The Tyee posts an interview with Daniel Francis about his new book on Vancouver, and since it's an interview with Dan Francis, it becomes as much about the nature of history as about the history of Vancouver. Book and interview, both worth reading.
History really is an argument about the past. It’s about contention. There’s nothing unhealthy about historical dispute and historical debate. [History’s] role is not to console us and remind us of great achievements. That’s part of it. But it’s [also] to welcome opposing points of view and to debate them.
[...]
I guess, at certain points of time, it seems that if you’re reinterpreting history, you’re somehow attacking the country, attacking its notions of itself. This is a position that I don’t agree with, but apparently this is a position that many people hold — that we can’t have a complicated history. That there’s a single history, the single story to be told, and the purpose of studying history is to sort of celebrate the country, rather than to explain it. It’s usually people in power who want to use history to buttress the prevailing view of the country.
I was recently reading the 2021 biography of Mackenzie Bowell, the prime minister from the 1890s, and I found the author, Barry K. Wilson, wrapping up his preface by quoting me as saying "History is not the past. History is an argument about the past." I recognize the phrase as my own, and appreciated the reference. But damned if I can remember where I published it for Wilson to find.
Now I wonder if even at the time, maybe I was innocently paraphrasing Dan Francis.
Update January 29: Dan tells me I'm too modest. Would it be boasting for me to agree?
And I got in touch with Barry Wilson about his source, and he admits he cannot find it either.
