Canada's historians are more lost than they realize
Objectivity used to be a goal in historical scholarship. Yet a number of academics now believe that objectivity is itself a political smokescreen that merely supports an oppressive status quo.
Objectivity used to be a goal in historical scholarship. Yet a number of academics now believe that objectivity is itself a political smokescreen that merely supports an oppressive status quo.
Anecdotes of oppression are the new national narrative—a story of Canada as a settler colonial nation, steeped in a racist history, whose people have been oppressed, and whose even ostensibly positive policies like official multiculturalism merely hide exclusionary tendencies. Patriotism has become politicized.
The uniformity of expertise might be less worrisome if we could trust that experts valued truth ahead of politics. But that’s not the case. We know just how ideologically insulated our sources of so-called expertise have become.
1867 & All That is a lively and riveting romp through some of the most important stories from Canadian political history.
Historical analogies can’t solve our problems but they can be instructive. What can the 1938 Munich Agreement teach us about our current geopolitical crises?
If ever there was a sign that we are spending too much time indoors away from genuine human contact, it is the idea that of all the countries in the world, Canada is the one with such an outrageous history of violence and oppression that we ought to cancel the annual national holiday.
In a culture that sees social expectations as a form of oppression, can we really expect everyone to wake up in the morning of our pandemic present and suddenly agree that we are all in it together?