At the Kitchen Table: 1960s

Two historians of 20th century domesticity in Canada give you the dish on CBC’s Back in Time for Dinner!

 

Welcome back to part three of our mini-series reviewing CBC’s new show, Back in Time for Dinner!

 

Andrea’s Review

In the eight years that I have worked as a professor and a historian, I have embraced a very important philosophy in my work: get uncomfortable. I’ve long held that the key to truly learning is to both be uncomfortable and to lean into that discomfort. After all, if you’re not uncomfortable, you’re not really learning anything. Episode three of Back in Time for Dinner seems to confirm that the show is taking the opposite approach: a happy, familiar narrative that tugs on the heart strings.

That said, I do think that this was the strongest episode so far. Tristan continues to be an absolute gem, and her commentary on her experiences a highlight. The fact that she nailed Julia Child’s boeuf bourguignon on the first try was nothing short of epic. Jessica’s Centennial Cake was absolutely marvelous. Sharon and Bram were a lovely surprise, and while I had my doubts (I totally have a VHS of Sharon, Lois, and Bram taking us on a treasure hunt), I was totally blown away by their discussion of the subversive nature of folk/rap music. Sharon’s comment that we are still singing the same songs was, I felt, right on point. Also, I’m a sucker for mid-century modern design — I could live in that kitchen. And, of course, the most important part of the episode was Aaron’s discussion of the impact of the loss of Indian Status, resulting from gender discrimination in the Indian Act, particularly with respect to intergenerational trauma, the sundering of kinship and community networks, and the sense of dislocation many descendants’ experience (though I wish the show had done more to unpack this).

But while the show touched on a number of important topics, I felt that their handling was, nonetheless, depoliticized and toothless. One significant example is the discussion with Andrea O’Reilly on consciousness raising groups and feminism that seemed to reduce the women’s movement to a group of women sharing their experiences; the accompanying video was particularly misleading. To be fair, I do not blame O’Reilly for this, since it was not likely her call what made it into the final show. But the end result is that consciousness raising groups appeared to be much less subversive and radical than they really were. These weren’t simply instances of women gathering for tea and discussion, but rather, a coming together of women who had been part of student protest movements as part of the New Left, sharing their personal experiences in order to better understand the ways in which women were oppressed.

The same goes for their handling of the Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo 67. While I appreciate the fact that this pavillion was featured, they really glossed over how it worked as an act of resistance. While Indigenous leaders had little say in the design of the building itself, which ended up as a confusing mismash of building styles from a range of Indigenous communities, the artwork that decorated the exterior was done by a number of noted Indigenous artists, including George Clutesi (Nuu chah nulth), Noel Wuttunee (Plains Cree), Gerald Tailfeathers (Kainai), Ross Woods (Dakota), Alex Janvier (Dene Suline and Saulteaux), Tom Hill (Six Nations), Norval Morrisseau (Anishnaabek), Francis Kagige (Odawa), and Jean-Marie Gros- Louis (Huron/Wynadot). More impressive, and subversive, was the interior, which told the history of Indigenous and settler relations from the perspective of Indigenous peoples. It did not pull any punches, and was an extremely important statement, using art to speak to power, grounded within Indigenous ways of knowing, cultures, and traditions, while also demonstrating that the Indigenous peoples of Canada are modern peoples. You can even judge for yourself, since the NFB helpfully made a film about the pavilion, Indian Memento.  

Which brings me to my second issue, and that is the “slippage” between Canadian, American, and British culture. In other words, the show does not draw clear lines showing how Canadian, American, and British culture differed in this time period. For instance, the broadcast of American television shows in Canada was extremely controversial (see Matthew Hayday’s article on Sesame Street below). What’s more, I was dismayed to see that the show focused much more on the moon landing than on the Centennial or Expo. I mean, I’m sure those space balls were lovely, Carlo, but how did you folks miss talking about the new flag? That seems kinda like a big deal. And there was plenty of other stuff to talk about from this era! I would point to Meghan Beaton’s research on the Nova Scotia Highland Games and Folk Festival, the only Centennial event held in the Maritimes. The event was a dazzling display of imagined Scottish traditions, in a land where most of the people were actually descendants from American immigrants. And the one day folk festival that was tacked on at the end would have been a great opportunity to talk about how, as they alluded to in the bit about spaghetti dinners, certain ethnic groups “performed” aspects of their culture in a way that made the largely white spectators feel superior about their tolerance and inclusivity without having to critically consider racial hierarchies of power.

So the moral of the story is, be comfortable with being uncomfortable. Except when it comes to that space meatloaf. ::shudder::

---

Kesia’s Review

Back in Time For Dinner has continued on their homogenous portrayals with the 1960s being shown as bright and colourful, full of space-age design, and full of personal choice. They start the decade off with their classic, “this is what the 60s look like,” without acknowledging change within the decade. While I thought that this episode had some parts that were really well done, particularly Aaron’s monologue about his family’s Algonquin history, I still feel like there are some things missing within the episode.

First, it has occurred to me that this episode was the first time that the show has mentioned a cookbook. Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking was a nice choice, but I think the show really needs to do a bit more to talk about where the recipes they are producing are coming from in general. (You know, cite your sources!) There is a plethora of Canadian cookbooks to pick from for all the decades that they have featured so far, but I cannot recall even one being mentioned. I think that the 1960s would have been a particularly good time to talk about Canadian cookbooks. A number of influential books received reprints during the decade. Just take a look in your mother’s or grandmother’s collection. Chances are fairly high that you might find one of a number of the flour company cookbooks that were in print continuously throughout the 20th century. Five Roses and Robin Hood flours both printed new editions in the 1960s, and the Purity Flour Cookbook received a more complete overhaul during Canada’s centennial year. 1965 saw the first publication of The Chatelaine Cookbook: The Definitive Canadian Cookbook and The Laura Secord Canadian Cookbook was specifically created in celebration of the centennial with recipes for dishes that were considered to be regional and national favourites. These would have been a great books to feature during the episode’s 1967 celebrations. Elizabeth Driver’s Culinary Landmarks: A Bibliography of Canadian Cookbooks is full of even more great cookbooks; which clearly demonstrates that these books were important to Canadian homemakers. (My fingers are crossed for Company’s Coming books in the 1980s episode…) Seriously, these new recipes have to be coming from somewhere!

One of the things that is becoming painfully clear, and is something both Andrea and I have addressed before, is how the writing of Back in Time for Dinner tends to lead to a narration that favours change and “newness” over continuity and complication. This time, I noticed it most prominently in the segment with feminist scholar Andrea O’Reilly. I am certain that O’Reilly would not have said that these “consciousness raising teas” were a new thing to the 60s, and yet, Rota’s narration and the editing give no hint that these sorts of women’s gatherings are direct descendants of earlier forms. Gathering at each others’ homes to socialize was not new to the 60s; women’s socialization over teas was particularly important in the earlier part of the 1900s. Organizations like Women’s Institutes, Red Cross Societies, Ladies’ Aid Societies, and the United Farm Women of Alberta allowed women to meet together and discuss their lives and the social and political events that surrounded them. (The UFWA was particularly active in promoting women’s suffrage in Alberta.) Even the Famous Five met to discuss what would become The Persons Case for the first time in Emily Murphy’s home over tea. Though the topics changed by the 1960s, these “consciousness raising teas” have a lot in common with their precursors. Women throughout the 20th century used their gatherings as a way to organize politically with the side perk of socializing with their peers. What has changed by the 1960s is that these gatherings have dropped veneer of a working gathering.

The last thing I would like to address here is the show’s treatment of the teenagers. I really loved that they brought in Sharon and Bram (skinamarinky doo!) to talk with the Campus kids about coffeehouse counter-culture. I particularly loved how they linked folk music and rap music as both being used to convey anti-establishment political messages. However, they probably could have stressed the importance of youth even more in this episode. As scholars like Doug Owram have explained, after the war, Canadians believed that they could make things better than they had been before. By 1966, over half of Canada’s population was under 21, and the youth of Canada believed that they could create a society that was new and better than that of their parents. The sheer size of the Baby Boomers’ generation meant that the overall values, politics, and culture of the era was greatly influenced by youth.

While there was an emphasis on youth in the 60s, I still feel like the show is not having the Campus kids participate as fully and realistically in this experiment as they could be. Since the 1940s we have seen a decline in the participation of the girls in the kitchen. Although this lessened responsibility does make some sense given that “teenagers” as we know them became an age category in the 1950s, it’s still odd that the 17 and 18 year old Valerie and Jessica are not helping with food preparation or the dishes. The show has done nothing to explain this change in household labour expectations, and it seems unrealistic that these essentially adult girls with home ec. training wouldn’t be doing some of the kitchen work. (Seriously, even today I would expect them to wash dishes.) By not placing some expectations on the girls to help with chores in the 60s (or 50s) the show has managed to portray all the kitchen labour as solely on the mother’s shoulders, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the life-stage the family is in.

I’m interested to see what Back in Time for Dinner cooks up for the 1970s…

Sources:

• Elizabeth Driver, Culinary Landmarks: A Bibliography of Canadian Cookbooks, 1825-1949 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008).
• Veronica Strong-Boag, The New Day Recalled: Lives of Girls and Women in English Canada 1919-1939 (Toronto: Copp, Clark, Pitman and Penguin Books, 1988).
• Keith Walden, “Tea in Toronto and the Liberal Order, 1880-1914,” The Canadian Historical Review  93, no. 1 (2012): 1-24.

---

Our Discussion

A: Hmmm…. Interesting episode.

K: I agree.

A: Lame ass space balls though.

K: Yes.

A: My general conclusion: they touched on most of the major points, but without any of the political tooth.

K: That was the worst part. Food should NOT be colours that it isn’t supposed to be.

Yes. Totally.

A: Although that whole meal was absolutely terrifying.

K: I wonder who would actually make an entire meal like that.

A: So I think that this was the best episode so far, but that is not saying much.

K: Yes. I definitely would agree on that

I wasn’t as mad.

A: Me neither.

K: I LOVED Aaron’s talk about his family and what being Canadian meant for them. And how conflicting and confusing that was.

A: Yes! Good on them for talking about intergenerational trauma and the impact of the removal of status on future generations.

K: Absolutely. It was good to see.

A: Although I wish they had 1) emphasized what the purpose of the Indian Act was, 2) talked about the White Paper/Red Paper, 3) mentioned how Indigenous women fought for Bill C-31 (even though it didn’t go far enough).

K: Yes, that would have been a great addition.

A: That’s not Aaron’s fault. My sense is that the show is shying away from anything that might be potentially upsetting to viewers.

K: It seems like that a lot.

“Lets not get too political. We will say just enough to appease the left and nothing that offends the right.”

A: And again, not on Aaron, but I wish they had mentioned that he is Indigenous sooner.

Totally, can’t get too uncomfortable.

K: YES!  The only reason I knew their family background was because I read the website info.

It is quite important. At least I think it is. Because the issue of race and ethnicity has just been glossed over so much.

And its important to acknowledge that Aaron’s family didn’t have the “mainstream” experience of the 60s.

A: Yes! His family’s experiences likely would have been much different.

K: Totally. Addressing any marginalized group’s experiences would make a great addition.

A: I wonder how much input the family had in how they were depicted.

K: I wondered the same!

A: Did you see Tristan killing it with the boeuf bourguignon?

K: Me too! I am hoping this experience was good for her. Maybe she will cook more in the present?

A: I mean, she massacred the pronunciation, but damn, that was amazing.

K: YES! It was a perfect example of what Julia Child says “Anyone can cook!”

A: Although glossing over the CRTC and CanCon.

K: Yes, completely.

And just ignoring all the Canadian cookbooks that were out in the 60s.

A: There seems to be a lot of slippage between Canada, the US, and the UK here. I mean, how could they not talk about the flag?

K: I noticed that. Some of the clips right at the start seemed to be British even though they were talking about the States.

OH YA! I totally forgot about the flag.

Some of what is going on feels like its being cut out by the narrator script.

A: How so?

K: Like, O’Reilly must have said a lot more about the context around those consciousness raising teas.

A: Oh yes! There was a ton missing there. They basically cut out all the radical politics.

K: Ya. And just portraying women meeting and talking as brand new in the 60s.

A: Yeah. I mean really did they think that was invented in the 1960s?

Also, the video they showed for that was very misleading, since it was mostly about sharing experiences to understand the patriarchy.

K: It was just not enough.

Also it’s interesting to me now that they featured the TV dinners and convenience foods in the 50s, considering it took until the 60s for those to really take off.

A: And in some cases, until the 1970s.

K: Exactly. It takes a while to change eating habits.

What did you think of Sharon and Bram?

A: Omg. Take me with you!

I watched that show all the time when I was a kid!

I loved it!

K: Me too!

A: Still singing the same songs. She killed me.

I had my doubts. I was like, seriously, they brought in Bram and Sharon for protest music? But they redeemed themselves!

K: Yes. They were really great!

Oh also I did like how Sharon related folk and rap.

A: I was kinda thinking Randy Bachman would have been a better fit, but they were awesome.

K: I think as kids we got them in a very different context than their origins.

A: I have a Elephant Show VHS special where they take us on a pirate treasure hunt.

K: Ooo fun!

I just mostly remember Skinamarinki doo.

A: HA!

K: I remember that one!

A: I have watched that one more times that I care to count

K: That is adorable 🙂

A: Humph. 😛

K: hehehe

 

---

Recommended Readings: 1960s

• David Austin, Fear of a Black Nation, Race, Sex, and Security in Sixties Montreal (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2013).
• Meaghan Elizabeth Beaton. The Centennial Cure: Commemoration, Identity, and Cultural Capital in Nova Scotia during Canada’s 1967 Centennial Celebrations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017).
• Jane Griffith, “One Little, Two Little, Three Canadians: The Indians of Canada Pavilion and Public Pedagogy, Expo 1967,” Journal of Canadian Studies 49, no. 2 (Spring 2015): 171-204.
• Matthew Hayday, “Brought to You By the Letters C, R, T, and C: Sesame Street and Canadian Nationalism,” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 27, no. 1 (2016): 95-137.
• –. “Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity: The Politics of Canada Day,” Canadian Historical Review 91, no. 2 (June 2010): 287-314.
• Matthew Hayday and Raymond Blake, eds. Celebrating Canada. Volume 1: Holidays, National Days and the Crafting of Identities (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016).
• –. Celebrating Canada. Volume 2: Commemorations, Anniversaries and National Symbols (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018).
• Greg Kealey, Lara Campbell, Dominique Clements, eds. Debating Dissent: Canada and the Sixties (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012).
• Lynne Marks, Margaret Little, Megan Gaucher and T.R. Noddings, “‘A job that should be respected’:  Contested Visions of Motherhood and English Canada’s Second Wave Women’s Movements, 1970 – 1990”, Women’s History Review 25, no. 5 (2016): 771-790.
• Sean Mills, The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montreal (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010).
• Sarah Nickel, “I am Not a Woman’s Libber Although Sometimes I Sound Like One: Indigenous Feminism and Politicized Motherhood,” American Indian Quarterly 41 no. 4 (Fall 2017): 299-335.
• Doug Owram, Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby-boom Generation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).
• Bryan Palmer, Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008).
• Neil Sutherland, Growing Up: Childhood in English Canada from the Great War to the Age of Television (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).
• Ryan Edwardson, Canuck Rock: A History of Canadian Popular Music (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).
• Nathalie Cooke, “Home Cooking: The Stories Canadian Cookbooks Have to Tell,” in What’s to Eat?: Entrees in Canadian Food History, ed. Nathalie Cooke (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009), 228-244.
• Rhona Richman Kenneally, “ ‘There is a Canadian cuisine, and it is unique in all the world’: Crafting National Food Culture during the Long 1960s,” in What’s to Eat?: Entrees in Canadian Food History, ed. Nathalie Cooke (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009), 167-196.

---

Skinamarin… I mean, I hope you enjoyed our latest review! If you did, please consider sharing it on the social media platform of your choice. And don’t forget to check back on Sunday for a brand new Canadian History Roundup. See you then!