The following post is the fourth in a series that features collaboration between the Acadiensis blog and the students in Jerry Bannister’s undergraduate and graduate Canadian Studies and History classes at Dalhousie University.
by Aaron Clark
John Mack Faragher published A Great and Noble Scheme in 2006. It is now 11 years later, and I believe this book makes some important points for us to consider today; particularly, in light of recent events and trends in politics. The point I find most relevant today is made explicitly in his conclusion where he claims that we must understand Acadian history as a mix of Acadian, French, British, Canadian, and American influences. Even a traditionally Canadian event, like the Deportation, had American involvement at the heart of it. Considering we are now facing the reality of President Trump, the question becomes how will that affect Canada. Our two nations are closely linked together, and this provides Canada with an opportunity and obligation to try to mediate American policy in whatever way we can. As America’s closest neighbour, we have had generally good relations with the United States. Through this relationship, Canada must try to do what it can to prevent or curb some of Trump’s more destructive campaign promises. At the same time, we will be trying to walk a tightrope between mediation and maintaining good relations.
It may be comforting to act like ostriches with our heads in the sand, and say that because we are Canadian, American events are not our problem. However, this ignores how closely we are tied to our American neighbours. Faragher’s narrative reinforces how this has been true for longer than there has been a United States or a Canada. For as long as Europeans have settled in North America, the various colonies had interconnected relationships. In a sense, they can be considered one big family, but not always a happy one. As with most families, there was sporadic fighting and sometimes bloodshed. English privateers were responsible for the destruction of some early Acadian settlements. Events came full circle when Massachusetts Governor Shirley helped plan and orchestrate the Deportation. In the aftermath of the Deportation, some Acadians settled in American colonies; most notably those who became today’s Cajuns. Canada and America have been too closely linked for too long for us to simply ignore our neighbours to the South. Our countries are like siblings; we may have our differences, and even have trouble understanding each others motivations, but we still have to get along and live in the same house. This is an important point to remember as we as a country figure out how to come to grips with the election of Donald Trump.
Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump. Image Source: AP.
Rebecca Brannon. From Revolution to Reunion: The Reintegration of the South Carolina Loyalists. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2016).
By Carole Watterson Troxler
Rebecca Brannon (James Madison University), has distilled a well-researched 2007 dissertation of about 500 pages to a cogency deserving close attention from students of the American Revolutionary Era. Her breezy essay style delivers rapid-fire insights to engage readers and stimulate further examination of little-explored elements of American nation building. The use of secondary sources is selective and less critical than it might be but generally appropriate for her purpose: to understand the rapidity, success, and meaning of the reintegration into South Carolina social and political life of seventy percent of the 232 men proscribed in the 1782 Confiscation Act, and that within a mere two years. Most of the others were absentees or British merchants. The study is limited to 1782-1784 and is not concerned to treat Lowcountry and Upcountry loyalists equally, because the study is based on actions of the legislature, where Lowcountry concerns were paramount. Court action was not part of the machinery for dealing with loyalists in South Carolina. County courts organized after 1785 legislation created twenty new interior counties.
Rebecca Brannon, From Revolution to Reunion: The Reintegration of the South Carolina Loyalists
Brannon credits the successful reintegration of proscribed men primarily to the efforts of the men themselves, whose wartime actions against the revolutionary cause varied considerably. Individually they petitioned the state legislature for relief from confiscation and fines, after preparing their ground with neighbours with whom they shared a continuing relationship and often family ties. She stresses the psychological effectiveness of their humble apologies (which avoided admitting any ill deeds). Crucially, revolutionary co-signers and supporters demonstrated a widespread local willingness to continue mutually beneficial pre-war community relationships. Beyond the petitions themselves, Brannon draws from careful readings of correspondence among the petitioners and the legislators.
She credits Adeanus Burke, John F. Grimke, and Christopher Gadsden for effective public pronouncements in favour of clemency for loyalists, as they were unimpeachable revolutionaries. Burke in particular traveled through the backcountry to convince “middling sorts” of the value of reintegrating loyalists. A recent arrival, he could rise above accusations of backscratching among the elite. Using his position as circuit judge, he urged amnesty to keep loyalists from troublesome behaviour and to maintain the legal equality of white citizens. Brannon notes the effectiveness of newspapers in spreading such arguments, claiming “80 percent of rural white South Carolinians could read” (107).
Today for your viewing pleasure we have a video of a talk given by UNB history professor Bill Parenteau about the history and the future of the New Brunswick forest industries.
Bill Parenteau is a Professor of History at the University of New Brunswick.
The following post is the third in a series that features collaboration between the Acadiensis blog and the students in Jerry Bannister’s undergraduate and graduate Canadian Studies and History classes at Dalhousie University.
by Randy Westhaver
It seems to me that a significant number of the articles I have read lately with regard to history as a profession, and specifically Canadian history have been narratives of declension. We as historians ask the big questions, and then proceed at length to lament that there isn’t a more optimistic answer. What is our identity as Canadians? Have we lost it? Did we ever have one? Do we have more than one? Countless historians have attempted to answer these questions, and have generated a literary spiral. As a grad student, fresh into the field and naively believing that every question can be answered with a suitable application of effort, I was dismayed that the leading minds in my field struggle to reach consensus on topics so central to our profession.
I struggled to try to reconcile what I considered to be my identity as a Canadian with what I had read. Of course, my own conception of identity couldn’t be expected to function universally. Other Canadians with vastly different backgrounds and experiences could hardly be expected to fit exactly my mold. But are there certain things that unite all of us? Could I create a list of values and experiences we all share? These are the questions that would slip into my mind, uninvited, when I was trying to focus on my papers. After weeks of fretting about how I would postulate a single unifying theory that would magically unite the nation, and prevent the disparate remains of the “former Canada” from spinning off into oblivion, I stopped.
It occurred to me that perhaps it was pointless. No single Canadian identity exists, or is likely to have ever existed. Yet, the 35 million of us that occupy this northern segment of North America seem able to relate to each other. We’re content to add our skills and resources to a common pool and work together to better ourselves. To be sure, we have our disagreements like any family would, but we are a family. We don’t, and have never needed a universally acceptable national mythos to function together. We each personally understand our identity or identities, and that seems to be enough. Perhaps our nation will undergo geopolitical and cultural changes and become completely unrecognizable in days to come. Perhaps it will fragment and evolve in several different directions. But it hasn’t yet.
By Greg Marquis
The true crime section of the local bookstore or library is a popular place. In addition, specialty television channels have a heavy rotation of true crime documentaries, series such as “48 Hours” and “Forensic Files” and docudramas based on celebrated crimes and criminals such as serial killers, gangsters and outlaw bikers. Then there are popular podcasts such as “Serial” based on the trial and conviction of Baltimore teenager Adnan Syed for the murder of his girlfriend.
52 Canterbury Street, Saint John Court Exhibit R. V. Denis Oland
According to Anita Biressi, a true crime book or magazine article, “unlike news or a documentary, is promoted primarily and explicitly as a leisure pursuit.” By this criteria alone, the academic historian contemplating working on contemporary crime should probably quit at the outset- we are not trained or conditioned at graduate school or via grant writing, conference participation, peer-review publishing, or (hopefully) through teaching, to ‘entertain.’ Yet the public and trade (non-academic) publishers and reviewers expect accounts of well-known crimes that entertain. And public interest in a specific crime tends to be in direct proportion to the amount of media coverage accorded an investigation and trial. Thus the 2016 trial and acquittal of CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi, reporting for which helped start a national conversation on consensual sexual relationships, produced a book by Ken Donovan, published several months after Ghomeshi’s acquittal on sexual assault charges. In contrast, none of the thirty-seven homicides that took place in the Atlantic provinces in 2015 has been the subject of a book.
by Jerry Bannister
I remember the first day I saw Danny Vickers. It was in September 1986, and he was one of the instructors in my first-year History course, “Ideas and Society in the West,” a team-taught lecture at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He was tall, thin, and paced back and forth when he lectured, with a curious blend of anxious energy and relaxed reflection. When he paused to make a point, he tended to cough, and he waved his arms around a lot. We liked him and he had a good sense of humour in the classroom, but rumour around campus was that he was a tough marker who expected students to work hard.
Daniel Vickers. Photo courtesy UBC.
When I took his fourth-year seminar on popular culture in Colonial America, I discovered that the rumours were true. Danny expected a lot. Each week we had to complete a ton of reading, most of it classics in English and American social history, and we had to keep a journal to demonstrate that we had grasped the arguments of each author. We had to design a major research project, based on a diary or similar primary source, and then present a draft paper to the seminar for peer review. After our presentation, Danny gave each of us an extensive list of revisions to be completed for the final version of the research paper. At the end of the course, each of us received, typed on a red index card, an assessment of our performance for the term.
On my index card, Danny explained that I needed to improve my writing style, because I relied too much on the passive voice. He had hammered me for my poor writing all term, and he was not going to let me off the hook. But, in between the criticism, Danny suggested that I consider applying to do graduate work in history. No one had ever suggested that to me before – I had some vague notion of going to law school – and I was stunned that someone who was so critical would think that I had a possible future as a graduate student. Even now, 31 years later, I think about this when I advise my own students, because I know how much a single word of encouragement can impact a student.
James Muir. Law, Debt and Merchant Power: The Civil Courts of Eighteenth-Century Halifax. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016)
By Barry Cahill
James Muir’s book is a densely-detailed study of the administration of civil justice in Halifax from its founding in 1749 to about 1766. Though legal history has been slow to reach the mainstream, this is a welcome addition to the increasingly sophisticated historiography of eighteenth-century Atlantic Canada. Muir deals with all four civil courts – inferior court of common pleas, chancery, divorce, and vice-admiralty – , but his focus is chiefly on the first, where most of the litigation occurred. The argument is based on a close analysis, statistical and otherwise, of civil court case records, which are extensive for the jurisdiction and period concerned. Indeed, the book is a series of minute, if not microscopic, case studies. The lens through which the evidence is viewed is both procedural and substantive law, involving the nature of action and process, and the narrative presupposes considerable technical knowledge of Anglo-American historical law. This is not a book for amateurs or under-graduate students; it is hard-edged internal legal history.
James Muir. Law, Debt and Merchant Power: The Civil Courts of Eighteenth-Century Halifax. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016).
At the higher methodological level, the work both fascinates and provokes. Muir claims that “This book is a work of social history” (9), but many social historians may not view it as such. Rather, they would see it as a work of legal history, a discipline that emerged in Canada in the early 1980sand was initially separate from mainstream history. Muir also states that the “political story” of Nova Scotia is not part of the study and claims that his socio-legal approach makes up for the absence of political history. In view of the “merchant power” in the book’s main title, however, such a claim is unsustainable. The power to which he refers was no less political than economic. The Justices Affair of 1752-53, for example, which Muir discusses, was a political struggle between rival mercantile and settlement groups – Englishmen and New Englanders (especially from Massachusetts) – and its resolution was a compromise that had significant legal and political ramifications. It is not possible to separate law and politics in early colonial Halifax, nor would making the “political story” part of the study preclude a social history approach. The point, however, is that this book is not a work of social history.
The following post is the second in a series that features collaboration between the Acadiensis blog and the students in Jerry Bannister’s undergraduate and graduate Canadian Studies and History classes at Dalhousie University.
by Alex Martinborough
The 150th anniversary of Confederation is rapidly approaching, and around the country plans to commemorate the occasion are being implemented. How the past is remembered and celebrated is a central component of national identity, and the ongoing process of nation-building. Plans for Canada150 began as early as 2011 under the Harper Government, as a committee began preparing a report on previous commemorations of the British North America Act, 1867 or as it is now called The Constitution Act, 1867. The legacy of Confederation is highly complicated, especially as it remains shrouded in the nearly impenetrable fog of nationalist mythology. Though coming to an agreement on a system that brought four, and eventually ten, provinces together was a significant accomplishment, neither the British North America Act nor its authors should be celebrated without reservation. Canada150 presents historians, and the broader Canadian public, a unique opportunity to consider how we discuss and commemorate our past.
The Peace Tower
The idea of history, and as a result the nation, being under threat is hardly a new idea, the declensionist narrative serving as a powerful political tool. Peter van Loan, Conservative critic for Canadian Heritage, declared the plans for Canada150 to be “just another salvo in the Liberal war on history”. The Conservative Party of Canada, building their arsenal from Granatstein’s Who Killed Canadian History, has long promoted a narrative of the country being torn apart due to inattention to our true history. In this skirmish, Van Loan claims that the Liberals’ decision to have diversity and inclusion, Indigenous reconciliation, the environment, and youth as the themes of Canada150 demonstrates a sense of shame of our collective past that weakens the nation as a whole. The idea that history is under siege because these themes are being promoted suggests a better or more truthful history, and that this history is fixed and unchanging.
The following post is the first in a series that features collaboration between the Acadiensis blog and the students in Jerry Bannister’s undergraduate and graduate Canadian Studies and History classes at Dalhousie University.
by Mercedes Peters
Canadians following the news lately could probably say something about The Tragically Hip’s ailing frontman, Gord Downie, and his most recent artistic endeavor, The Secret Path. The conceptual album, paired with a graphic novel designed by artist Jeff Lemire, tells the story of Chanie Wenjack, an Anishinaabe child who froze to death trying to escape his Northern Ontario residential school in 1966. Reactions to the album, to the CBC special which broadcast the live performance of The Secret Path, and to the accompanying documentary have been generally positive. Many see it as a continuation of the efforts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), whose mandate to collect and tell the stories of Indian Residential School (IRS) survivors ended with the release of their final report in June, 2015. Downie has been praised for his dedication to indigenous rights, and for once Canadians are participating in a dialogue about a once neglected history, acknowledging the horrors indigenous people in Canada have faced for centuries. And this is a good thing. We need sustained conversations about IRS in the public sphere; we need them in the government. In this regard, the TRC has been crucial to ensuring that Canada does not forget this history, as has the work of Gord Downie and others like him. The history is important, the people dedicating their time to spread this knowledge are indispensable to the reconciliation movement, but Canada is only looking at a history, past tense, and that serves as a cause for worry. It appears that our satisfaction with these endeavors leaves us content with merely recognizing a tragic story. The real work—asking tough questions of ourselves and taking action to combat the legacy of these institutions and the existence of the systems that allowed the schools to flourish in the first place—goes undone.
Gord Downie and Jeff Lemire. The Secret Path.
The TRC was, and still is, key to facilitating reconciliation in Canada, but we place too much weight on its existence as an example of our success in mending the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. We are content to watch The Secret Path on TV, with reading stories about survivors on the CBC, with praising schoolboards for including the history of residential schools in their curriculums. The issue with this is that the TRC was only meant to be the beginning of a much larger and more difficult task than merely collecting historical evidence. The late Roger Simon worried in an article published in Reconciling Canada—rightly, I would argue—in the months following the beginning of the TRC’s mandate that Canadians would see the material the Commission generated and do nothing with it. This seems hard to believe, especially with the success of Downie’s work, and of books like Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse and Joseph Boyden’s Wenjack on a national level. When we look at what we have achieved, however, in terms of indigenous rights, it’s clear that we have a long way to go.
Marie Battiste, editor. Living Treaties: Narrating Mi’kmaw Treaty Relations. (Sydney, NS: Cape Breton University Press, 2016)
By William C. Wicken
This collection includes essays by political leaders, scholars, lawyers, and community activists discussing various aspects of the Mi’kmaw struggle to establish their treaty and aboriginal rights in Atlantic Canada. Most of the essays are by members of the Mi’kmaw community, providing insight to the history of this struggle and how community members think about relations with provincial and federal governments.
Marie Battiste, ed., Living Treaties: Narrating Mi’kmaw Treaty Relations (Sydney: CBU Press, 2016).
Some of the essays focus on multiple elements of the ‘written’ past, using well-known archival records in tandem with memories passed down through parents and grandparents to re-interpret the numerous treaties which their people signed with British authorities in 1726, 1749, 1752, 1760/61, 1776, 1778, and 1779. Included in this group are essays by Patrick Augustine, Jaime Battiste, Fred Metallic, Pamela Palmeter, and Natasha Simon. Central to these essays is the idea that the Mi’kmaq agreed to live peacefully with British authorities but neither recognized British jurisdiction over Mi’kmaw lands nor submitted to British authority. At times, the authors make important insights into the historical record by including memories garnered from the community. Jamie Battiste, for instance, integrates a discussion of the Gabriel Sylliboy case of 1927-28 gleaned from various sources, including interviews with Sylliboy’s daughters. Similarly, Stephen Augustine discusses the stories his grandmother told him in order to discuss how the Mi’kmaq conceptualized the treaties.