Canadian History Interpreting the Slant

Canadian History

Interpreting the Slant of History

The three articles: Ramsay Cook, "1942 and All That: Making a Garden out of Wilderness"; Alan Gordon, "Heroes, History, and Two Nationalisms: Jacques Cartier" and Ken Coates and William Morrison, "Winter and the Shaping of Northern History: Reflections from the Canadian North" have several commonalities, including the theme that history is slanted by the bias of the historian. Historians cannot help but be influenced by their own biases and it shows in their writing. Sometimes it is purposely slanted to suit the needs of the time: public, political or personal. While history is always filtered through the biases of the writer, it is sometimes even written to accomplish a particular purpose. Our modern culture places a high value on objective reporting, but the culture of the 17th and 18th centuries placed an even higher value on entertainment. Thus the many exaggerations of the writers of the time often went unnoticed and unchallenged.

In 1942 and All That: Making a Garden out of Wilderness, Ramsay Cook shows how historians and clergy shows how early settlers and other visitors to the Canadian North failed to adjust to it, because they brought along their own notions of the superiority of European culture and technology to the indigenous first nations people.

Many clergy and historians of religious persuasion saw the indigenous populations as inferior, because they had not developed technology. What they failed to note was that the first nations people, in this case the Micmac, actually had very good lives before the Europeans arrived. They had everything they needed for safety and comfort by working about 15 hours per week. Historians of the time also blamed the life style of the Micmac for the disease which ravaged and decimated the population. Cook states that Europeans could not see the value of the native ways, and assumed they were unhappy, since they neither cultivated nor build permanent homes.

Other misconceptions of the then current historians were that the evils of polygamy caused the heathen to be punished for their sins. What they did not see was that plural marriage had sustained the population in a wilderness which was difficult to survive, even for the Micmac. Europeans of the time wanted to civilize the Micmac to save their souls and improve their lives. The historians of the time romanticized the "noble svage" on the one hand and deplored the fact that even with the most devout teaching, the Micmac reverted to their original way of life as soon as the settlers turned their backs.

The Micmac were characterized as savage and heathen, while the settlers killed wildlife indiscriminately, taking more than could possibly be consumed. The settlers lived in the environment while the Micmac were a pert of it. The historians constantly compared gardens to heaven and wilderness to hell, Micmac to evil savages and their benefactors to saints. The free life style of the natives was seen both as a sign of their evil and its cause. The settlers had dreams of turning New France into a biological and spiritual garden. They wanted to push back the wilderness and "civilize" the land and its people.

The second article: Heroes, History, and Two Nationalisms: Jacques Cartier by Alan Gordon shows us how historians and politicians and other leaders can twist or even rewrite history about people to serve as heroes. The public identifies with heroes, so they become extremely useful to mold public opinion. The people of Quebec, both English and French, were united by the heroic depiction of Jacques Cartier, who was portrayed as the Catholic missionary to the pagan natives and the parallel to Christopher Columbus for Canada. He was neither of these, but history was rewritten with the useful slant they needed. Celebrations were created and Jacques Cartier became a hero and part of every St. Jean Batiste Day. Even poets added to this creation of a national hero in Jacques Cartier.

One thing we might note for Gordon's writing is that he used quite a lot of French quotation and commented on it, but never supplied the translation. Having read the French quotes I determined that they added meaning to the article, so I do not really understand why he did not translate them. The title mentions two nations, and this was, perhaps, one way of emphasizing their differences. However, one questions his "oversight."

The third writing is possibly the most telling in that it suggests that Canadians adopted the romanticization of the Northern Winter as a symbol of their national character. The severity of the weather was seen as responsible for producing a robust and courageous people in contrast to the weak and simpering southern neighbors in the warmer climate of the United States. It is interesting to note that the writers of the early colonization of Canada and the people who lived there all exaggerated the extreme weather and the dangers. In spite of this stretching of the truth, it is a reality that the northern climate has shaped Canadian culture in a very profound way. Business is seasonal, populations are somewhat migratory and social lives revolve around the changing seasons. We have even named a particularly northern affliction that used to be simply "cabin fever": SAD (seasonal affective disorder) caused by the low light of Canadian winters. So the romantic history of survivors in the great white north has become our Canadian identity.

What all these writings share is the idea that history is written by people, and is never totally objective or valid. When we read (or write) historical documents, we need to look Also at the surrounding culture, the background of the writer and the social structures and politics of the time. It is true that history of wars is written by the winners, so the losers always become the evil aggressors and the winners the champions of the people.