Monday, October 30, 2006
History Social Whirl
Book promotion and book prize season again, and I got down to a little do HarperCollins put up in honour of Ken McGooghan. Ken, author of books on John Rae and Samuel Hearne, is the recent winner of the Pierre Berton Award, the UBC medal in biography, and the Drainie-Taylor for Non-Fiction. HarperCollins has out a new paperback of his Lady Franklin's Revenge. Congratulations to Ken.
Trick or Treat
If someone published a book explaining that Hallowe’en was a tradition invented by Milton Hersey and the Cadbury people, I’d have been ready to believe. Hey, they started it in time for child me to benefit, so I’m grateful -- whatever the story is.
But this tradition has roots. On Saturday, October 31 back in 1885, the Toronto Globe published a special Hallowe’en story and reported on pranks often committed by rowdy medical students, who went around in a gang, turning off the new gas street lights.
On Hallowe’en 1885, Toronto and the Globe got more than they bargained for. The Monday edition reported breathlessly that police constable Jenkinson, making his rounds at Parliament and Gerrard late that night, had discovered a nude female body hanging from a meat hook outside a butcher shop. “Great ghosts!” the Globe reports him as saying.
The Globe writers, on behalf of Victorian decency, seems to have been genuinely horrified. “Suppose a delicate lady had to pass an exhibition of this kind. The result would have been terrible.” A good deal of disgust was directed toward the Trinity medical students. They denied all culpability, though the body -- and two others found outside the school building -- had indeed been stolen from its morgue.
An assistant at the butcher shop staff and some of his cronies were arrested at the scene. But on November 19, city police magistrate Denison freed them, saying, “I’m afraid we haven’t got the right persons. I wish we had.”
Who perpetrated the Hallowe’en Outrage? asked the Globe.
Just the candy this year, please, just the candy.
But this tradition has roots. On Saturday, October 31 back in 1885, the Toronto Globe published a special Hallowe’en story and reported on pranks often committed by rowdy medical students, who went around in a gang, turning off the new gas street lights.
On Hallowe’en 1885, Toronto and the Globe got more than they bargained for. The Monday edition reported breathlessly that police constable Jenkinson, making his rounds at Parliament and Gerrard late that night, had discovered a nude female body hanging from a meat hook outside a butcher shop. “Great ghosts!” the Globe reports him as saying.
The Globe writers, on behalf of Victorian decency, seems to have been genuinely horrified. “Suppose a delicate lady had to pass an exhibition of this kind. The result would have been terrible.” A good deal of disgust was directed toward the Trinity medical students. They denied all culpability, though the body -- and two others found outside the school building -- had indeed been stolen from its morgue.
An assistant at the butcher shop staff and some of his cronies were arrested at the scene. But on November 19, city police magistrate Denison freed them, saying, “I’m afraid we haven’t got the right persons. I wish we had.”
Who perpetrated the Hallowe’en Outrage? asked the Globe.
Just the candy this year, please, just the candy.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Not the Constitution again
Can you write “Canadian history news” and say nothing about the latest eruption of the debate over whether Quebec is a nation and whether that needs to influence the text of the Canadian constitution?
Well, I wish…
But I wrote a book about making constitutions in the 1860s (buy it here), one that is very much also about the failed efforts of the 1990s. It’s still the only post-Meech, post-Charlottetown history of confederation-making. So I may have a stake to hold.
I don’t like leadership contests of the kind we do in Canada. They are vote-buying competitions, pure and simple, and they pander to the worst in all concerned. One might guess the Ignatieff camp was burdened with the likelihood that its candidate’s anti-nationalist views and enthusiasm for international interventions (against national excesses, often) would not play well among potential vote-buyers in Quebec. They apparently concluded the best way to build a base in Quebec was to make a play for the soft-nationalist vote. It worked for Mulroney when he brought in Lucien Bouchard. It worked for Paul Martin when he positioned himself as more nationalist than Chrétien. In a vote-buying race, you can see the appeal. There is a lot of “noui” sentiment among potential vote-buyers, so that strategy generally works, short-time. Short term matters a great deal to Ignatieff’s number-crunchers right now.
It’s the long term that matters to the country.
Now that this unsavory race has revived debate about constitutional recognition of Quebec’s national status, I’d say this. A constitution is a machine for running a country. It sets out principles and defines powers. Mostly it’s not a place for love letters and sentimental declarations. One of the things we should admire in the constitution-makers of the 1860s is something constantly held against them: they tried to draft a practical constitution. They put in the principles but left out the poetry. For the constitution then, now, or in 1990, what should matter about Quebec’s status is the grants of powers that might flow from that. It’s the powers that matter, not the sentiment.
The lesson of the last twenty years, I would say, is: we cannot have a discussion about constitutionalizing the sentiment. It is the powers we need to examine and debate. Ignatieff and his “soft nationalist” supporters should be suggesting what constitutional powers they would favour giving Quebec. “Hard federalists” should, if they wish, be putting the case against them. Political leaders and those who seek leadership could all be contributing. Making political commitments about Quebec’s national status complicates that possibly fruitful discussion of powers, I would say. Poisons it, in fact.
I’m a great admirer and supporter of the cultural wonder that is Quebec, something unique in the world and vital to this continent, let alone the northern half of it. I believe I would support any measure necessary to the survival and prospering of Quebec. Show me a power that Quebec needs and does not have, and I’m prepared to consider it.
Including, I suppose, the independence of Quebec if it were necessary, and if it were properly decided. I’ve always been opposed to the independence of Quebec principally because Quebec and all that makes it unique can and will survive and prosper within Confederation. (Actually, there's another reason I'm opposed. For 150 years, every time Quebec has had to choose, whether through its elected representatives or through a referendum, the voters of Quebec have sustained the union. Who am I to disagree?)
All this debate has confirmed my admiration for Stéphane Dion. Sovereigntists and softer nationalists alike declare that to refuse this acknowledgment of nationhood to Quebec is intolerable to all of Quebec. This is nonsense, and it is important to have Stéphane Dion, and not just various Anglos, say it is nonsense. Dion’s own eloquent and rational insistence that we should debate powers and not sentiments obviously influences my own view of all this. But it’s easier for me than for him. His behaviour has been heroic, and for about ten years.
Doesn’t mean I’m convinced Dion must be Liberal leader or prime minister. In fact, I think Ignatieff has substantial claims despite his stumbles, including this one. As does Bob Rae. And Gerard Kennedy at least is a dozen years younger than these soon-to-be senior citizens. They all have their strengths to match their weaknesses.
I have not purchased a vote in their race, so I don’t have to have an opinion. Other than that a vote-buying race itself is contemptible.
Finally, it’s a debate that does credit to weblogging, I’d say. The whole issue is covered fairly summarily in The Globe today, though I guess it’s doing a pretty good job for all who want only a summation. But follow Paul Wells and Michel-C. Auger and the people they link to, and you can follow a pretty extensive and enlightening debate, complete with as many of the actual documents and position papers as you might want.
Well, I wish…
But I wrote a book about making constitutions in the 1860s (buy it here), one that is very much also about the failed efforts of the 1990s. It’s still the only post-Meech, post-Charlottetown history of confederation-making. So I may have a stake to hold.
I don’t like leadership contests of the kind we do in Canada. They are vote-buying competitions, pure and simple, and they pander to the worst in all concerned. One might guess the Ignatieff camp was burdened with the likelihood that its candidate’s anti-nationalist views and enthusiasm for international interventions (against national excesses, often) would not play well among potential vote-buyers in Quebec. They apparently concluded the best way to build a base in Quebec was to make a play for the soft-nationalist vote. It worked for Mulroney when he brought in Lucien Bouchard. It worked for Paul Martin when he positioned himself as more nationalist than Chrétien. In a vote-buying race, you can see the appeal. There is a lot of “noui” sentiment among potential vote-buyers, so that strategy generally works, short-time. Short term matters a great deal to Ignatieff’s number-crunchers right now.
It’s the long term that matters to the country.
Now that this unsavory race has revived debate about constitutional recognition of Quebec’s national status, I’d say this. A constitution is a machine for running a country. It sets out principles and defines powers. Mostly it’s not a place for love letters and sentimental declarations. One of the things we should admire in the constitution-makers of the 1860s is something constantly held against them: they tried to draft a practical constitution. They put in the principles but left out the poetry. For the constitution then, now, or in 1990, what should matter about Quebec’s status is the grants of powers that might flow from that. It’s the powers that matter, not the sentiment.
The lesson of the last twenty years, I would say, is: we cannot have a discussion about constitutionalizing the sentiment. It is the powers we need to examine and debate. Ignatieff and his “soft nationalist” supporters should be suggesting what constitutional powers they would favour giving Quebec. “Hard federalists” should, if they wish, be putting the case against them. Political leaders and those who seek leadership could all be contributing. Making political commitments about Quebec’s national status complicates that possibly fruitful discussion of powers, I would say. Poisons it, in fact.
I’m a great admirer and supporter of the cultural wonder that is Quebec, something unique in the world and vital to this continent, let alone the northern half of it. I believe I would support any measure necessary to the survival and prospering of Quebec. Show me a power that Quebec needs and does not have, and I’m prepared to consider it.
Including, I suppose, the independence of Quebec if it were necessary, and if it were properly decided. I’ve always been opposed to the independence of Quebec principally because Quebec and all that makes it unique can and will survive and prosper within Confederation. (Actually, there's another reason I'm opposed. For 150 years, every time Quebec has had to choose, whether through its elected representatives or through a referendum, the voters of Quebec have sustained the union. Who am I to disagree?)
All this debate has confirmed my admiration for Stéphane Dion. Sovereigntists and softer nationalists alike declare that to refuse this acknowledgment of nationhood to Quebec is intolerable to all of Quebec. This is nonsense, and it is important to have Stéphane Dion, and not just various Anglos, say it is nonsense. Dion’s own eloquent and rational insistence that we should debate powers and not sentiments obviously influences my own view of all this. But it’s easier for me than for him. His behaviour has been heroic, and for about ten years.
Doesn’t mean I’m convinced Dion must be Liberal leader or prime minister. In fact, I think Ignatieff has substantial claims despite his stumbles, including this one. As does Bob Rae. And Gerard Kennedy at least is a dozen years younger than these soon-to-be senior citizens. They all have their strengths to match their weaknesses.
I have not purchased a vote in their race, so I don’t have to have an opinion. Other than that a vote-buying race itself is contemptible.
Finally, it’s a debate that does credit to weblogging, I’d say. The whole issue is covered fairly summarily in The Globe today, though I guess it’s doing a pretty good job for all who want only a summation. But follow Paul Wells and Michel-C. Auger and the people they link to, and you can follow a pretty extensive and enlightening debate, complete with as many of the actual documents and position papers as you might want.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Wonkblog talks
Wonkblog out of London, Ont, is one commentator sensitive to the danger in the ejection of Garth Turner from his caucus. “Forces us to question the role of party loyalty relative to an MP's obligation to speak on behalf of constituents,” he says.
Wonkblog is a proportional representation activist. And in PR systems, MPs don’t really have constituents to speak for. When they are appointed by the party bosses, they will represent the party and be accountable solely to it. So there are some complications here. Still, anyone concerned about the problem of parliamentary representation is asking the right questions and may yet help us come to fresh answers.
Wonkblog is a proportional representation activist. And in PR systems, MPs don’t really have constituents to speak for. When they are appointed by the party bosses, they will represent the party and be accountable solely to it. So there are some complications here. Still, anyone concerned about the problem of parliamentary representation is asking the right questions and may yet help us come to fresh answers.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Hung Juries
The City of Vancouver Book Award was announced last week. Just four finalists. And they failed to decide! The prize was split between Jean Barman for Stanley Park's Secret and James Delgado for Waterfront.
I don't know either book, but these are both good historians and good writers. I salute them for the good books they have given us. Nice to see history dominate an award designed to salute books "in any genre" about the city.
But what’s with this tie? The jury should have faced up to its responsibilities and chosen a winner. Even if it had to flip a coin. Choosing two winners from four books devalues both winners. T'aint a horse race till one horse wins.
And how cheap is this? Not only did Vancouver split the prize, it split the prize money. When the jury wimped out a few years ago and announced a tie for the Giller Prize in fiction, at least Jack Rabinovitch had the grace to write two big cheques.
Equally dismaying: Governor-General's Award fiction juror Leon Rooke's recent comments about the GG shortlist in fiction. The jury agreed on the four best books, he said, but they had a hard time finding a fifth book to tack on at the end of the short list.
But if four books clearly stood out above the rest, the jury should have rejected padding the list, dropped the also-ran, and gone with the four best. They are rewarding excellence, not doing book promotion. Writers don't benefit from this pandering. Make up your minds and go with the good ones, jurors.
I don't know either book, but these are both good historians and good writers. I salute them for the good books they have given us. Nice to see history dominate an award designed to salute books "in any genre" about the city.
But what’s with this tie? The jury should have faced up to its responsibilities and chosen a winner. Even if it had to flip a coin. Choosing two winners from four books devalues both winners. T'aint a horse race till one horse wins.
And how cheap is this? Not only did Vancouver split the prize, it split the prize money. When the jury wimped out a few years ago and announced a tie for the Giller Prize in fiction, at least Jack Rabinovitch had the grace to write two big cheques.
Equally dismaying: Governor-General's Award fiction juror Leon Rooke's recent comments about the GG shortlist in fiction. The jury agreed on the four best books, he said, but they had a hard time finding a fifth book to tack on at the end of the short list.
But if four books clearly stood out above the rest, the jury should have rejected padding the list, dropped the also-ran, and gone with the four best. They are rewarding excellence, not doing book promotion. Writers don't benefit from this pandering. Make up your minds and go with the good ones, jurors.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Garth Nobody, MP
Today's ejection of Garth Turner MP from the Conservative caucus, surely encouraged (at least) by the Prime Minister's office, confirms the Conservative caucus is deaf to all notions of parliamentary reform.
Turner's no parliamentary genius. He proclaims he's in Parliament to serve his constituents but has not yet grasped the implications of that. He likes being a loose cannon and chafes under the restraints of leadership, but he will probably never grasp the larger principle of leadership accountability.
For MPs seriously to serve their constituents, they have to ensure that their leader serves them -- that is, that the leader is accountable to the caucus. Parliamentary democracy can function no other way.
It's sad that no Conservative MPs can be expected to stand up against Turner's expulsion. Turner's leakiness probably has irritated his colleagues. He's not likely to build a team. But driving out a caucus member for any trivial hint of individuality can only coerce even greater conformity from those not yet centred out for loyalty tests. The spinelessness of the Canadian MP knows no limits.
Sadder still, the democratic reform claques across the country will be equally useless on this issue. Most of them support measures -- PR, recall, referenda, citizens' forums -- that would enhance authoritarian leadership and handcuff parliamentarians even more completely. None of them seem to have a clue about the potential of the backbench in genuine democratic reform.
Turner's no parliamentary genius. He proclaims he's in Parliament to serve his constituents but has not yet grasped the implications of that. He likes being a loose cannon and chafes under the restraints of leadership, but he will probably never grasp the larger principle of leadership accountability.
For MPs seriously to serve their constituents, they have to ensure that their leader serves them -- that is, that the leader is accountable to the caucus. Parliamentary democracy can function no other way.
It's sad that no Conservative MPs can be expected to stand up against Turner's expulsion. Turner's leakiness probably has irritated his colleagues. He's not likely to build a team. But driving out a caucus member for any trivial hint of individuality can only coerce even greater conformity from those not yet centred out for loyalty tests. The spinelessness of the Canadian MP knows no limits.
Sadder still, the democratic reform claques across the country will be equally useless on this issue. Most of them support measures -- PR, recall, referenda, citizens' forums -- that would enhance authoritarian leadership and handcuff parliamentarians even more completely. None of them seem to have a clue about the potential of the backbench in genuine democratic reform.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Monday, October 16, 2006
Governor General's Nominees
Afua Cooper's The Hanging of Angelique, about slavery and resistance in New France, is the principal Canadian history in the Non-fiction nominees for this year GG's announced this morning. Congratulations, Afua.
Also nominated: Ross King for The Judgment of Paris, (an art history on the rise of impressionism), Michael Strangelove for The Empire of the Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-capitalist Movement (hmmm, should look into that!), Christine Wiesenthal for The Half-lives of Pat Lowther, on the murdered BC poet, and Susanne Reber and Robert Renaud for Starlight Tour, the book on Saskatoon native men and boys dumped by police to freeze to death.
An interesting list.
Also nominated: Ross King for The Judgment of Paris, (an art history on the rise of impressionism), Michael Strangelove for The Empire of the Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-capitalist Movement (hmmm, should look into that!), Christine Wiesenthal for The Half-lives of Pat Lowther, on the murdered BC poet, and Susanne Reber and Robert Renaud for Starlight Tour, the book on Saskatoon native men and boys dumped by police to freeze to death.
An interesting list.
Lister Sinclair
Lister Sinclair died this morning. He was the voice of “Ideas” at the CBC roughly the years I was doing “Ideas” documentaries regularly.
As host, Sinclair wasn’t directly involved in many of the programs. Often he just recorded an intro and conclusion. You could do a multi-hour program without ever meeting him. So I didn’t know him well. But I do remember a gathering Ideas was organizing at a country place in Caledon. Sinclair did not drive, and one of the Ideas staffers was asked if she could give him a ride. “Well, okay,” she said, “but if I’m driving, someone else will have to come along to listen to him.”
He could be just a little that way – able to make you wonder, after you had felt months working up an hour’s broadcast, whether he could have strolled in, switched on the microphone, and tossed off his own version in real time.
But he was good at the craft. Watching Lister Sinclair, I saw and heard what a voice actor does. I remember drafting my own thoughts for him to read, then hearing him deliver them on first reading with more persuasive authority than I might ever have mustered.
Once he came in, glanced at the sheet of text I had written to introduce a political documentary, and gave a reading full of drama and excitement. “Aah,” I said cautiously, “I actually wanted that part to sound more world-weary and cynical.” Sinclair gave the sheet a second look and saw my point. No histrionics. His second reading nailed it.
As host, Sinclair wasn’t directly involved in many of the programs. Often he just recorded an intro and conclusion. You could do a multi-hour program without ever meeting him. So I didn’t know him well. But I do remember a gathering Ideas was organizing at a country place in Caledon. Sinclair did not drive, and one of the Ideas staffers was asked if she could give him a ride. “Well, okay,” she said, “but if I’m driving, someone else will have to come along to listen to him.”
He could be just a little that way – able to make you wonder, after you had felt months working up an hour’s broadcast, whether he could have strolled in, switched on the microphone, and tossed off his own version in real time.
But he was good at the craft. Watching Lister Sinclair, I saw and heard what a voice actor does. I remember drafting my own thoughts for him to read, then hearing him deliver them on first reading with more persuasive authority than I might ever have mustered.
Once he came in, glanced at the sheet of text I had written to introduce a political documentary, and gave a reading full of drama and excitement. “Aah,” I said cautiously, “I actually wanted that part to sound more world-weary and cynical.” Sinclair gave the sheet a second look and saw my point. No histrionics. His second reading nailed it.
Friday, October 13, 2006
October 70 Mini-Series
I caught the start of the CBC's mini-series "October 1970" last night. Good, gripping, and dramatic, I thought, I hope it finds an audience. The pre-launch story has mostly been Quebec media asking why only the English get to see something this good, since Radio-Canada refused to be part of the film.
I can't help thinking: Where are the big histories of October 70? Where are our historians? No doubt they will grouse about the film version, but at least the filmmakers are making the effort.
I interviewed Wayne Grigsby, producer and co-author of "October 70," last month. I was thinking of how the CBC has always turned and run whenever controvery arises from one of its historical programs. I thought maybe he wouldn't want to comment, seeing he has to work with the network. He said:
"No, I can comment. They have funding to protect and they do want to avoid controversy. And I have some sympathy for that, but not when they fold so quickly. Getting a historian to criticize "Prairie Giant" and not even letting the film makers see or respond to charges made there…." He left the end of his sentence hanging.
Later he said, "Maybe I’m not surprised, because I know broadcasters have their own agendas when controversy arises. But they should realize that these subjects are controversial, and if they are not prepared for controversy, they should not get involved. I’m disappointed by the CBC in the "Prairie Giant" situation.
Yeah, me too. I'd love to see debate about "October 70" (Grigsby said he'd welcome it, too) -- but would it mean the CBC would simply yank the thing from circulation? Maybe we'll keep following this here.
I can't help thinking: Where are the big histories of October 70? Where are our historians? No doubt they will grouse about the film version, but at least the filmmakers are making the effort.
I interviewed Wayne Grigsby, producer and co-author of "October 70," last month. I was thinking of how the CBC has always turned and run whenever controvery arises from one of its historical programs. I thought maybe he wouldn't want to comment, seeing he has to work with the network. He said:
"No, I can comment. They have funding to protect and they do want to avoid controversy. And I have some sympathy for that, but not when they fold so quickly. Getting a historian to criticize "Prairie Giant" and not even letting the film makers see or respond to charges made there…." He left the end of his sentence hanging.
Later he said, "Maybe I’m not surprised, because I know broadcasters have their own agendas when controversy arises. But they should realize that these subjects are controversial, and if they are not prepared for controversy, they should not get involved. I’m disappointed by the CBC in the "Prairie Giant" situation.
Yeah, me too. I'd love to see debate about "October 70" (Grigsby said he'd welcome it, too) -- but would it mean the CBC would simply yank the thing from circulation? Maybe we'll keep following this here.
The Robertson case
“The central issue on this appeal is whether newspaper publishers are entitled as a matter of law to republish in electronic databases freelance articles they have acquired for publication in their newspapers — without compensation to the authors and without their consent. In our view, they are not.”
That's the key passage in yesterday's Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the case of Heather Robertson vs The Globe & Mail. They did it. She said they had no right to. They said, sue me. She did, and the court found for her.
Most of the coverage is going to tell you this is a new-technology case, and indeed several of the judges thought it was. It's a lot more simple than that, and that sentence sums up what matters. If a work goes on selling, those who provided the value in the first place are entitled to a share of the revenue.
Those who tell you there's a public-access issue at stake here, they have another agenda they are pushing. Even if they are judges.
That's the key passage in yesterday's Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the case of Heather Robertson vs The Globe & Mail. They did it. She said they had no right to. They said, sue me. She did, and the court found for her.
Most of the coverage is going to tell you this is a new-technology case, and indeed several of the judges thought it was. It's a lot more simple than that, and that sentence sums up what matters. If a work goes on selling, those who provided the value in the first place are entitled to a share of the revenue.
Those who tell you there's a public-access issue at stake here, they have another agenda they are pushing. Even if they are judges.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Buying Leaderships
I'm tired of these stories unearthing bad behaviour in the Liberal leadership race. Did Joe Volpe's team put some dead guys on the membership lists? Did Ignatieff subsidize some memberships?
My problem is, these investigations make it seem as if a generally clean process is being marred by some regrettable wrong-doings.
Let's remember, it's a vote-buying competition. Votes are called memberships, they cost $10, and winning depends on ensuring your supporters have bought the most.
To that end, I liked the Globe & Mail story on the weekend (I'd link, but it's probably behind a paywall) about the Alberta Conservative leadership race. No hypocrisy there, no effort to discourage zealots from vote-buying too fast or anything like that. You can raise all the money you like, spend it any way you please, dump down bagsfull of memberships right up to the eve of the voting.
In both races, the leadership is for sale. The Albertans just seem more proud of the fact
My problem is, these investigations make it seem as if a generally clean process is being marred by some regrettable wrong-doings.
Let's remember, it's a vote-buying competition. Votes are called memberships, they cost $10, and winning depends on ensuring your supporters have bought the most.
To that end, I liked the Globe & Mail story on the weekend (I'd link, but it's probably behind a paywall) about the Alberta Conservative leadership race. No hypocrisy there, no effort to discourage zealots from vote-buying too fast or anything like that. You can raise all the money you like, spend it any way you please, dump down bagsfull of memberships right up to the eve of the voting.
In both races, the leadership is for sale. The Albertans just seem more proud of the fact
American Knowledge
The New Yorker of October 9 has a story by Mark Singer about an American convict, Richard McNair, who constantly escapes from prison. A tip takes our author to British Columbia. He rents a car in Vancouver and drives inland to Penticton.
Penticton surprises him. He discovers the city is not "an outpost in wild, inhospitable territory."
Singer has followed his subject to places like Minot, North Dakota, Ball, Louisiana, and Duncan, Oklahoma. He's been to the sinkholes of American primitivism and backwardness. And yet his astonishment is clear. Imagine, he exclaims, civilization north of the border!
What is the source of this bone-deep ignorance Americans have?
Penticton surprises him. He discovers the city is not "an outpost in wild, inhospitable territory."
Singer has followed his subject to places like Minot, North Dakota, Ball, Louisiana, and Duncan, Oklahoma. He's been to the sinkholes of American primitivism and backwardness. And yet his astonishment is clear. Imagine, he exclaims, civilization north of the border!
What is the source of this bone-deep ignorance Americans have?
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Radio Thanksgiving
Sunday morning I'll be talking the history of Canada's Thanksgiving with Warren Pierce on ABC Radio's "The Warren Pierce Show," AM 740, heard in 36 states and a decent chunk of Canada too. I'm doing it, happily, from a cottage on the Niagara Escarpment high above Georgian Bay -- in the midst of the fall colours, I hope and trust.
We all know an October Thanksgiving is much better than that late-November middle-of-the-Christmas rush thing the Americans have to put up with. But did you know ours was only fixed on the second Monday in October in 1957?
We all know an October Thanksgiving is much better than that late-November middle-of-the-Christmas rush thing the Americans have to put up with. But did you know ours was only fixed on the second Monday in October in 1957?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
B.C. - What Archivists Do
Working in British Columbia this week (beautiful late summer weather in October), I got to spend a day in what must be the most beautiful archives in Canada, the B.C. Archives in Victoria. It's part of the BC Museum complex, tucked in between the Legislature and the Empress Hotel right by the Inner Harbour. If researchers need distraction they can watch the ducks on the pond outside the reading room. Only the reading room at Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa, with its spectacular view of the Ottawa River, can match that.
I was following a complicated trail of just what records had been kept and what discarded from one particular B.C. public institution, so the archivists presented me with a fat binder that holds the procedures for managing that record set. I'm always amused at the way people talk of "dusty archives" and imagine them full of old documents handwritten on vellum. Most archives are record management centres, and once again I was struck by the complexity and sophistication of the intellectual control processes archivists use every day. One thing few people realize about records management: much of what the archivists do is deciding what records to delete. Nope, it ain't a matter of filing everything.
Thanks BC archives folk -- I appreciated all the help.
I was following a complicated trail of just what records had been kept and what discarded from one particular B.C. public institution, so the archivists presented me with a fat binder that holds the procedures for managing that record set. I'm always amused at the way people talk of "dusty archives" and imagine them full of old documents handwritten on vellum. Most archives are record management centres, and once again I was struck by the complexity and sophistication of the intellectual control processes archivists use every day. One thing few people realize about records management: much of what the archivists do is deciding what records to delete. Nope, it ain't a matter of filing everything.
Thanks BC archives folk -- I appreciated all the help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)