The Problems of Teaching Canadian History

VivianLea Doubt

Thompson Rivers University

SOCI 399: Assignment 2

March 23, 2009

 1

Whose history? What history? Which history? These simple phrases used by J.L.

Granatstein in Who Killed Canadian History? only begin to hint at the challenges for educators

in the teaching of Canada‟s history (1998). There are examples of both irony and inflammatory

statements in the book, but it is enjoyable to read (an important, not frivolous, point) and his

concluding remedies seem interesting, although fraught with pitfalls in the implementation. I

shall use some of his major points to outline where I think he does not pay enough attention to

the difficulties.

Granatstein begins with the idea that the schools are failing to teach history adequately,

and that without a knowledge of our history the “informed citizenship” necessary to democracy

and the democratic process cannot be achieved. The failing grade for schools is based on studies

and surveys and test outcomes, and the question here is, can tests or examinations truly reflect a

depth of knowledge? The efficacy of testing in this regard has been thoroughly debated for a

number of decades now, and the literature is rather exhaustive. We can even point to the debate

on „Foundations Skills Assessment‟ in British Columbia: the government of the day adamantly

insisting that it must measure foundation skills, and equally adamantly the BC Teacher‟s

Federation proclaiming that this test does not do that reliably. I think we must at the very least

admit that it is difficult, if not actually impossible, to define a grasp and sense of history based on

simple instruments.

Granatstein next turns his attention to academia and the plight of history in the nation‟s

universities: the sad decline of political-economic history, and the rise of the excruciating

specialism of “Aboriginal women as Hairdressers in Postwar Manitoba.” (1998, p. 66). He

remarks:
 2

No one seemed to care that most of Canada‟s history had been made by men,
however unfair that might have been, and that any overt attempt to write more
women into history might distort the past (1998, p. 64).

This is, indeed, excessive; women may not have been written about, but it would be difficult to

construe that they did not „make‟ history. (Even if their only contribution was birthing all those

great Prime Ministers.) Notwithstanding that the argument about turgid academic prose rings

true, it clearly enriches us as a society to know a little of our labour, aboriginal, and „women‟s‟

history, along with the political-economic etc. More importantly, that such history can speak

more directly to marginalized people or groups surely helps to increase the desire for a sum of

knowledge. I would posit that as an important starting point in the acquiring of knowledge.

Granatstein is also disturbed by rising “multicultural pressures”, pressures that have the

effect of creating a backlash against immigrants and immigration and underlying the angst

surrounding a Canadian identity. He excoriates “Ottawa policy wonks” for deciding that “the

government should promote a „new‟ Canadian identity based on justice, peace, and a

“compassionate solidarity” rather than on history and geography!” (1998, p. 96) Now

personally, I believe that an individual who valued those amorphous qualities would be an

exemplary citizen. Granatstein again:

I do not believe – as many Canadians seem to – that our social programs, our
medicare, our supposedly kinder, gentler society make up or can protect our
identity (1998, p. 160).

I would put forward that these things are also symbols; symbols that reflect the Canadian desire

for justice, peace, and compassionate solidarity. That these desires do form a unique national
 3

identity, and that they are based on an understanding of our history, no matter that such

understanding may be inadequate or imperfect.

I am sure that my understanding of Canadian history is inadequate and imperfect, and I

am not certain that I would succeed on any rigorous history exam. I am certain, though, that I

could not pass any examination wherein I was required to admit that women have not made

history in Canada. Therein lies the very essence of the real difficulties in teaching history, I

believe.

Peter Hennessy in From Student to Citizen reproduces the grade 10 history requirements

in Ontario of 1998. Students were to:

summarize in a written report or visual display Canada‟s changing relationship

with the US from 1910 to the present;

conduct research on the ways in which and the extent to which American culture
and lifestyle have influenced Canadian identity from 1920 to the present;

identify postwar events and trends that have led to the globalization of the
Canadian economy;

assess the effects of political and economic challenges that Canada has had to face
as a result of international trends;

be able to describe the growth of French Canadian nationalism and of the

separatist movement since 1914;

demonstrate an understanding of the impact of technological development on

Canadian lives and work;

describe the impacts of immigrants and demographic change on aboriginal

communities;
 4

conduct a debate or an investigation to evaluate the contribution of the labour

movement

demonstrate an understanding of the evolution of Canada‟s social assistance

programs and prepare a balance sheet to assess the advantages and difficulties in
maintaining current social assistance programs (2006, p. 139)

This then, is the failure that Granatstein is referring to in the schools.

A few chapters further on, Hennessey says:

Although they may not have had school students in mind, Will Kymlicka and
Wayne Norman addresses my prescription for education with their hope that,
“institutions may be redesigned to encourage a more inclusive deliberation among
diverse citizens” (2006, p. 245).

If we study the building of the national railroad, great nation-building exercise that it was, is it

not also instructive to mourn the loss of the thousands of workers, by far the greatest number of

whom were Chinese, in its building? In acknowledging the voyageurs and great explorers who

charted the northern portion of the continent at incredible risk and hardship, is it not also

instructive to acknowledge they could not have succeeded without their First Nation guides? In

studying the contributions of the Ukrainian settler communities, how can the courage and

fortitude of the women be discounted in their success? The deliberations on the „great‟ stories of

Canadian history include the stories of those remembered in the hearts of the people, and this

will inevitably be a more complicated and difficult process than the mere recitation and

regurgitation of facts.
 5

References

Granatstein, J. (1998). Who Killed Canadian History? Toronto: Harper-Collins.

Hennessy, P. (2006). From Student to Citizen: A community-based vision for democracy.

Toronto: White Knight Books.