Reviewing notes

One of my neighbours occasionally gifts me a batch of his old Times Literary Supplements (and other publications, too  -- he's a very literate man). I was browsing through the May 15 issue of TLS recently and came across a recent review by the admirable British historian Richard J Evans of two recent books on German-Russian history during the 20th century.  Of one, he says.

Hellbeck is living in the past. To call his assertions a travesty is being too kind. One throws up one's hands when a university professor of history peddles such ignorant twaddle.

He does not like the other book much either. 

History of the atomic secret in Canad,a and Elon's grandpa

Mark Bourrie has a lively story in The Walrus about Elon Musk's grandfather Joshua Haldeman, who used to be a chiropractor in Saskatchewan, and how he almost leaked the secret of the atom bomb in 1944.

I liked it even more because we already had a story on this blog about Joshua Haldeman in 2023.  Not the bomb story, but quite a bit about other aspects of his history -- gleaned from Jill Lepore's journalism.

About that Tour de France

Tadej -- fifth time in a row.  Maybe the greatest?

Okay the Tour de France ended on Sunday.  Tadej Pogacar's dominance was such that much of the race was not very close, but apparently the shortened circuit around Paris on Sunday was pretty dramatic.  I missed it.

But it says "and the Tour de France in July" on the masthead of this blog.  Dedicated readers (well, maybe one or two) must be wondering where their grand tour news is.

Sorry, fellow Tour-ists.  I did not really watch much of the tour this year.  And went I went to catch up, I discovered my credit card info had expired and I was locked out.  Okay it was only a credit card update away, but I took it as a sign.  So far I have not renewed.

The thing about the Tour is it really takes a lot of time commitment.  If you don't watch multiple hours of coverage nearly every day for 21 days, you get hopeless out of touch with all the small dramas, the emerging personalities, the hidden rivalries -- and of course all the landscape scenery passing by.  

Somehow I used to be able to make time to do that -- for years -- and I always felt well rewarded.  But lately, there is not really a dominant Canadian to focus on.  I watched through the heydays of Ryder Hesjedal and Michael Woods, which covered quite a span.  But Derek Gee, currently the closest thing to a potential contender, has not been quite so present.  And all the teams and personalities I used to know have vanished.  I just don't seem to make the time investment to know what's going on with the Tour anymore.

So maybe Tour coverage next year -- or even the Vuelta this fall?  Come back to find out.  But I think it is fading. 

Canadian history?  A little politics?  Those should continue.  

Acadian Genealogy and Citizenship Part 2: a comment from Patrick Lacroix AND A BRIEF RESPONSE TOO

Patrick Lacroix, who is unfailingly interesting on Bluesky and on his blog Query the Past, has thoughts on my post of June 23 about the new options for those with ancestral connections to Canada to acquire Canadian citizenship:

I hope the summer finds you well! I imagine you are enjoying Tour de France coverage.

I read with interest your latest blog post. I have a special interest as director of the Acadian Archives in Fort Kent, Maine. Due to Bill C-3, the number of inquiries we received in the winter and spring easily set a new record for our institution. It was at times overwhelming—as it has been for other collecting institutions in both Canada and the United States.

The IRCC did itself and many applicants a disfavor by only updating its guidelines in June, about six months after Bill C-3 passed and became effective. Granted, I don't think anyone in Ottawa was prepared for the volume of inquiries that they would receive. It remains that many eligible people in the United States, using the broad guidelines available to them from the IRCC website, submitted applications that will ultimately be rejected through no fault of their own. Then, when resubmitting, they will have to wait an additional 19 months (the current processing time for U.S. applications).

The issue is not so much that the records are not Canadian. Some applicants are four or five generations (or more) removed from a Canadian ancestor. So, most of their paperwork documenting Canadian ancestry will come from U.S. sources—birth and marriage certificates issued by states. The sticking point comes with the new guidelines issued in June, specifically that "[y]our documents must be issued by the original authority that created or keeps the record." This is especially difficult for the colonial era and doubly so for Acadians. The IRCC seems to be sensitive to the fact that the civil registration of births and marriages only began in the 1880s and 1890s in most North American jurisdictions. Prior to that time, we are chiefly reliant on church records. But the original authorities for the colonial period are often no longer extant.

It seems obvious to us, in history, who are outside of the bureaucracy and looking in. But, if the Canadian government is really doing away with generational caps of any kind, it seems that the IRCC should have a team of historical consultants who can properly adjudicate the soundness of submitted documentation.

As for the rest ("Surely it would make sense for Canada to say that a Canadian connection that was interrupted almost 300 years ago should not entitle someone with no other connection to Canada to acquire Canadian citizenship"), I agree. I don't know that this eventuality ever crossed the minds of the folks who, when responding to the Ontario Superior Court ruling, drafted this piece of legislation. But some policymakers probably realized that they would tap into a well educated, highly skilled population that would benefit the Canadian workforce. For the most part, such are the folks who are contacting the Acadian Archives for assistance.

Always a pleasure to read you.

I have thanked Patrick and told him I will ponder all this and respond soon.  I posted based on a single newspaper article, and need to know more! 

Update, July 28.  Today is the 271st anniversary of the start of the Acadian deportation, I am told, so maybe an appropriate day to respond.  

Basically I was drawing on a single newspaper story for my post on this matter, and Patrick Lacroix is so far beyond me in understanding of the mechanics of Bill C-3, that I can't say much beyond thanking him for his comment here.

That and to endorse strongly his suggestion that  

it seems that the IRCC should have a team of historical consultants who can properly adjudicate the soundness of submitted documentation

Always amazing that people can think history is just something you might look up in Wikipedia once in a while. 

Still, the idea that is wise for Canada or any country to offer anyone citizenship on the basis of a multi-generational ancestral link centuries in the past is still one I have some difficulty grasping, no matter what documentation can be amassed.  Let's welcome immigrants who want to come here, and with less concern for the state of their great-grandmother's paperwork.

Acadian genealogists and citizenship by Ancestry.com WITH AN UPDATE

I believe I have some sort of entitlement-by-ancestry to Irish citizenship (and the European Union rights that would come with it).And Britain is so eager to claim me as British that I'm not even allowed to visit that country unless I make myself a British subject first.  But I have not sought either of those statuses, believing my Canadian passport should suffice.  

I'm not a fan of the trend to encourage people to collect multiple passports and citizenships -- including Canada's new openness to granting citizenship to foreigners with some distant Canadian ancestor adorning their family tree. If they will give you a second or third passport, eventually they will get in line to tax you, or conscript you, or something.

But Acadian genealogists and historians are claiming that if Canada is prepared to give citizenship to people with distant Canadian roots, they should apply their rules evenly -- and not throw out the Canadian documentation that foreign citizens with Acadian roots have been using to support their claim to Canadian citizenship.

Canada declares it will only accept Canadian documentation to prove Canadian ancestry.  Which seems fair.  But according to historian Maurice Basque and other Acadian historians and genealogists, Canada must accept Acadian parish registers that went south with Acadian deportees in 1755 as legitimate Canadian evidence, even if they have been held in Louisiana or French archives ever since.  

One of those whose citizenship certificate was suspended in June is an Acadian whose family settled in Louisiana, and has lived there since.

She received citizenship this year after the passing of the new federal law. 
But IRCC determined she may not be entitled to Canadian citizenship after all because she included in her application family records held in France and the U.S.

She had traced an ancestor born in 1730 in Acadia, sending IRCC their baptism certificate from Baton Rouge’s Archives and Records Center in Louisiana, which was an extract from the record of St. Charles Aux Mines Catholic Church in Acadia.

Surely it would make sense for Canada to say that a Canadian connection that was interrupted almost 300 years ago should not entitle someone with no other connection to Canada to acquire Canadian citizenship. But if the country has already made the commitment to unlimited ancestry, surely it has to be consistent about it.

Meanwhile, business for genealogical consultants (and document forgers, maybe) must be booming.  

UPDATE, 25 July 2026:  Toni Walker comments from Iowa: 

More to the point you could have just said "I don't want foreigners immigrating to MY country". Instead you wrote a blog post using many more words to say the same thing. Nothing else to write about that day?

Toni,  thank you for getting in touch. But either I have been spectacularly unclear or you have misunderstood the topic here. Actually I am vigorously in favour of 'foreigners immigrating to my country.'

There is barely an immigration issue here at all. Let me take another shot at this, and I hope you will bear with me.

Canada recently revised its citizenship rules (not its immigration rules) to make it easier for people who live in and hold citizenship in other countries -- but who have a Canadian grandparent or other family relation who once lived in Canada -- to apply for and receive Canadian citizenship in addition to whatever other citizenship they already hold.

I think it is fair to assume, and generally expected by those who amended the law, that most of those who pursue this path and acquire Canadian citizenship will remain living where they are and simply remain living where they are. For most it will be a second citizenship, perhaps a second passport, and a sentimental link to that remembered ancestor. 

No matter how many non-Canadians living in the USA or France or Poland or Australia or wherever acquire Canadian citizenship on the basis of their relationship to an ancestor who lived in Canada centuries ago, I doubt that more than a handful will want to move to Canada -- any more than the many proud Canadians who hold British or European or American or Israeli citizenships are about to move to those countries.

My post above was that having a three-hundred year old Canadian ancestor seems to me dubious grounds for citizenship, quite apart from the difficulties in assembling the evidence that would be needed to prove the relationship.   

As to immigration, I'd be delighted if people who do use the new ancestral grounds to gain Canadian citizenship also seek to immigrate here. Immigration is great for this country and always has been. Canada has been immeasurably enriched by immigration. I believe we should continue welcoming immigrants in large numbers -- and welcome those who have no ancestral connection to Canada as well as those who do.  

 

 

 

 

History of Bessie Borden

I recently caught the episode of Witness to Yesterday (Canada's busiest history-book podcast, I'd say) in which Donald Wright converses with Carmen Miller about Miller's book The Black Box: Lady Bessie Borden's Family 1863-1956, newly published by University of Toronto Press.

I might have left "Lady" out of the title. Any Canadian with Sir or Lady before their name seems distinctly passé in our times.  We don't have Australia's colourful phrase about a bunyip aristocracy. But we know that whole thing didn't work here either, despite the efforts of families like the Bordens.  The wrongest aphorism ever coined about Canadian history is Carl Berger's "[Canadian] Imperialism was a form of nationalism."  No, the belief that titled Canadians really could share in running Britain's empire for them always was a form of colonialism.

So I  would not rush instinctively to a book about the knights and ladies of the Borden family of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Nova Scotia and Ottawa (and London, England).  

But the podcast episode kept me listening throughout -- it's a lively interchange. Maybe we should read The Black Box. 

Carmen Miller had already published a book about Sir Frederick Borden, but he could not get much of a grasp of the personality behind the politician until a Borden descendent gave him a black box full of the personal papers of Fred's wife Bessie -- papers Miller says the archives he visited had never found worth acquiring. His conversation with Donald Wright nicely captures the surprises of archival research and the pleasures of family history. From the UTP blurb for the book:

In a remarkable tale of tragedy, war, family conflict, and imperial diplomacy, The Black Box presents a collective biography of four generations of women in an elite Nova Scotia family during the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century. These intelligent, educated, artistic women.... 

Listen and see if you have the same reaction -- and check out a hundred other CanHist conversations there.

History of place and Prince Edward Island

The Canadian Historical Association has published on its website the keynote address recently given at its annual general meeting in Charlottetown by Edward MacDonald, museologist, UPEI history professor, and public historian, on the subject of place in history.  It's a lively, thoughtful and pleasantly modest -- how often are historians modest? -- essay. MacDonald calls it "Reckoning With Place."

But the question I asked Andrew Nurse remains valid: what wisdom do I have to offer? Only the kind you can buy at any corner store. So, I’ve decided it is safest for me simply to remind you today of things that you already know. Then we can both feel smart! 

Modest as it may be, however, the essay offers testimony to how much good history has been done in and on Prince Edward Island in the last fifty years or so, with lessons worth noting by anyone who writes about places not their own. Detail matters. 

History of the Grimke family -- and the new book about them

Allan Levine draws my attention to a story in the New York Times about an emerging scandal in historical scholarship and publishing.

The Grimkes: The Legacy of Slavery in An American Family by Tufts University historian Kerry K. Greenridge starts with the Grimke sisters, Sarah and Angelina, daughters of a slave-owning plantation family in South Carolina who became famous for their abolitionist activity in the Northern states well before the Civil War.  But she also introduces the black Grimkes, who include three black sons of Sarah's and Angelina's plantation-owner brother; the three sons' mother, the enslaved woman Nancy Weston; and other black members of the extended Grimke family down to the twentieth century.

Published in 2024, The Grimkes became a much praised and widely read new study of slavery and freedom. Until lots of scholars of slavery began questioning the source notes for the book -- many of which they said could not be found in the cited archives -- and for uncredited borrowings from other historians.  Book and author are in trouble, the author is fighting back, and her university and publishers are distancing themselves from her. 

Full story in the New York Times: if I have done this right, non-subscribers to the Times should be able to access this gift link. 

A political scientist and a historian step up

I have mixed feelings about Substack and how it commodified and monetized the old blogosphere.  But my inbox today had three Canadian Substacks I was glad to see.

The historian turned security analyst Wesley Wark has a powerful piece on something Mark Carney might achieve, or at least try to achieve, at the NATO conference in Ankara: pull Orange Hitler back toward the side of Ukraine. ("Ballistic Terror wesleywark@substack.com)  

Wark had another powerful post yesterday, about the barbaric Russian destruction of the Mariupol Theatre and all the unhoused people sheltering in it

And a little closer to home, Emmett Macfarlane fulminates against the stupid and self-defeating decision of the prime minister to make the Canadian Senate once more a patronage house.  

Carney’s record so far is revealing. He has abandoned climate policy, he is cutting important institutions and programs, from mental health and disease prevention to international aid to Library and Archives Canada, and he plays partisan institutional games with the best of them. The 2025 election was framed around Justin Trudeau’s unpopularity. Once Trudeau resigned, voters surged to Carney, not only because of the Trump threat but because they didn’t want Pierre Poilievre. It’s becoming increasingly clear, that in avoiding Poilievre, Canadian voters did not get a Economist Party PM. What they got was basically Oxford-educated Stephen Harper.

Our CEO prime minister, a millionaire who has spent his career among billionaires, thinks anything he does not know already is not worth knowing, and in the process demonstrates his blinkered ignorance of the needs and requirements of parliamentary government.  Take a stick to him, Macfarlane. 

Macfarlane notes he has some insider status here -- he advised the Trudeau government on the non-partisan Senate ideas. For the details see his book on the Senate, Constitutional Pariah.  Probably the only good book ever written about the Senate.

I have some, well, adjacent if not inside claims here.  It has been suggested that my 1867 and Three Weeks in Quebec City established the idea (later taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada, that the only thing the confederation makers required of the senate was that it be weak.  See this article for a summary.

Historians in the news, mostly elsewhere

Globally, historians are having rather a moment, while maybe the political guys are somewhat in disarray.

Heather Cox Richardson and Timothy Snyder are among the wisest commentators on everything that is wrong with the United States of America these days.  Anne Applebaum is tops on developments in Europe  -- Snyder matters there too.  Phillips O'Brien has terrific insights into Ukraine's growing strength against Putin. 

Update, July 7:  Should add to the list Jill Lepore, who's so often good on American history, 

Canada not so much right now.  Look at the piffle our political analysts get away with:  they are regurgitating off the cuff ideas C.E.S. Franks first came up with in the 1960s as if they were scripture.

History of Winning

A pleasant thought to start the day with. While every one of the other thirty teams still contending for the World Cup is facing a tough ninety minutes in the next few days to see if they can qualify for the round of sixteen -- CANADA IS ALREADY THERE.  

'Course when the fifteen qualifying matches are done, fifteen teams will have joined Canada in the bracket. But they ain't there yet. And when they are, fifteen others will be going home. Not us. Not yet. 

Photo: Eustaquio scores oen. Globe and Mail

Read of the day: Wesley Wark on leaving NORAD

Historian and security analyst Wesley Wark has an (admittedly) provocative article up at The Walrus online today, setting out why Canada should be planning for the end of NORAD and for a new NATO-based security alliance for the North American and European north.  (Wark's childhood experiences, we discover, include some years spent at a NORAD base in Montana.)

Image: Stanley Kubrick, "Dr Strangelove."