Canada History

The Blog site of Canadian History

What must be done?

Posted By Greg on June 30, 2010

What is the state of native issues in Canada today and what must be done to address the many problems we all face in addressing these issues. This is a question which is addressed to all of us because we are not two solitudes; we are a caring compassionate society that has committed ourselves to the prosperity and welfare of all. The conditions which many native people in Canada live in is not acceptable. Rates of major social ills are extraordinarily high for native peoples compared to the rest of the country or almost any other ethnic or social group. Canada has been struggling with this challenge since July 1st, 1867 and before that, the French and English were constantly trying to define a relationship with native peoples. What do we do? In 1969 the Canadian Government published a White Paper titled “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy”. Although dated in some ways, the objective of creating a Just society where all people would be treated equally, offered the same opportunities and, equipped with the same tools, and held accountable and responsible for the welfare and welfare of their society. The Cabinet Minister behind this paper writes in the preface “To be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities. To be an Indian is also to be different. It is to speak different languages, draw different pictures, tell different tales and to rely on a set of values developed in a different world.

Canada is richer for its Indian component, although there have been times when diversity seemed of little value to many Canadians.

But to be a Canadian Indian today is to be someone different in another way. It is to be someone apart – apart in law, apart in the provision of government services and, too often, part in social contacts.

To be an Indian is to lack power – the power to act as owner of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.

Not always, but too often, to be an Indian is to be without – without a job, a good house, or running water; without knowledge, training or technical skill and, above all, without those feelings of dignity and self-confidence that a man must have if he is to walk with his head held high.

All these conditions of the Indians are the product of history and have nothing to do with their abilities and capacities. Indian relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made of the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart.

Obviously, the course of history must be changed.

To be an Indian must be to be free – free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”

Obviously women must be included in this interpretation but those were the times that the challenge was written in. The point is – THE COURSE OF HISTORY MUST BE CHANGED.

We need to get back to the objectives and vision held out in that White Paper. Although it is more than 40 years old, the wisdom and philosophy generally hold true and offer an alternative to perpetual division and alienation. (Read the full version of the document at  http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/Native/1969_white_paper.htm )

Federalism – Who started it all

Posted By Greg on June 9, 2010

Who are the Federalist in Canadian history? We all know that Trudeau was one of the strongest Federalists in the last 40 years as he confronted regional forces in both the west and the east, but who were the first strong Federalist in Canadian history? Canadian confederation is not as centralized as the U.S. system which they had to fight a Civil War over in order to decide certain issues the least of which was the right of a region or Sates/Province to leave the Union whenever it decided to. Great Britain is only recently dealing with the re-emerging nationalistic pressures in Scotland and Wales but has found alternative devices to relieve those regional pressures. Canada is a large country geographically with diverse regional demands and characteristics. Many powers which are in Federal hands in most other countries have been given or taken by the provinces here. This however was not where Canada started from and not where it was intended to go.
The true, strong and first champion of a strong Federal government was John A Macdonald. He realized that Ottawa had to bring the nation together through a somewhat common experience with equal rights, regulations and services across the country. The initial BNA Act was written in such a way as to allow the Fed’s to overrule and override the provincial legislatures in the name of good government. The Federal Government also took an activist role in expanding and using it’s authority to bring stability to the country. Macdonald had a vision of Canada from Atlantic to Pacific and that Canada was a strong united country with a Federal government composed of interests from every region. The Conservative Party of old or of Macdonald and George Cartier represented the country and interests of the most of the nation in a fair and supportive way. Although Trudeau lost support in the West in later years he did maintain his base in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes and hence power. Macdonald was the master of his domain and recognized he true power and strength of a real Federalists political power and fought against encroachment by the provinces.
Which provides better government overall, a strong Federalist system or a regionalized Provincially lead system with demands and agendas set by those interested only in their corner of the country. Macdonald knew the answer to that one and continually got it right while building the basis and foundation of Canada.

What is history?

Posted By Greg on May 30, 2010

Read any good history lately. The debate about how history is written, what the historian chooses to write about and what emphasis they choose to place on various themes, is always an interesting and varied one.  Historians almost seem to be racing one another to the next great way of presenting history, or the fresh new school of interpretation that will be a cleaner, truer version of what really happened. Will there ever be a general consensus of how the story is to be told or, to use one school of interpretation, will it always be a dialectic progression of opposing views.

One of the constants in the evolution of the craft which contains a way of retelling the story yet once again is the use of primary sources. They in themselves are not pure or the be all and end all of the art of history and a fact is not always a fact, but this is where the story begins. Different sides to the events will tell, record or present the events in their own way with even basic numbers and issues differing wildly. So is there any such thing as real history? Yes, but with considerable work and analysis.

The real work begins in evaluating all of the different interpretations of a historical event and then digging down into the second level which is an analysis of the historians and their preferred school of thought and than again into a third level which is the prejudice, background, experiences, politics and agenda of the historian. At this point we can begin to review their works of history with these filtered views in mind and really start to question the use of facts, primary sources or the lack of or exclusion of these tools, in the analysis.

This may in fact spawn a new view of history which really just looks at the various schools of history and starts to use this as a source of material to write history about that historian, their society and their era. Their interpretation does in fact become a living breathing part of history and almost as importing in understanding the period as the events and facts of the times. This framework of understanding may well lead to more insight, better analysis and a broader landscaped to place the pieces of history against. I wonder where you or I fit into this approach?

Who Killed it

Posted By Greg on May 26, 2010

Jack Granatsein wrote a few years ago about the death of Canadian History. What progress have we made since then. Not much. History in the school system still remains a relatively watered down non-offensive story which does not even have the chance to be introduced to most students. Some provinces require no history courses after Grade 10 and Canada, North America, the World remain a mystery to them. How can they hope to understand the evening news as they reach voting age without any knowledgeable background information about the world, Canada or even their local community. Let’s get back to real history, let’s teach it with inspiration, let’s make Grade 11 history mandatory and let’s help create a knowledgeable citizenry.

Canada History Web Site

Posted By Greg on May 26, 2010

What does this web site need to add? http://www.canadahistory.com

Important events in Canada’s History

Posted By Greg on April 27, 2010

What would be the most significant event in the history of Canada since confedertion. I would say the driving of the last spike, not for the actual fact that the railway was complete but for all that it symbolized in the creation of Canada as a country that stretched from Atlantic to Pacific