A course that I am taking called "The Making of Canada" increasingly seems to be a misnomer. At the halfway point of the semester, the course is now at the turn of the twentieth century. I'm not going to criticize the professor's lectures because they are fairly balanced in content. It is the textbook that I HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH! The textbook for this course, A History of the Canadian Peoples does not fit the course description. This text is nothing but a survey of social history and a criticism of confederation! For example, in Chapter 5 entitled Becoming a Nation, the author spends 2 pages on responsible government, and 8 pages on life on the family farm!
I'm not disputing that pioneers were not crucial to the development of the nation, but can you give political history a chance!
Now on to Confederation. The author goes on and on about industrial working conditions and how women suffered under a male dominated society. Finally, he mentions confederation. It is rushed through in several pages towards the end of the chapter. The author spends more time highlighting a letter written by some obscure farmer than he does on John A. Macdonald and the other 'fathers of confederation'. (He only mentions Tupper, Cartier, Brown and Macdonald, and I'm sure that there were more 'fathers of confederation than that!) To make matters worse, the author goes out of his way to highlight how the Maritimes were super pissed off when they were forced to join confederation. In fact that is the only aspect of confederation that the author describes in detail!
So what did I learn about Canada becoming a nation? Way to much about industrial working conditions and way to little of the leaders who were largely responsible for the formation of Canada!
I don't know about you, but it seems like this textbook is nothing more than a politically correct social history textbook. Do I have to mention that the section on the First World War barley mentions Vimy Ridge! In the chapter on the Second World War only two pages are given to the battles that the Canadians took part in. Instead it is a description of women working in the factories.
Come on! Teach me some political and military history too! Thats why I took the class!!!!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
That's what you get when your textbook is written by a sociologist. We used that book in both my first and second year Canadian history classes.
I found the best way to learn Canadian history (or any history) is to go to the antique book store and buy books from closer to the actual events. Most of my history books are from before the turn of the twentieth century. I read high school text books for Ontario from the 1900's that helped me get a grip on the basics then went in different directions from there. I don't need to tell you that the further you go back to get your books the less social commentary you get, and the little comment you do get is much closer to centre than what is available from most contemporary history writers.
Is this at uOttawa? I'm taking the same course there, although my section is using the Penguin History of Canada, which seems to be a better historical account with little (apparent) opinion.
Yes, I'm at uOttawa! I wish my prof chose the Penguin History of Canada! I saw that book at Chapters, I might buy it and subsitute it for my textbook.
Evidently your textbook was written by some "socially progressive" left wing ivory tower idiot who views all event through the prism of his "socially conscious intellect". I got the same thing in an economics textbook probably written by a former traders at Bear-Sterns. They thought the fiat money, debt is capital economic theory would lead to ever increasing levels of prosperity. Fortunately I am retired and just taking courses for my own enlightenment. That way I don't have to worry if they flunk me when I tell the instructor that he and his theories are full of s...!
Too many these entitled class types such as University professors vote Liberal or NDP. Dion is one of them. Need it be spelled out. Vote for Harper.
I cannot understand why union types from private business unions vote to maintain this entitled class. The entitled class do not lose their jobs during an economic slowdown. Private unions do because if no-one buys their company's products the firm will not exist.
When push comes to shove in difficult times then vote Conservative.
Sorry, late to the discussion here. I actually have both books, Conrad's "People's History of Canada" and Bothwell's "Penguin History of Canada". Though I would agree to the extent that Conrad's over-emphasis on social history is at the expense of political history, I would also argue that it works in reverse too.
For example, Bothwell's text does not contain a single reference to the WWII internment of Japanese-Canadians while spending an exorbitant amount of pages to explain BNA's minor role in the American Civil War.
Both texts are good in their own right, but historiography is inherently biased towards the author's preconceptions. Conrad delivered an excellent speech at the CHA last year outlining exactly these problems of writing history. You can find it here,
http://activehistory.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/margaret-conrad-on-the-role-of-the-historian/
Post a Comment