Some Toronto historians will host a seminar on "Active History: History for the Future" at Glendon College (part of York University) on September 27-28 next fall. It is, they say, a "symposium designed to bring together university-based and community-based historians interested in assessing the ways in which historians engage with communities beyond the academy. ... How do, and how can, historical investigations of the past transform both historians and communities in the present and future?"
Well, damned if I know, but I like the question.
The organizers define "active history" as "history that listens and is responsive; history that will make a tangible difference in people's lives; history that makes an intervention and is transformative to both practitioners and communities. We seek a practice of history that emphasizes collegiality, builds community among active historians and other members of communities, and recognizes the public responsibilities of the historian."
Historians "with multiple perspectives on active history" inside or outside the academy are invited to propose presentations (by April 10) to Jim Clifford in the History department at York or at cljim22@gmail.com
Monday, March 31, 2008
Champlain graphic novel? Nice
My e-friend John Grubber, a teacher and graphic artist in Sudbury, is working on a graphic novel of Samuel de Champlain. He's sent along an image from it. John takes his inspiration, he says, from C.W. Jeffreys and Calvin and Hobbes, which sounds like genius, for these must be two artists never before mentioned in association with each other. The graphic historical novel has weight these days, Chester Brown's Louis Riel of a few years ago being the notable Canadian example.
Friday, March 28, 2008
History of Alex Colville's War Art
Paul Kemp of Stornoway Film has a new film on Alex Colville's work as a war artist. On Bravo, this Sunday at 8.00 pm
Watch the trailer? It's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9MdTQ_QFQ
Watch the trailer? It's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9MdTQ_QFQ
Thursday, March 27, 2008
History Site: Ultimate Canadian History
Neil Ross, the funniest guy in history, drew my attention to this Canadian history site from a young teacher in northern British Columbia who was inspired by the challenges of teaching Social Studies 10. Worth a look.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
History of Treaties: KI Platinex
The idea that blogs will supplement or replace the failings of older media seems to be disproved again. I find only very thin blog coverage of the dispute that has seen five men and one woman, all elected councillors of a northwestern Ontario First Nations, jailed for their efforts to assert First Nations rights against a junior mining company called Platinex and the government of Ontario. (Not much in the press either, for that matter.)
KI First Nation, 600k north of Thunder Bay, adhered to James Bay Treaty 9 in 1929. It's a typically draconian treaty of that era (text here), with much language on the lines of "cede, release, surrender, and yield up... all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever."
But Treaty 9 also confirms that the First Nations signatories shall have the right to continue their traditional vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing "throughout the tract surrendered." It's true that the right is "subject to regulation" and tracts taken up for, among other things, "mining" are exempt. But the right to hunt, trap, and fish must mean something that non-natives have to respect.
Platinex wanted to do exploratory drilling near the KI reserve. KI observed that it holds the right to hunt, trap and fish there and the drilling would render that right impossible to implement. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly pronounced that First Nations have a right to be consulted on activities on lands covered by treaties.
But Platinex operates under the provisions of the Ontario Mining Act, which is written as if the treaties did not exist and permits almost unlimited mining activity on "crown land". In court, Ontario defends the authority of its Mining Act, and the courts find repeatedly that the Mining Act must be obeyed -- again, as if the treaty did not exist or as if the rights the treaty guarantees to the native peoples had no standing that courts need to observe. Once again, we see Ontario judges speaking sternly about the rule of law -- but seeming to cherrypick which laws they will rule on.
The James Bay Treaty 9, most unusually, had an Ontario representative sitting with the federal officials. The treaty binds Ontario as well as Ottawa, as well as the First Nations. Why don't the courts ever consider jailing anyone representing Ontario for their failure to observe their treaty obligations?
There's a problem here, God knows. But jailing First Nations representatives because they assert treaty rights against provincial mining regulations? What have we come to in a country said to observe the rule of law? Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, calls it colonialist law. "Settlers' justice" comes to mind too.
KI First Nation, 600k north of Thunder Bay, adhered to James Bay Treaty 9 in 1929. It's a typically draconian treaty of that era (text here), with much language on the lines of "cede, release, surrender, and yield up... all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever."
But Treaty 9 also confirms that the First Nations signatories shall have the right to continue their traditional vocations of hunting, trapping, and fishing "throughout the tract surrendered." It's true that the right is "subject to regulation" and tracts taken up for, among other things, "mining" are exempt. But the right to hunt, trap, and fish must mean something that non-natives have to respect.
Platinex wanted to do exploratory drilling near the KI reserve. KI observed that it holds the right to hunt, trap and fish there and the drilling would render that right impossible to implement. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly pronounced that First Nations have a right to be consulted on activities on lands covered by treaties.
But Platinex operates under the provisions of the Ontario Mining Act, which is written as if the treaties did not exist and permits almost unlimited mining activity on "crown land". In court, Ontario defends the authority of its Mining Act, and the courts find repeatedly that the Mining Act must be obeyed -- again, as if the treaty did not exist or as if the rights the treaty guarantees to the native peoples had no standing that courts need to observe. Once again, we see Ontario judges speaking sternly about the rule of law -- but seeming to cherrypick which laws they will rule on.
The James Bay Treaty 9, most unusually, had an Ontario representative sitting with the federal officials. The treaty binds Ontario as well as Ottawa, as well as the First Nations. Why don't the courts ever consider jailing anyone representing Ontario for their failure to observe their treaty obligations?
There's a problem here, God knows. But jailing First Nations representatives because they assert treaty rights against provincial mining regulations? What have we come to in a country said to observe the rule of law? Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, calls it colonialist law. "Settlers' justice" comes to mind too.
Monday, March 24, 2008
McGoogan, Franklin, John Rae at Hot Docs
Hot Docs, billed as North America's leading festival of documentary film, runs in Toronto this year April 17 to 28. Info at www.hotdocs.ca
Among the premieres: Halifax filmmaker John Walker's Passages, inspired by Ken McGoogan's John Rae biography Fatal Passage. I hear it's an interesting film. I also hear it's a fully acted, fully-scripted drama. But who's to set the bounds of documentary film, anyway?
Among the premieres: Halifax filmmaker John Walker's Passages, inspired by Ken McGoogan's John Rae biography Fatal Passage. I hear it's an interesting film. I also hear it's a fully acted, fully-scripted drama. But who's to set the bounds of documentary film, anyway?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
History is where you find it, even in Report on Business
Neil Reynolds, the well-informed paleo-capitalist in the Report on Business, muses today in his column about the constitutional significance of Dan McTeague's recent private member's bill to make educational savings tax-deductible. Reynolds observes that in the parliamentary tradition, the introduction of money bills has long been a prerogative of the cabinet, and that parliamentary government can hardly be carried on on any other basis.
It's an interesting argument, and historical discussion in the RoB needs to be savoured whenever found. Reynolds ponders parliamentary precedents set down in the day of good Queen Anne and observed in Lord Durham's report and the British North America act.
Reynolds is on to something important, but he takes his point a mile too far. He seems to think that the money-bill principle authorizes the cabinet to override the legislature -- a most unparliamentary notion. (Indeed, he calls for all involved in McTeague's bill to be haled off to some kind of monarchist Gitmo.)
The government does have a monopoly on the introduction of money bills, but it enforces that monopoly by confidence. If the house takes steps that may cost money, the executive can make it a confidence motion. And if the executive lacks the confidence of the house, the money matter is moot anyway -- the executive will have to go.
Reynolds misstates the Canadian experience in the 1830s. It was because the executive in Canada in those days was exempted from needing the confidence of the legislature, that the legislative members, unable to throw out or control bad cabinets, had to resort to acting like a cabinet themselves, directing the spending of the tax money they alone could raise. Responsible government in 1848 cured for that problem, by establishing the government's accountability.
Confidence eventually took care McTeague's bill. Had the government being paying attention, it could have stopped the bill at its introduction. Instead it missed the whole thing and had to invoke confidence at a second go-round. Once again, rumours of a constitutional crisis are exaggerated; the parliamentary system is an old and supple one, and has dealt with most of these problems before.
Still, a column worth reading.
Late update: Today March 20 in the Letters column, Dan McTeague offers his own correction. It was never a money bill, and did not fall under the constitutional provision. But it still seems to me the confidence test remains the vital one.
And Later: Neil Reynolds took up the same subject in a second column Friday, March 21 -- and a third on March 26 (find 'em at www.globeandmail.com). My text above has been corrected: he's Reynolds, not McReynolds.
It's an interesting argument, and historical discussion in the RoB needs to be savoured whenever found. Reynolds ponders parliamentary precedents set down in the day of good Queen Anne and observed in Lord Durham's report and the British North America act.
Reynolds is on to something important, but he takes his point a mile too far. He seems to think that the money-bill principle authorizes the cabinet to override the legislature -- a most unparliamentary notion. (Indeed, he calls for all involved in McTeague's bill to be haled off to some kind of monarchist Gitmo.)
The government does have a monopoly on the introduction of money bills, but it enforces that monopoly by confidence. If the house takes steps that may cost money, the executive can make it a confidence motion. And if the executive lacks the confidence of the house, the money matter is moot anyway -- the executive will have to go.
Reynolds misstates the Canadian experience in the 1830s. It was because the executive in Canada in those days was exempted from needing the confidence of the legislature, that the legislative members, unable to throw out or control bad cabinets, had to resort to acting like a cabinet themselves, directing the spending of the tax money they alone could raise. Responsible government in 1848 cured for that problem, by establishing the government's accountability.
Confidence eventually took care McTeague's bill. Had the government being paying attention, it could have stopped the bill at its introduction. Instead it missed the whole thing and had to invoke confidence at a second go-round. Once again, rumours of a constitutional crisis are exaggerated; the parliamentary system is an old and supple one, and has dealt with most of these problems before.
Still, a column worth reading.
Late update: Today March 20 in the Letters column, Dan McTeague offers his own correction. It was never a money bill, and did not fall under the constitutional provision. But it still seems to me the confidence test remains the vital one.
And Later: Neil Reynolds took up the same subject in a second column Friday, March 21 -- and a third on March 26 (find 'em at www.globeandmail.com). My text above has been corrected: he's Reynolds, not McReynolds.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Candy to Schoolkids
In 1858 the separate British colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (the latter meaning the mainland) were united as British Columbia. So this year British Columbia celebrates one of those sesqui-things, a 150th anniversary.
I lived in BC in 1958 and I was just old enough that I remember the centenary.
In fact British Columbia did it up pretty big, big enough for a child to remember. Margaret Ormsby wrote an enormous history of the province. Someone actually came up with a cartoon mascot, the kind you would think were only invented for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Century Sam, a cheery gold-rush miner. Did he have a wife, Century Sandy?
What I remember, or think I remember, is that in 1958 the province gave every child a keepsake of the centennial year. And what it was, was a little tin box, with Century Sam (and his lady?) printed on it... and filled with candy. Seems to me we had those boxes around my parents' houses for decades.
Could this be right? Would they really give candy to schoolkids to celebrate a provincial centenary? It has a wonderful nostalgic politically incorrect glow for me.
Anyone out there remember?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Champlain in the news
John Allemang in the Globe & Mail has a long feature on Samuel de Champlain. He talked to a lot of people and gathered a lot of information. But the piece is shaped and, I think, marred by both the newspaper writer's wish to puncture official-history pomposity and the academic historians' penchant for debunking and minimizing.
Allemang wants us to believe Champlain was less important than the "official" narrative insists. He was just the local manager, Allemang says at one point, or he was only interested in China anyway, as one of his interviewees says on very limited evidence. Provocative? Well, mistaken too, I think. The merchants controlled what Champlain could do, certainly, but the merchants were not committed to colonizing -- to staying. Champlain clearly was committed to staying and to getting the French crown behind that commitment. I think Allemang and his interviewees mislead. The thing would not have stuck without him. Champlain was that central.
Best interviewee? Looks like Conrad Heidenreich to me, who has actually been reading Champlain intensely in recent years.
Allemang wants us to believe Champlain was less important than the "official" narrative insists. He was just the local manager, Allemang says at one point, or he was only interested in China anyway, as one of his interviewees says on very limited evidence. Provocative? Well, mistaken too, I think. The merchants controlled what Champlain could do, certainly, but the merchants were not committed to colonizing -- to staying. Champlain clearly was committed to staying and to getting the French crown behind that commitment. I think Allemang and his interviewees mislead. The thing would not have stuck without him. Champlain was that central.
Best interviewee? Looks like Conrad Heidenreich to me, who has actually been reading Champlain intensely in recent years.
Darwin exhibit again
I noted last week the great Darwin exhibit and the ROM's inability to find sponsors for it.
The exhibit now has two. The Humanist Association, and the United Church Observer.
Kudos to them. Makes me wish some publishing house or media organization with an interest in freedom of thought would have come in to support the principle. Even a university... they seem to have limitless marketing budgets.
The exhibit now has two. The Humanist Association, and the United Church Observer.
Kudos to them. Makes me wish some publishing house or media organization with an interest in freedom of thought would have come in to support the principle. Even a university... they seem to have limitless marketing budgets.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Champlain Portal
A Samuel de Champlain aggregation of materials now growing at The Champlain Portal.
And this is my other fort Garry
Okay, it's like this: the confluence of the Assiniboine and the Red Rivers in southern Manitoba has always been a central place in that part of the world. The Red River settlements focussed on it from 1812. On the east side of the Red there was (and is) St-Boniface. On the west side, and north of the Assiniboine, there was Fort Garry, home base of the HBC company. Except when the fort and most all else flooded out in 1826, the HBC moved Fort Garry to the south, farther up the Red River.
That fort, which largely survives, is a national historic site, place you can visit, etc. That's Lower Fort Garry.
Y'see, the HBC still needed a place at that Red-Assiniboine junction, and so it built Fort Garry II: Upper Fort Garry.
Now I thought there used to be Upper Fort Garry and then Winnipeg arose on top of it and the fort vanished. Indeed most of it was demolished around 1883. But a gate survives and the site is there. Now somebody wants to build an apartment block on it. And the Friends of Upper Fort Garry are rallying to save what they can. There's serious fundraising required. It's controversial in Winnipeg. Friends of Upper Fort Garry have a nice website here.
That fort, which largely survives, is a national historic site, place you can visit, etc. That's Lower Fort Garry.
Y'see, the HBC still needed a place at that Red-Assiniboine junction, and so it built Fort Garry II: Upper Fort Garry.
Now I thought there used to be Upper Fort Garry and then Winnipeg arose on top of it and the fort vanished. Indeed most of it was demolished around 1883. But a gate survives and the site is there. Now somebody wants to build an apartment block on it. And the Friends of Upper Fort Garry are rallying to save what they can. There's serious fundraising required. It's controversial in Winnipeg. Friends of Upper Fort Garry have a nice website here.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Today in Parliament 1848
I've been posting under this heading since February 25. Today's the wrap.
To recap: Canada had had parliamentary elections since 1792 (Nova Scotia since 1758), but the powers of the elected house had always been limited. Governors continued to name their own councils (or cabinets) and to exercise independent authority.
In January 1848 reformers, who had denied access to the governors' councils pretty much forever, swept the legislative elections in the united provinces of Canada (today's Quebec and Ontario, more or less). The house met on February 25. On March 3, the reform majority ensured that the House rejected the government's legislative program as set out in the Speech from the Throne.
This could have been trivial. Governors and cabinets had never before been bound by the will of the legislature; governors had always insisted on choosing their own advisors. But this time the government chosen by the Governor General resigned from office.
Between March 3 and March 11, Governor General Lord Elgin consulted with parliamentarians. Today, March 11, he swore into office Louis-Hypolitte LaFontaine's government, a reform party government. He accepted the reformers' fundamental principle: that the Governor must always act on the advice of a cabinet accountable to the people's elected representatives. The Lieutenant Governor in Nova Scotia had done the same thing on March 2. It's been that way ever since. March 2 and 11, 1848 are when parliamentary democracy became operative in Canada.
I see John Ralston Saul is writing about this event in today's Globe & Mail. But they have paywalled it.
Late update: I was thinking they were on the same calendar as us. 1848 was a leap year, indeed. But March 11 was a Saturday, that year -- they were working weekends!
And later: Reader Timothy notes that John Ralston Saul's article is available from his website johnralstonsaul.com here
To recap: Canada had had parliamentary elections since 1792 (Nova Scotia since 1758), but the powers of the elected house had always been limited. Governors continued to name their own councils (or cabinets) and to exercise independent authority.
In January 1848 reformers, who had denied access to the governors' councils pretty much forever, swept the legislative elections in the united provinces of Canada (today's Quebec and Ontario, more or less). The house met on February 25. On March 3, the reform majority ensured that the House rejected the government's legislative program as set out in the Speech from the Throne.
This could have been trivial. Governors and cabinets had never before been bound by the will of the legislature; governors had always insisted on choosing their own advisors. But this time the government chosen by the Governor General resigned from office.
Between March 3 and March 11, Governor General Lord Elgin consulted with parliamentarians. Today, March 11, he swore into office Louis-Hypolitte LaFontaine's government, a reform party government. He accepted the reformers' fundamental principle: that the Governor must always act on the advice of a cabinet accountable to the people's elected representatives. The Lieutenant Governor in Nova Scotia had done the same thing on March 2. It's been that way ever since. March 2 and 11, 1848 are when parliamentary democracy became operative in Canada.
I see John Ralston Saul is writing about this event in today's Globe & Mail. But they have paywalled it.
Late update: I was thinking they were on the same calendar as us. 1848 was a leap year, indeed. But March 11 was a Saturday, that year -- they were working weekends!
And later: Reader Timothy notes that John Ralston Saul's article is available from his website johnralstonsaul.com here
Monday, March 10, 2008
Englishman's Boy
Anyone watch The Englishman's Boy, a two-part adaptation of Guy Vanderhaege's historical novel that wrapped up on CBC Television last night? (About 800,000 viewers; decent stats, apparently.) A blog search on the title mostly confirmed how boring and limited Canadian blogging is; not much about it and even less of interest. Best thing I saw was a link to Robert Fulford's review in the National Post. Dead-tree press wins again.
Must say it kept me watching. When I first read Guy's novel (Governor General's winner, 1996), I was absorbed in the 1873 Canadian west part and kinda skipped over the 1923 Hollywood part. Going back to it, it's been almost the other way round. I was surprised that how successfully the film yoked the two stories together. Spectacular western landscapes in the Cypress Hills, strong characterizations, no shortage of drama. Only slipped into convention with the Assiniboine camp. It looked like the camp of a million cowboy and Indian movies -- a hard convention to overcome, sure, but the "cowboy" part is so nicely original I wanted more.
Nicolas Campbell was good. Bob Hoskins too. It was good to see RH Thomson stretched beyond some of his familiar mannerisms. Michael Eisner (odd name for an actor!), who played the boy, was good in a tough part, since the boy of the novel is deep, silent, and tough.
Interesting to see how much the story was changed for the film, particularly since it's Vanderhaege's own script. Film needs a tidier, more conventional story arc than a novel, they must have concluded. Or maybe: we have Nicolas Campbell starring, so we better bulk up his part and give the climax to his character, even if it is at a rope's end.
It's directed with great skill by John N. Smith of Prairie Giant. Is some cracked historian is going to label it inaccurate and demand the CBC can the whole thing? Anyway, the DVD is coming soon; if you missed it, buy your copy before they have a chance to spike it.
Late update: it's a book about trauma, The Englishman's Boy. Westerns have the black hats and the white hats, good guys and bad guys, but they generally tell of conflicts resolved, about matters being settled at pistolmouth and rope's end by strong capable men. The story in The Englishman's Boy is about the damage done, the things left unresolved forever. It's about the traumatised survivors, about how they never got over how the west was won.
Must say it kept me watching. When I first read Guy's novel (Governor General's winner, 1996), I was absorbed in the 1873 Canadian west part and kinda skipped over the 1923 Hollywood part. Going back to it, it's been almost the other way round. I was surprised that how successfully the film yoked the two stories together. Spectacular western landscapes in the Cypress Hills, strong characterizations, no shortage of drama. Only slipped into convention with the Assiniboine camp. It looked like the camp of a million cowboy and Indian movies -- a hard convention to overcome, sure, but the "cowboy" part is so nicely original I wanted more.
Nicolas Campbell was good. Bob Hoskins too. It was good to see RH Thomson stretched beyond some of his familiar mannerisms. Michael Eisner (odd name for an actor!), who played the boy, was good in a tough part, since the boy of the novel is deep, silent, and tough.
Interesting to see how much the story was changed for the film, particularly since it's Vanderhaege's own script. Film needs a tidier, more conventional story arc than a novel, they must have concluded. Or maybe: we have Nicolas Campbell starring, so we better bulk up his part and give the climax to his character, even if it is at a rope's end.
It's directed with great skill by John N. Smith of Prairie Giant. Is some cracked historian is going to label it inaccurate and demand the CBC can the whole thing? Anyway, the DVD is coming soon; if you missed it, buy your copy before they have a chance to spike it.
Late update: it's a book about trauma, The Englishman's Boy. Westerns have the black hats and the white hats, good guys and bad guys, but they generally tell of conflicts resolved, about matters being settled at pistolmouth and rope's end by strong capable men. The story in The Englishman's Boy is about the damage done, the things left unresolved forever. It's about the traumatised survivors, about how they never got over how the west was won.
This is why we have public institutions
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto is now hosting the big Darwin and Evolution exhibition that has been a hit wherever it has played. One hears everywhere it's a superb example of what museums do -- great artifacts thoughtfully and artfully designed, much to see and think about, a huge historical subject made tangible.
The ROM's exhibit is going ahead without any corporate sponsorship. As a rule, the ROM would not open a diaper station without thirteen sponsors' logos all over it. But it could not find a single corporation willing to associate itself with... with evolution.
This is why we need public institutions that can make public choices. In an era when so little happens without corporate sponsorship, consider how much our world has already been dulled down and homogenized. Fortunately, some public institutions can still scrape together enough pennies to do the right thing once in a while.
If you have not already made the connection yourself, this is also why Ottawa should keep its fingers off the content of films to which it gives tax subsidies. If museums had to ask the politicians for permission for every new exhibit, we would never have seen the Darwin at the ROM. If museums, films, art, etc., are worth having, they are worth having without the strings.
Side note: from time to time this blog used to note good coverage of museums and museums policy in the Globe & Mail -- and the byline would always be Val Ross's, the late Val Ross's. Good to see Kate Taylor picking up that beat.
The ROM's exhibit is going ahead without any corporate sponsorship. As a rule, the ROM would not open a diaper station without thirteen sponsors' logos all over it. But it could not find a single corporation willing to associate itself with... with evolution.
This is why we need public institutions that can make public choices. In an era when so little happens without corporate sponsorship, consider how much our world has already been dulled down and homogenized. Fortunately, some public institutions can still scrape together enough pennies to do the right thing once in a while.
If you have not already made the connection yourself, this is also why Ottawa should keep its fingers off the content of films to which it gives tax subsidies. If museums had to ask the politicians for permission for every new exhibit, we would never have seen the Darwin at the ROM. If museums, films, art, etc., are worth having, they are worth having without the strings.
Side note: from time to time this blog used to note good coverage of museums and museums policy in the Globe & Mail -- and the byline would always be Val Ross's, the late Val Ross's. Good to see Kate Taylor picking up that beat.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Notre maitre l'opinion publique
There's a movement in Montreal to rename a Metro station in the neighbourhood where Oscar Peterson grew up as "Station Oscar-Peterson."
Right now it's called Station Lionel-Groulx, in honour of the early 20th century cleric, historian (Notre maitre le passé and much else), and prophet of the Quebec nation.
As someone says in the press today, Lionel Groulx is quite an important figure if you can leave aside the anti-semitism and the sympathy for fascism and all that. He's also, as far as I know, the only Canadian historian with his own subway stop. For the moment anyway.
Right now it's called Station Lionel-Groulx, in honour of the early 20th century cleric, historian (Notre maitre le passé and much else), and prophet of the Quebec nation.
As someone says in the press today, Lionel Groulx is quite an important figure if you can leave aside the anti-semitism and the sympathy for fascism and all that. He's also, as far as I know, the only Canadian historian with his own subway stop. For the moment anyway.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Global standards for neglect of heritage
In the U.S., they took one of those polls to test what American students don't know about American history. What don't they know? Well, just about everything. ("There was a civil war here?")
When we have those polls in Canada, we tend to blame some flaw in the national character. In the U.S., however, they blame it on George W. Bush.
And if we neglect our heritage because of that same character flaw, why are the Brits about to build a supermarket warehouse beside the superhighway that cuts through the site of Stonehenge?
When we have those polls in Canada, we tend to blame some flaw in the national character. In the U.S., however, they blame it on George W. Bush.
And if we neglect our heritage because of that same character flaw, why are the Brits about to build a supermarket warehouse beside the superhighway that cuts through the site of Stonehenge?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Gwyn Macdonald Taylor
History wins. Richard Gwyn today won the Charles Taylor prize in non-fiction for the first volume of his biography of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Today in Parliament 1848
To recap: the election in the province of the United Canada, completed in January 1848, gave Reformers a solid majority. The old ministry selected by the governor general decided to meet the legislature when it returned (as noted below for February 25). After the speech from the throne, Robert Baldwin for the reformers moved an amendment that constituted non-confidence in the governor's chosen cabinet.
The confidence motion was voted on today, March 3, 1848. The reformers won the vote 54-20.
Up to this point, only one Canadian governor had accepted the decision of a legislature and replaced his ministers with a new cabinet as a result of a vote of the elected legislature; in Nova Scotia Joseph Howe's reformers had taken power in January 1848. It remained to be established whether a pattern had been fixed.
The confidence motion was voted on today, March 3, 1848. The reformers won the vote 54-20.
Up to this point, only one Canadian governor had accepted the decision of a legislature and replaced his ministers with a new cabinet as a result of a vote of the elected legislature; in Nova Scotia Joseph Howe's reformers had taken power in January 1848. It remained to be established whether a pattern had been fixed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)