The issue of our national identity-just who we are and what we are about-has inspired much hand wringing in this country over the past 133 years. The incident which recently brought this question to the forefront of my mind was an article in The Washington Post, written by Steven Pearlstein, the Post's outgoing Canadian correspondent. In the article Pearlstein contends that, because Canada has never fought a civil war, never produced a great world leader, and never committed any "memorable atrocities," its history falls short of that which is required for the building of a national identity.
This is certainly an intriguing view of history. Apparently, Pearlstein considers a nation's history to be uninteresting, and even unworthy, if it does not include a great deal of blood, gore, death, and destruction. I shudder to consider what his attitude implies about how history teaching is approached in the United States, if he is a product.
In actual fact, we have had a bit of all three of the aforesaid criteria for a national identity. We may not have had a civil war, but we have had a rebellion or two. We have not launched any invasions, but when we have had to defend ourselves, we have done so. When the Americans marched onto our territory during their revolutionary war, or again during the War of 1812, we quickly disabused them of the notion that we were easy pushovers. During the first half of the twentieth century we supported our allies in two major world wars. During the latter half, we entered conflicts across the globe as peacemakers, an endeavor which is becoming increasingly perilous.
However, most of the time we have not been focused on war. While we have not had many warriors, we have produced world leaders in a multitude of other areas. In a recent Maclean's article, historians Jack Granatstein and Norman Hillmer (2000) offer a list of twenty-five Canadians who have made an international impact in a range of fields. Here are three examples. Lester Pearson, who pioneered the concept of international peacekeeping is one. Terry Fox, who showed what an individual with a cause can accomplish, and whose runs in 52 countries raise millions of dollars for cancer research every year, is another. Lucy Maud Montgomery, whose lyrical stories of life in Prince Edward Island have been published in 15 languages, is one as well. There are inventors, writers, musicians, a great physician, and a man who has established 100 communities for people with developmental disabilities in twenty-nine countries. There is little blood or gore. Actually, many of the people on this list could fairly be judged as rather stodgy. But their quiet accomplishments have made a difference in the world at large.
Political commentator, Charlotte Gray (1999) has explored the same theme. She suggests that we redefine our notions of heroism and greatness; pointing out that while Canadians have often taken an unassuming role in international affairs, they have, nonetheless, been effective. She mentions Louis Rasminsky, a Canadian economist who designed the International Monetary Fund in 1944. The Americans took credit for this feat because it was accomplished at the Breton Woods (New Hampshire) conference. She also points to "the Canadian ability to colonize a small area of artistry, and enlarge it into an important genre" (B5), using author, Alice Munro's work with short stories to support her thesis. She points out that Canadians have enriched the world with their special brand of humor; asking, "How did Canadians ever earn a reputation for being boring, when comedians are one of our greatest exports?" (B5). She points to Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes as an example of a comedian who uses humor in combination with a sense of social justice.
I must admit that Pearlstein is probably correct in saying that we have not committed any "memorable atrocities." However, I somehow suspect that this is a source of pride for most Canadians. I do not believe that we Canadians want to define ourselves by the number of wars in which we have fought, nor by the atrocities committed. While wars should not be ignored, neither should they be the highlight of our history teaching and our major source of pride.
One (although certainly not the only) of the purposes of teaching history in schools is to help students understand what makes their country different from other countries. We often ask what it is that makes us different from Americans. Perhaps Pearlstein's comments give us a hint as to what it is. Rather than take pride in violence and mayhem, we prefer to appreciate such qualities as our tolerance, our ability to compromise, and our compassion, which encourages us to provide for the weakest among us, and to reach out to such people in other parts of the globe.
Students need to consider these questions for themselves. Steven Pearlstein's article would make an excellent starting point for examination of just what it is in which they as Canadians choose to take pride and why.
References
Granatstein, J. and N. Hillmer. 2000. "Canadians Who Inspired the World." Maclean's, 4 September, 26-48.
Gray, C. 1999. "Challenge in Redefining Greatness." National Post, 21 August, B5.
Pearlstein, S. 2000. "O Canada! A National Swan Song?" The Washington Post, 5 September, A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com.