Customer Reviews

Who Killed Canadian History?

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

 

 

Professor Granatstien has presented readers with a very interesting book with "Who Killed Canadian History?". It has generated a great deal of debate within history cirlces - both good and bad.

The book itself is a quick read, coming in at a very short 149 pages. the main thrust of Grantstien's argument is that the pursuit of social history in Canada (which encompasses many fields such as Native and feminist histories) has swung too far. The result is that few people emerging out of the public chool system know much about thier national history. In fact, Grantstien claims that we are losing our history. The book is a polemic in this regard. Grantstien casts a wide net of blame in what he percieves to be the decline of historical knowledge in Canada.

Of course, this all begs the question as to whose "history" Dr. Grantstien is referring to? By no means is Canadian history dead. Critics of Granatstien and others like him such as Michael Bliss, believe that the history these people are advocating is that of a bygone era. Before the revolution in "social" history of the laet 1960s and early 1970s history tended to be based on the actions of the proverbial dead, white, male, politician (see Donald Creighton). The history that Grantstien advocates is usually cast in this light. The implication being that this history will once again marginalize the stories of women, natives, minorities, etc...

I personally do not believe that is what the debate is about. Grantstien is unfairly cast as some unsensitive brute who wants to turn the clock back to when the writing of history was much easier. When in reality he is simple percieving the historiographical trend as similar to a pendulum. If indeed social history was marginalized in the past, than "traditional" history (that which focuses on politics, the individual, etc...) has been marginalized in the current context. What he seeks is a happy middle ground, one in which both "social" and "traditional" history recieve the same amount of attention.

If you are interested in this book, then you should also look up some of the reactions it has generated among other historians. The Canadian Historical Review is where the debate seems to be most intense. An article by A.B. McKillop sumarizes the argument that "social" historians have against Granatstien, while an article by Bryan Palmer in the Dec. 1999 issue presents a very interesting third point of view that is quite different from both that of Grantstien and McKillop (I personally think the Palmer article is the better, even if he harbours some resentment over the marginalization of Marxist theory from the "cutting edge" of the discipline). If you wish to read something by supporters of the Grantstien thesis you can check-out an article by Robin Fisher in the 100th issue of BC Studies in 1994. Michael Bliss has also put out some material on this issue as well.

A very impressive book! Prof Granatstein has done a marvelous job presenting the changes the presentation of Canadian History has undergone in the past 30 years. I was particularly impressed with his treatment of various "schools of thought" which have come to dominate - ie post-structuralist, feminist, social/marxist, etc... He recognizes that these schools have made valuable contributions to the study of Canada's History, but points to some of their major shortcomings - chiefly their inability to provide a cohesive narrative for our last 300 years. While these interpretations can be extremely enlightening, they lose their effect when the reader has no foundation or "story" to compare them against - a foundation that used to be provided in the elementary and high school years. The only regret I had after reading the book was that it was so short - it would have been nice to see Granatstein develop and back-up his thesis in greater depth. But it's still a must read for all Canadians!

I read this book and thought why is this not required reading for every Canadian High School student. It explains why we seem to have no sense of who we are and try to please every group in our society , in detriment to our identity as a nation. Looking at history in politically correct terms does not give anyone a sense of who we are and where we are going. It proves you can not change history using todays politically acceptable language and have any substance in the text. Loved this thought provoking book! Wake up CANADA before we lose our total identity!

Should be required reading for every Canadian, and for any American who thinks that 'multiculturalism' is a good idea.

A friend of mine is a History Major at the local univeristy, and she had the distinct pleasure of having taken a class with Prof. Granatstein before he retired. She passed this book to everyone she knew, and I was lucky to get my turn with it early.

Canada has a rich and diverse culture, and its history is often scoffed (indeed, I can remember my family, all of us immigrants from England, saying, "Canada doesn't *have* any history.") This notion is wrong, and yet, it perpetuates.

Why?

Well, the question of who killed Canadian History is what Granatstein tackles in this book. It is a quick read, but one you'll re-read, and is a pithy and witty account of how fragmented our educational system is on the concept of teaching Canadian History. There are relevant facts scattered throughout this book, and statistics that made me, for one, ashamed of the Canadian educational system. Granatstein speaks of changes that need to be made on both the educational system front and in post-educational institutions, and has put together a book that sincerely, and objectively, points out why Canadian History is so lost.

Who Killed Canadian History? We, the Canadians, did. It's time to turn that around.

In reality it is not the history of our land that is boring;but the people who have led our institutions and the agendas of those who have been installed in them.
It's natural to compare ourselves to the Americans and their history,but that is pointless because as soon as they were able they drove out the European control by Revolution and set about to create One Nation with their own principles.
That was not the case here.We continued to be colonies and preferred to be led by the mother country mentality of England and France through Peace,Order and Good Government.Therefore, since these two countries were never in agreement,why would one expect that creating a country based on the principles of both of them end up with a Nation which would be united throughout.
Hence,having gotten off on this approach ,we have always confronted our devevopment issues with a strong determination that above all else compromise would rule.
There was a glimmer of light after the two World Wars that we might get on with creating One Nation that was for all of us,but those deep seated divisions only became enlarged.
Take something as basic as our flag;rather than unison ,every province now has their own,where most did'nt even have one and Quebec has given it little notice,other than a great lack of disinterest,to put it mildly.
So, rather than working towards unity we compromised with the misguided concept of Bilnguialism and Biculturalism.All that has done is to emphasize the past differences and drive us further apart.If that wasn't bad enough,we dreamed up the idea that since the Americans believed in the melting pot to create One Nation;we cound'nt do that,we went the Multicultural route and encouraged retention of the very ideas that these new arrivals were leaving behind.
Now we wonder "Who Killed Canadian History?"
There,s little doubt that the leftist ideologies that permeate our government and government agencies has carried us down this road. The idea that "we know what's good for you" and don't bother yourself,we'll take care of you is firmly entrenched.What ever happened to the idea that it is my responsibility, particularly since I'm paying for it.I am entitled to have a say.
The book very well outlines the problem.He shows that Political Correctness ,an oxymoron,by the way;is rampant,but doesn't dwell on how it became so established.
As a matter of fact he even suggests that the solutions should come from the same educational establishments that created the the problem. I don't think so !The only way out is to take that establishment totally apart,get rid of the vast majority holding these destructive agendas and rebuild the whole system from the bottom up. Education should be universal using a merit,performance based,voucher system where the people who pay for the education have some say on how their resources are to be spent.This will not be offered by the establishment;but must be wrestled away from them to get education out of its quaigmire.

While I agree with Professor Granatstein in his assessment of the secondary school and university systems' appalling lack of regard for the subject of history, his opinions as to what is missing in the schools is subject of much debate.
There is a great struggle occurring in the historical profession at the moment between a traditional, political focus to the study of the past and a post-modern, socio-cultural approach to the discipline. Judging by his diatribe, it is not difficult to determine on which side the author sits. This book is merely an attempt to validate and promote his old-school historiographical methods.
He believes memorizing the names of dead prime ministers and reciting verbatim factoids of Canadiana will bring about national pride. He harps on about how few Canadians can pass a Canadian citizenship test. But what's to guarantee that teaching them about Canadian politics will ensure their success next time?
The truth is Granatstein's approach is outdated. In a multi-cultural, mutli-lingual, tolerant society, demanding the government and the education system stop teaching social and regional history and start teaching national history promotes the political foundations of this country--federation, citizenship, imperialism--but ignores the cultural foundations of this country--immmigration, integration, globalization.
While this is a well-written book (as he always has been a good writer), where's Granatstein's research? As a professor, he is the first to question the source, and yet he provides the reader with no notes. Furthermore, the personal nature of some of his rants makes one wonder whether much of his anger is directed at younger, left-leaning colleagues as opposed to the "system" itself.
But most distressing is the author's particular issues with the small community of Canadian women's historians. He cruelly admonishes their professional pursuits with the infamous analogy of knees in Belleville. One wonders whether or not Granatstein even realizes that it's no longer 1972. No doubt the sequel will go after native historians, claiming they merely study tepee skins in Red River.
Ultimately, Granatstein does not want to know who killed Canadian history. The only thing he's interested in is who killed his idea of Canadian history.

Just wondering what this book was about and if anyone could download the book, [words]and send it to me. Its for an essay I'm doing.