Customer Reviews

A Short History of Canada - Revised: Fifth Edition

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Morton is tackling a tough task for sure, attempting to cover the entire history of a complex nation in only 350 (or so) pages. However, this does not forgive some very significant oversights. Morton dedicates an extraordinarily large portion of his work to discussing Canadian politics and politicians. While politics represents a very significant part of any country's history, it is only part of the story. I was disappointed to find little more than an occasional paragraph dedicated to non-political events: social movements, trade issues, non-political figures, etc.

In addition, I think Morton tries to tackle too much in such a short text. At times, I felt that I was merely reading a chronology of events rather than an engaging, well-woven narrative. The back cover touts Morton's abilities as a "storyteller" - I found few "stories" but a lot of straightforward "this is what happened, then this is what happened next, etc."

Although I was mostly disappointed, this book does convey a tremendous amount of knowledge about Canada - I know much more about the great nation to the north than I did before I read the book. But, I'd have a hard time recommending this book to other "weekend historians" such as myself.

Morton achieves very well what he sets out to do - to write a short history for someone with only a small commitment to the subject, a reader looking for the once-over lightly in order to grasp the major moments and recognize the greatest actors. Over 70 per cent of the book concerns events after 1867. There are no footnotes or bibliography. He doesn't implicate any fellow historians in the foreword. He is writing it from the perspective of the students he has encountered in the large urban universities he has worked in. Morton's style is breezy and witty. He refers to Louis St. Laurent as being "used only one more time" in the 1957 federal election, as if he were a piece of old furniture, which is figuratively not far off the mark. Regarding John Diefenbaker's opposition to arming Canadian missiles with nuclear warheads in 1962, claiming they were just as effective without them, Morton observes that "only the innocent and the resolutely unmilitary could believe him. In Canada, such people were numerous."
I found one error of fact in my edition: the GST was "awkwardly in place" by January 1, 1991, not in 1990 as stated in the 3rd revised edition (1997).
Overall, A Short History of Canada will give readers many good reasons to want to explore the dynamic story of our country in more depth when they have more time.

For a one-volume history of Canada, I'd recommend Roger Riendeau's "A Brief History of Canada" instead. Desmond Morton seems to be attempting to tell the history of Canada as a single narrative, but it's simply too long and multifaceted to be coherent. I found the colorful writing and light tone (e.g. introducing some historical figure by describing him as a "short, stout Scotsman") more annoying than engaging -- I was looking for facts and explanations, not amusing details. Finally, the book doesn't so much end as trail off.

I don't want to say that it's a bad book (Desmond Morton is a well-known and respected historian, and there were several glowing blurbs on the book cover), but it wasn't what I was looking for. Perhaps it might be more interesting for teenagers.

A Short History Of Canada is an excellent choice for one who wishes to gain knowledge of both Anglo and Franco Canadian history. It's extremely interesting for Americans, as it juxtaposes American and Canadian History, showing how each country dealt with major world events. The author is also extremely witty, and adds in just the right amount of humor so that the book does not sound like a textbook. If you are an American, the sentence structure will seem odd. However, you get use to it by the third or forth chapter. Overall, the book is a great introduction to Canadian History. I would highly recommend it.

Many Americans know little about the history of their northern neighbour (for example, how many of you knew that Newfoundland was a British protectorate until 1949?). This volume shows how Canadian history transpired from the nineteenth century to the turn of the twenty-first century. The author examines economic, political, and social events, as well as foreign policy--he presents a Canadian perspective on the U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Morton goes into detail about Canadian elections down to the breakdown of seats by party in Parliament, and the author shows how many of the social trends in America in the latter half of the 20th century also took place in Canada. Those who wish to get a basic understanding of Canadian history would do well to read Desmond Morton's informative history.

When I see the title, " A short history of....", I tend to think of a book that will encompass the basic political, social and economic aspects while making things clear for the reader. Desmond Morton does a fine job of the former but a terrible job of the latter.

If you already know what Upper and Lower Canada consist, what seignoralism is or where Prince Edward Island lies, you'll probably have no problem deciphering parts of this book, but if you have never studied Canadian history you will be lost.

A few examples: On page 62, Morton states, "beyond the mouth of the St. Lawrence lay four proudly self-reliant British colonies." Yet he does not clarify which four. He speaks of Newfoundland, and then goes on to talk about the Acadians while explaining their history in one sentence. Are the New Brunswickers part of these four? I assume Halifax and Nova Scotia are part of the four, but Morton never makes this clear.

On page 90 Morton talks of a man named MacDonald, but uses the last name as a first reference three times before making it clear who the man is on the fourth reference, It is assumed that the reader remembered the first reference of John Sandfield MacDonald on page 60. This is a basic rule of journalism: first name on first reference. There are four MacDonalds' listed in the book. The reader is just supposed to know that Morton is referencing this particular MacDonald? There are similar examples like this throughout the book.

It's not that Morton is a poor writer or that it is a poor book: It's actually interesting at certain points and definitely informative. I just wanted to warn other readers to not make the same mistake that I made and read this as one of your first introductions to Canadian history. This book assumes you know the geography well (two very simple, and poor maps are the only ones included), and that you already know some of the major players.

I teach intro history in community college; I would recommend this book for a 300 or up class, or for people who already have studied Canadian history but absolutely not for beginners or introductory courses...