Who Killed Canadian History Summary
WHO KILLED CANADIAN HISTORY?
J.L. Granatstein
As one of Canada’s most prominent historians, Jack Granatstein regularly comments on historical questions and public affairs in the media, including issues such as foreign and defense policies, Canadian-American relations, the military and public service. In his book Who Killed Canadian History?, Granatstein continues his tradition of scholarly discussion on the progressively increasing deterioration of Canadian history. It is because of this dire state, as Granatstein argues, that Canadians have such a fragmented view of themselves, and subsequently national unity remains obscure.
What History? Which History?
According to Granatstein, the main culprit behind the deterioration of Canadian history is provincial ministries of education and local school boards. As a result of the inclusive education movement, it has quite often resulted in questioning whose history we should teach – and the choices being made are political, not historical, decided upon by “public-day crusaders against public policy or discrimination” (p. xiii). The lack of historical knowledge is not limited to the elementary and secondary levels – there is, as the author reports “consensus amoung university educators that there is a decline in literacy, hardwork and historical knowledge amoung undergraduate and graduate students” (p. xv.). …show more content…
In addition, because the Constitution allocated the department education as a provincial jurisdiction, history curriculum has subsequently become “narrow – concentrating on locality and region” (p.13).
Consequently, history lessons are provincially focused without reference to the country they are a part of. This alone, according to Granatstein, is an argument for national curriculum
standards.
Another key component to the lack of national historical knowledge is the media. Although this may seem like the 21st century scapegoat, Granatstein argues that the media uses history to “search for villainy, if they use it at all, or else they mangle it beyond recognition to prove a contemporary argument” (p. 3). Because a great deal of our visual media comes from the United States, we are often inundated with their media and their “4th of July rah-rah patriotism” (p. 3). Consequently, Canadians “imprison(s) history in a cage of consciously constructed quasi-fabrications” (p. 4). The fact that Canadian culture has moved towards being such a media based one, also reverberates strongly in family relations and has historical implications – the average family no longer sits around the dinner table and talks about current events. History is kept alive through story-telling, and if this basic art of communication is lost, so to is the development of history.
In a vain attempt to teach Canadian history in school, Granatstein notices a tendency to teach what he calls confused histories (p. xii). That is, in order to compensate for the fact that Canadian history has not been made into a story for Canadians, we often over-glorify what aspects we are familiar with. Granatstein uses the example of Louis Riel in this case, who is quite often referred to as a Canadian hero, but is more accurately a hero for a more defined cultural group: the Métis. As a result, students are walking away with an ‘education’ in history that is lacking in content and in accuracy.
Resurrecting Canadian History
In an attempt to be optimistic about the future of Canadian history, Granatstein identifies some strategies for the future as well as some pioneers in the area. Primarily, the author calls for a standardization of national curriculum. By eliminating the provincial slant on history, he indicates a need to bring history back to a larger scale. This is not to say that regional specifics should not be taught, but simply that they should be presented as a complement to a greater unit.
Granatstein recognizes the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation as an additional savior to Canadian history. Through their coupling of Canadian history with visual media with Heritage Minutes, they have expanded the appeal of nationalism to a greater audience. By expertly editing down the visual media to commercial length, it maximizes the potential of the short attention span current entertainment media has created. I remember these mini-melodramas from my childhood, and was excited to see their resurgence in popularity.
Last, but certainly not least, Granatstein praises Pierre Berton. As a journalist the author credits Burton as being a “popularizer” of our past. “Berton…is probably responsible for much of the little interest there is in Canada’s past. His books of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Vimy, the Dionne quintuplets, and a host of other topics ranging from the Klondike to the story of Niagara Falls, are exciting tales that have consciously tried to create Canadian myths and heroes” (p. 12). Sadly, now that this brilliant Canadian mind has passed away, I wonder who will, or can, replace him as both a part of, and rescuer of our national history.
Conclusion
When originally choosing a book for this assignment, I was immediately drawn to Granatstein’s text. The overall question of history as a curriculum standard had remained in my mind since last term while attending Social Studies, and it quite often caused me to reflect on my own experiences with history in the school system. As Granatstein may have accurately guessed, the history lessons I encountered as a child were few and far between. I am embarrassed to say that my national historical knowledge is minimal, but know that I am not alone.
Overall, I enjoyed Granatstein’s commentary on the dire state of affairs in historical education. I found his opinions accurately detailed my experiences both as a student and now as a future educator. I did however, question a comment made by Granatstein in terms of the quality of lessons (when given). He states: “incorrect history is probably worse than no history at all” (p. 12). Although my Canadian history is incomplete and admittedly inaccurate in places, I think it is to my benefit to recognize names and places of historical significance even without the attached meaning. Any exposure can help generate a personal interest and self-exploration, so I disagree with Granatstein on this point, and would argue that no history is more damaging than an incorrect form of it – although neither is ideal!
J.L. Granatstein
As one of Canada’s most prominent historians, Jack Granatstein regularly comments on historical questions and public affairs in the media, including issues such as foreign and defense policies, Canadian-American relations, the military and public service. In his book Who Killed Canadian History?, Granatstein continues his tradition of scholarly discussion on the progressively increasing deterioration of Canadian history. It is because of this dire state, as Granatstein argues, that Canadians have such a fragmented view of themselves, and subsequently national unity remains obscure.
What History? Which History?
According to Granatstein, the main culprit behind the deterioration of Canadian history is provincial ministries of education and local school boards. As a result of the inclusive education movement, it has quite often resulted in questioning whose history we should teach – and the choices being made are political, not historical, decided upon by “public-day crusaders against public policy or discrimination” (p. xiii). The lack of historical knowledge is not limited to the elementary and secondary levels – there is, as the author reports “consensus amoung university educators that there is a decline in literacy, hardwork and historical knowledge amoung undergraduate and graduate students” (p. xv.). …show more content…
In addition, because the Constitution allocated the department education as a provincial jurisdiction, history curriculum has subsequently become “narrow – concentrating on locality and region” (p.13).
Consequently, history lessons are provincially focused without reference to the country they are a part of. This alone, according to Granatstein, is an argument for national curriculum
standards.
Another key component to the lack of national historical knowledge is the media. Although this may seem like the 21st century scapegoat, Granatstein argues that the media uses history to “search for villainy, if they use it at all, or else they mangle it beyond recognition to prove a contemporary argument” (p. 3). Because a great deal of our visual media comes from the United States, we are often inundated with their media and their “4th of July rah-rah patriotism” (p. 3). Consequently, Canadians “imprison(s) history in a cage of consciously constructed quasi-fabrications” (p. 4). The fact that Canadian culture has moved towards being such a media based one, also reverberates strongly in family relations and has historical implications – the average family no longer sits around the dinner table and talks about current events. History is kept alive through story-telling, and if this basic art of communication is lost, so to is the development of history.
In a vain attempt to teach Canadian history in school, Granatstein notices a tendency to teach what he calls confused histories (p. xii). That is, in order to compensate for the fact that Canadian history has not been made into a story for Canadians, we often over-glorify what aspects we are familiar with. Granatstein uses the example of Louis Riel in this case, who is quite often referred to as a Canadian hero, but is more accurately a hero for a more defined cultural group: the Métis. As a result, students are walking away with an ‘education’ in history that is lacking in content and in accuracy.
Resurrecting Canadian History
In an attempt to be optimistic about the future of Canadian history, Granatstein identifies some strategies for the future as well as some pioneers in the area. Primarily, the author calls for a standardization of national curriculum. By eliminating the provincial slant on history, he indicates a need to bring history back to a larger scale. This is not to say that regional specifics should not be taught, but simply that they should be presented as a complement to a greater unit.
Granatstein recognizes the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation as an additional savior to Canadian history. Through their coupling of Canadian history with visual media with Heritage Minutes, they have expanded the appeal of nationalism to a greater audience. By expertly editing down the visual media to commercial length, it maximizes the potential of the short attention span current entertainment media has created. I remember these mini-melodramas from my childhood, and was excited to see their resurgence in popularity.
Last, but certainly not least, Granatstein praises Pierre Berton. As a journalist the author credits Burton as being a “popularizer” of our past. “Berton…is probably responsible for much of the little interest there is in Canada’s past. His books of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Vimy, the Dionne quintuplets, and a host of other topics ranging from the Klondike to the story of Niagara Falls, are exciting tales that have consciously tried to create Canadian myths and heroes” (p. 12). Sadly, now that this brilliant Canadian mind has passed away, I wonder who will, or can, replace him as both a part of, and rescuer of our national history.
Conclusion
When originally choosing a book for this assignment, I was immediately drawn to Granatstein’s text. The overall question of history as a curriculum standard had remained in my mind since last term while attending Social Studies, and it quite often caused me to reflect on my own experiences with history in the school system. As Granatstein may have accurately guessed, the history lessons I encountered as a child were few and far between. I am embarrassed to say that my national historical knowledge is minimal, but know that I am not alone.
Overall, I enjoyed Granatstein’s commentary on the dire state of affairs in historical education. I found his opinions accurately detailed my experiences both as a student and now as a future educator. I did however, question a comment made by Granatstein in terms of the quality of lessons (when given). He states: “incorrect history is probably worse than no history at all” (p. 12). Although my Canadian history is incomplete and admittedly inaccurate in places, I think it is to my benefit to recognize names and places of historical significance even without the attached meaning. Any exposure can help generate a personal interest and self-exploration, so I disagree with Granatstein on this point, and would argue that no history is more damaging than an incorrect form of it – although neither is ideal!