Throughout history oppressive regimes have rewritten history in order to justify their existence. By creating a fictional history, these authorities use a powerful form of propaganda to support their powerbase. Citizens under them are unable to act on historical truth and continue to develop their society in a meaningful way because what actually happened does not exist for them. When these same people see lies as truth, there is no chance of history being understood on its own terms, and no chance for a society to continue to improve. Nationalist or culturalist bias in a history text is a very dangerous issue because of the danger of lapsing into propaganda and societal lethargy.
Nationalism is found throughout the Oxford Canadian History text booked named Flashback Canada (4th edition). There is a general patina of British positivism in the description of Canadian history that tries to show the entire experience in the best possible light while simultaneously ignoring less positive elements such as aboriginal genocides, French oppression and rampant racism. This British-Canadian nationalistic agenda can be found in everything from the choice of materials to the radical rewriting of history inferred in many of the images selected for the text.
On page 20-21 students are introduced to the concept of the "Underground Railroad". The section ends with a somewhat overwhelming "Escaping from bondage, thousands of fugitive slaves from the South - men, women, and children … found in Canada friends, freedom, and protection under the British flag." (22) Nowhere is the extreme prejudice they were met with when they arrived in Canada mentioned, nor how they were encouraged to move into isolated communities apart from those of white Canadians. There is no doubt that their experience in Canada was better than the slavery experienced in the South, but this text describes Canada as a shining paragon of human virtue, which it was not.
This redefining of Canada's questionable racial history continues as the artists who created many of the images for this text ignore historical fact in favor of a modern, liberal, colour-blind view of a Canada that never was. Front and centre in the mock political debate about Confederation depicted in the text (pictured above) are women, natives, Asians and blacks, all groups that had no interest in politics because they were not given the right to vote in Canada until many years after the fact. The reason white men fill the pictures of early Canadian politics is because they were the only ones allowed to partake in it. To recreate the history of the country in this way is one of the many reasons History itself cannot be taken as seriously as it should be.
If the people presenting it are more interested in nationalistic agenda and the politics of today, then they are little more than peddlers of propaganda and do a great disservice to a branch of human inquiry that should be held up to standards of honesty and accuracy at least equivalent to those found in science. As the second picture indicates, this reinvention of Canadian history in a racial and gender harmonious light is untrue and done purely to serve a false sense of nationalistic pride in a sense of multiculturalism that is a recent development. Reprinting multiculturalism into Canadian history is simply untrue.
I would also question if this type of fiction actually helps visible minority students to feel inclusive (this is the only possible explanation I can come up with for it), or if it makes the entire Canadian experience appear a lie. Surely these same children would hear a more culturally exclusive experience from their own parents and grandparents. How does a black child reconcile the "truth" in their text book, with the horrible racial experiences told to them by their grand parents? One of them is lying, and the text has the power of authority behind it.
A more complex example of cultural bias may also be found in the text. A group of Saskatchewan settlers, rich immigrants from England, are described in their glory, conquering the land and bringing their culture with them. European non-British immigrants barely survive by the skin or their teeth and natives are protected and appear grateful to the very people who have displaced them from their lands (p.142-144). Even though the Canadian Pacific Railway is covered in its own chapter of twenty pages, issues like the use of Chinese laborers on the railroad are covered very briefly in less than a page and summarized with, "It is not a proud chapter in Canadian history." (p.164) British North America is the foundation of the book as it opens and there is no doubt that a sub-textual element in the book is the maintenance of the idea that British North America is very much the core of the new, racially harmonious Canadian identity that the book is advocating and inventing.
If you're curious, you can lookup "Flash Back Canada" - it's a commonly used text book found in grade 8 classes across Ontario, and it's full of some truly fictional, revisionist history.
You can visit Tim King's "The Written Word" at:
http://www.kingdomta.com/writing/writing.htm
Please enter your comment below. Hit Return twice (leaving a completely blank line) between paragraphs.
Use [b] for bold [/b] and [i] for italic [/i]. All other HTML commands will be stripped.
Your comment is (almost) immediately placed online as soon as you hit 'Post'.
Specifying an email address is optional. In the interests of your own privacy, CoN discourages you from doing so. Further, think twice about revealing any other personal information including telephone number, real name, exact address or blood type.
* A red asterisk denotes a required field.
I am a firm believer in the properties of history being as accurate as possible, the problem I find in your thesis is the general assumption that victimhood is singular. In the old days of yore, the victims were everyone outside of the ruling class and althought an argument can be made in one thousand directions the fact remains that now most of us writing on the horrors of victimhood write these observations from a room without a view. An air conditioned room with booze freshly at hand and a belly so full we can barely wait to shit. I for one find it offensive to take to task a mans horror when there is no way in hell I could understand. It is ok to empathize, completely juvenille to sympathize.
I had a prof who talked his 85 year old dad into taking courses at the school (he could take them for free being a senior and he thought it would keep him busy). He'd never been to university and took an ancient history course first. He aced it, got an A, loved every moment of it. He quickly signed up for another course the next semester - this time it was early 20th century history. Unfortunately he'd lived through it. The very well fed, oh-so-pc, I'm gay, hip and oh-so-intelligent students in this class went to town on the "racist, ignorant, classist, vicious, evil people" of which this old fellow was one. He was incredibly offended by this. He tried to tell them that people weren't racist; what they did wasn't conscious or malicious, it was just how things were done, and over time it got better because assumptions were overturned. They didn't want to hear it in their little, white, liberal ivory tower and he left never to return to an undergrad class again... quite the shame.
The moral of all this? We love to paint everything we see with our own time's morality, and that's ignorance and arrogance of the highest order. What makes us think we're so supperior now? In 500 years they are going to look back at us and say, "they still had slavery then, they'd just shipped it off shore so they didn't have to see it. Every time one of those righteous, arrogant, liberal morons walked into a Walmart, they were supporting what amounts to economic slavery in the third world. How dare they pontificate on how noble and right they are!"
A simple truth of history is that what seems innocuous to us in our time (a trip down to Walmart for instance, or driving around in our giant, new SUV) might be seen as the height of ignorance to a more enlightened mind.
To say that this is some kind of victimization is to print our morality on another time. North American history has some particularly dark parts we choose not to look at, pretending that they didn't happen and making a text book that support a lie like that is tantamount to stating that the Holocaust never happened. It might make you feel better about yourself, but it isn't true.
>We love to paint everything we see with our own time's morality, and that's ignorance and arrogance of the highest order.
You're talking as if this is something new. Humans have been doing that even before the 20th century.
>He tried to tell them that people weren't racist; what they did wasn't conscious or malicious, it was just how things were done, and over time it got better because assumptions were overturned.
That's not a good enough excuse. Things were done the wrong way back then, and if he knew this but continued joining the bandwagon, he deserved to be called "racist, ignorant, classist, vicious, evil people"
Do you for shopping at Walmart? Or wasting natural resources? You're quick to judge those before you. Are you perfect? Why do you expect them to be?
... and excuses have nothing to do with this. History does not need excuses, it needs people to look at it with an unprejudiced eye. With your approach, there is no history, just the simplistic idea that the morality of your time should be applied to all.
The most confusing part of all this is that you state that applying modern ideas of right and wrong to history happens all the time (like that's oh so obvious)... and then you do it yourself.
Regardless of when in history, or where on the planet, you find people -- people are people. Most are essentially good, some are bad, and the variety of types and attitudes you see around you today are pretty much the same as the variety and types that have been around forever.
It's not hard to find idiocies and injustices at any time in history. It's not hard to find them even right now. Most people right now, though, engage in an active form of denial. It has always been so. It shouldn't be that way, and is no excuse, but as Tim implies, rather than wasting time condemning our elders, we should look at what we can do to stop the atrocities that are occurring right now, and that we largely ignore.
Tim
They're right, the problem is not new, so it invalidates everything you've said. By the same token, Cancer is not new, so we should stop talking about it, and developing treatments for it. Cancer is B-O-R-I-N-G. It's so played. We have a very short attention span you know. Stop trying to make us think. We resent it.
Some people can detect sarcasm, others can't. I know Tim can. Would the people who can't please stand up and be counted now? Thanks.