Many adult Canadians feel a sense of connection to their own past. We can see this in the interest they take both in nonfiction books about Canadian history and in historical fiction set in Canada, the number of visits they make to historic sites, and their enthusiastic response to the appearance of the CBC's new series, Canada: A People's History. However, it was with the death of former prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, last Fall, that this interest became clearly evident. Not only was Trudeau's death accompanied by an outpouring of grief, but by immense public interest in events during his time as prime minister. Many "ordinary" citizens contributed their thoughts on these events in letters to the editor of newspapers, in calls to open-line radio shows, and in chats with strangers at bus stops. The shock of the October Crisis, and Trudeau's defiant response came back vividly. Pride in such a dynamic national leader, who actually had the nerve to do a pirouette behind the queen, was also there. But there was more to come. Within days of Trudeau's death, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced that he was going to rename Mount Logan (named after 19th Century geologist, Sir William Logan) in the Yukon after Trudeau. In spite of their grief, Canadians were outraged at this willful disregard for another Canadian who had also made important contributions to their country, although in another sphere. They were offended at the idea that one person could so easily be substituted for another and demanded that Trudeau be acknowledged in some other, more suitable, way. For anyone who was in doubt about the interest which adult Canadians have in their own history, these events must have been quite a surprise.
Younger Canadians do not seem to share this interest in the history of their own nation. They do not feel the same sense of connectedness to their past. We need to ask ourselves how we can make history more engaging for students.
I certainly agree with Ken Osborne (2000) that stories are a powerful way to capture student interest, make abstract ideas concrete, and "lead them to think about the present, and indeed the future." I was reminded, when I read Osborne's "Voices from the Past" column in the Fall 2000 issue of this journal, of a comment made by the education secretary of The Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, in the early years of the last century:
Let the boy roam with Hiawatha, sail the seas with Sinbad, build stockades with Crusoe, fight dragons with Jason, let him play at quoits with Odysseus and at football with Tom Brown. . . . he will learn to be brave, self-reliant, manly, thoughtful of others, straightforward, with his face toward the light. (quoted in Sheehan, 1990)
This view of the purpose of stories involves inspiring the imaginations of (male) students through the exploits of their heroes, whom they will wish to emulate, thereby acquiring their positive character traits. We no longer subscribe to this naïve view of teaching and learning; that students will acquire desirable character traits simply by reading about the people who exhibit them. However, we do credit stories, when carefully used, with promoting the development of historical empathy; that is the ability to imagine the world from the perspective of someone in an historical setting. Because stories explore the contexts in which people live their lives, as well as their motives and passions, and the consequences of their decision-making, they are particularly useful for helping students to achieve this.
Last year I attended a public presentation entitled "History, Memory, Heritage, Myth: What Should We Teach in School?" delivered by Peter Seixas from the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia. I do not have the space to discuss the presentation here. Suffice it to say that Peter eloquently made the point that the primary task of school history is to advance historical consciousness and he discussed approaches to achieving this. Pat Clarke, one of two respondents, and a social studies teacher with many years experience, agreed that this approach was very worthwhile, and he said that he tried to use it himself. However, he argued that the "unremitting pondering" advanced by Seixas was a safe, rationalist pedagogy which lacked romance. He said that the missing question which must come first and last is, "Why should I care?" In his view, it is necessary to infuse mythology into our history teaching in order to develop the romantic passion that is necessary for students to desire to change the world in which they find themselves.
We do have to be cautious about two things here. First, the connection between a romantic passion inspired by stories about the past and a desire to change injustices in the present may be tenuous at best. Such a connection cannot be assumed to exist, but must be nurtured. Second, we do not want to encourage students, either implicitly or explicitly, to simply accept such stories at face value. Part of the purpose of history teaching is to encourage students to question the stories which underlie their national mythology. As American historian, Veronica Boix-Mansilla (2000, p. 412) points out, "Frequently, stories about the past are dogmatically believed as part of a society's foundational myths or heritage." An excellent book, by Canadian popular historian, Daniel Francis (1997) debunks Canadian core myths surrounding such cultural icons as the CPR, the RCMP, and Canadian heroes. The book is called National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History. It is probably a "must-read" for anyone teaching about Canadian history.
Another way we can make history more engaging for students is to draw connections between past and present, to make history relevant to their contemporary concerns. This, after all, is how we often justify to students the need to learn history. We say that the past can inform the present. Here, again, we must exercise caution. Boix-Mansilla (2000) warns against making simplistic linkages between past and present. She describes a study in which eighth and ninth-graders compared the Holocaust with the Rwandan genocide of 1994. She says that it is useful to compare past and present as long as we don't use the past as a blueprint for interpreting the present. Rather, study of history can yield working hypotheses which can guide our examination of contemporary events. Also, students should not only be aware of differences between past and present, but exhibit a healthy skepticism about apparent similarities, which may not seem so similar once they are investigated more thoroughly.
Is there a place for stories and for making connections between the past and the present in history teaching? Of course. Stories can inspire the imagination and spark an interest in further investigation. Comparing the past and present can help students see the relevance for them in the study of the past. However, if stories are simply laid out unexamined for student consumption, then they can be misleading. They, like everything else we choose to use in the teaching of history, should be open for examination. It is important that students ask questions about them: What purposes does their telling serve? From whose point of view are they told? Whose perspectives are absent? Similarly, we need to avoid encouraging students to make simplistic connections between past and present by helping them to recognize the complexity inherent in this endeavor.
References
Boix-Mansilla, Veronica. 2000. 'Historical Understanding: Beyond the Past and Into the Present." In Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National and International Perspectives, ed. Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg, 390-418. New York: New York University Press.
Clarke, Pat. 2000. Response to "History, Memory, Heritage, Myth: What Should We Teach in School?" Vancouver, BC, January 26.
Francis, Daniel. 1997. National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press.
Osborne, Ken. 2000. "History as Storytelling." Canadian Social Studies 35(1).
www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css/Css_35_1
Seixas, Peter. 2000. "History, Memory, Heritage, Myth: What Should We Teach in School?" Presentation, Vancouver, BC, January 26.
Sheehan, Nancy. 1990. "Philosophy, Pedagogy, and Practice; The IODE and the Schools in Canada, 1900-1945." Historical Studies in Education 2: 307-321.