because it is their viewpoint?

It is this kind of relativist thinking that, while often an asset in the study of history by way of critical thinking and analysis, has actually led some to question the value of the study of history itself. This is because the traditional way of teaching history in our schools falls victim to the relativist positions of those it is taught to. For instance, what is a teacher to do if, while teaching a history class about the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, is confronted by a Japanese exchange student who insists that the raid was not a surprise attack intent on crippling the American fleet, but rather a response to American oil embargoes interfering with Japanese expansion in the Pacific? Clearly, the student cannot be told they are simply wrong. There is certainly enough evidence to back up either position, and in fact the truth is likely that both were factors. However, choosing to favor one reason for the attack over another invariably casts one side of the conflict in a better light than the other.

This difference of perspective has created our current, somewhat watered-down version of history. The history that is taught in schools is intentionally multi-sided to avoid even the appearance of persecution or propaganda. While on some levels this may be a blessing, on others, it is not. As Jack Granatstein says in his first article:

"(Some Province's history courses) bury the past in a mishmash of civics, pop sociology, and English as a Second Language, eliminating anything that might offend students, parents and school trustees in an attempt to produce an air-brushed past free of warts."

While Granatstein may overstate the issue, what he says still rings true on some levels. Mainly, Granatstein's views on the importance of History deal with he way it is taught in Canadian schools. Granatstein feels that history in schools is under-taught, and undervalued. He believes that this is due to the cultural melting-pot of our nation, a country made up of immigrants from dozens of ethnic groups from all over the world. While this diversity may be seen by many as a strength, Granatstein suggests that by catering too much to these multiple cultural backgrounds, we risk fracturing our collective identity. Further, he suggests that Canada should perhaps enforce the learning of its own history at the expense of political correctness. He feels that our country lacks a common cultural capital - that is, a shared knowledge of events and facts that are historically and culturally significant to Canadians. In reference to immigrant children:

"The values and traditions of Canadian life should be force-fed to them; history explained in ways that demonstrate how and why we have regularly settled our disputes without force, how our political system has functioned, and why we have on many occasions gone to war or joined alliances, not for aggressive reasons, but to protect our democratic ideals."

Well the above quote by Granatstein may seem dangerously close to assimilation, he is able to call attention to a clear problem in the way history is taught. History, as it is taught in high-schools across Canada, is a politically correct course teaching self-consciously diverse perspectives. Little is stated as fact, and much is taught as opinion, making student understanding and interest in history limited. It is difficult for students to latch onto a story that seems to them so impersonal and confusing, and one that gives a seemingly equal importance or lack thereof to almost every event and person that has shaped our history in ways great and small. How can the significance of people and politics of the past be communicated when no one agrees?

To some, relativist issues are simply too complicated and difficult in our current cultural climate; many would rather not teach history at all. This is where our freedom of thought and action become the stumbling-block I mentioned earlier. People too quickly assume that simply because something is controversial, it is not valuable; that because we cannot teach history without admitting its subjectivity we should not teach it at all.

This is a flawed notion. In response to Jack Granatstein's article, quoted above, Michael Ignatieff had this to say:

"History matters to both (Granatstein and I), but we shouldn't suppose it will ever be the same story... It should be a lesson in truth. And the truth is both painful and many-sided."

Ignatieff's main argument with Granatstein is that, while his points are valid, it is irresponsible to choose a single history as the one that should be taught in school. According to Ignatieff, in order to tell Canada's story, "we have to keep asking who the 'we' is." What Ignatieff discovered while teaching Canadian history at UBC is that for history to matter to people it must connect with them on a personal level - and this cannot be accomplished by teaching a single history, as that single history may seem distant and unimportant to those one teaches it to. However, Ignatieff seems to have misunderstood Jack Granatstein's first article. In his second, Granatstein rephrases and clarifies his argument:

"Balance demands that differing interpretations be presented to students for them to argue about. That is how we learn and that is how we strive to uncover the truth. History is indeed "the story of our arguments", and the difficulty of discovering the truth about those arguments."

Granatstein's assertion that history is "the story of our arguments" is exactly right. History is, to an extent, subjective. While the facts may be concrete, it is our interpretation of those facts that leads to controversy. However, our freedom to explore these multiple perspectives and contexts, and discover history for ourselves, is key to our understanding of the world around us. The way the world exists as it does now is a result of history.

History tells us why the Middle East is so politically and culturally contested. History tells us why the United States doesn't trade with Cuba, why there is a North and South Korea and why they are constantly in conflict, why terrorists attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001. History is the story of us, of human beings, of our place in Canada and of Canada's place in the world.

This is how History should be taught. Not as an archive of things that are already gone, but as an investigation, an endless journey of discovery. History teachers and Canadian schools should not fear arguments over generally accepted historical assumptions; they should welcome them. Students should be encouraged to examine, to inquire, to uncover their own truths in our history. Those who learn to scrutinize and question the issues of the past are those who will do the same in the present.

History is as important to us as the future - and there is no way to prepare for that future without first looking into the past. How are we to judge and understand the things to come if we cannot understand those that have already gone? It is because we live in an age of individualism and relativism that, more then ever before, we should study history - to understand how we came to this point, and perhaps, where we will go next.