A book lying against a white background, with a grouping of yellow flowers lying on top.

Because, let’s face it – who has time to catch up on all the journal articles published in Canadian history?

 

Welcome back to the Best New Articles series, where each month, I post a list of my favourite new articles! Don’t forget to also check out my favourites from previous months, which you can access by clicking here.

This month I read articles from:

 

Here are my favourites:

 

Gregory Kennedy, Thomas Peace, and Stephanie Pettigrew, “Social Networks Across Chignecto: Applying Social Network Analysis to Acadie, Mi’kma’ki, and Nova Scotia, 1670-1751,” Acadiensis 47, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 2018): 8-40.

Author’s Twitter: @tpcanoe, @steph_pettigrew

Link: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/693398 

What it’s about: In this article, Kennedy, Peace, and Pettigrew provide a solid argument for the potential of social network analysis in assisting historians to understand populations and communities that are understudied and where there are missing archival records. Social network analysis is a digital humanities method that allows researchers to study communities as a whole, while tracing the relationships between individuals. To illustrate their point, the authors provide three case studies showcasing its usefulness, alongside more traditional archival sources like archival parish records and court documents: the evolution of the Acadian community of Beaubassin, tracing its social cohesion and networks over its lifetime; the witchcraft trial of Jean Campagnard; and the relationship between Acadians and Mi’kmaq on the Chignecto Isthmus.

What I loved: Ok, so obviously there is a conflict of interest here, since Stephanie is my partner in crimeeditorial assistant. But, I do still think this is a fantastic article that does a great job of showcasing the potential of social network analysis. While there are limitations, when used in connection with archival records, oral histories, and other primary sources, it can be enormously helpful when trying to understand individuals and communities that are traditionally absent from the written record, including women and Indigenous peoples, while also enhancing a researcher’s understanding of traditional documents. When most of us think about the digital humanities, we think about blogs and digitization, but this article shows that digital humanities methodologies can be valuable tools in historical analysis itself.

Favourite quote: “Meanwhile, Jean-Aubin Mignaux accused Campagnard of casting an incantation on his crops to cause a poor harvest. Campagnard responded that if Mignaux had a bad harvest it was his own fault for having farmed it badly.” P. 26

Suggested uses: This article will be of interest to anyone currently engaged in the digital humanities or digital historical research. It would also work well in a graduate level course on historical methodologies as an example of the benefits of digital history methodology.

 

Katrina Srigley and Lorraine Sutherland, “Decolonizing, Indigenizing, and Learning Biskaaybiiyangin the Field: Our Oral History Journey,” Oral History Review 45, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 2018): 7-28.

Author’s Twitter: @KatrinaSrigley

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ohr/article-abstract/45/1/7/4965215?redirectedFrom=fulltext

What it’s about: In this article, Srigley and Sutherland, from Attawapiskat First Nation, discuss their own personal journeys as feminist oral historians, particularly with respect to decolonization, Indigenization, storytelling, building relationships, and working within Anishinaabeg, Ininiw, and Western knowledge systems. The article is centred around an interpretation of the term “biskaaybiiyang,” an Anishinaabemowin verb that refers to picking up a bundle that has been lost through colonization.

What I loved: I literally had goosebumps while reading this piece. And that’s not only because the authors used an Oxford comma in the title. 😉 This is a really beautiful piece that does a fantastic job of explaining why settler historians who want to work on Indigenous history need to reframe their thinking and consider how to work for and with Indigenous communities rather than on Indigenous communities and peoples, while also explaining why it is important that settler historians understand, respect, and mobilize Indigenous epistemologies. I also really loved the personal aspect of this paper, which not only does a fantastic job of showing the relationship between each historian and their work, but also their journeys, which are filled with honesty, humour, and humility. This paper presents a model for how historians can decolonize themselves, while fully acknowledging and recognizing that the way forward has been paved through the work of Indigenous scholars.

Favourite quote:  “Hockey history was not where I imagined working, but my primary research goals were no longer driven by topics, but relationships.” P. 25.

Suggested uses: Anyone who is interested in the work necessary to decolonize themselves and help in the struggle to end oppression should read this piece. That goes double for settlers who are interested in researching Indigenous history. Also, just read this piece. Trust me, you won’t regret it.

 

Samantha Cutrara, “The Settler Grammar of Canadian History Curriculum: Why Historical Thinking is Unable to Respond to the TRC’s Calls to Action,” Canadian Journal of Education, 41, no. 2 (2018): 250-275.

Link: http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3156

What it’s about: In this piece, Cutrara responds to a 2012 piece by Peter Seixas, which is itself responding to a 2011 piece by Michael Marker on Indigenous ways of knowing about history. Marker’s piece is an invitation for conversation around different kinds of historical thinking, based on different epistemologies (western and Indigenous), while Seixas seems to suggest that Indigenous historical thinking is incompatible with the Historical Thinking Project and/or is already included within its framework. Cutrara argues for the need to accommodate Indigenous ways of knowing within Canadian history education, with a particular focus on the issues of respect, truth, and relationality.

What I loved: Following its publication, this article caused quite a stir on social media. I would argue that the discussion alone makes this article worth reading, as well as the fact that it is one of the few recent publications on history education.  However, I do feel that, as I will explain below, Cutrara’s main point with respect to need for more dialogue around how to teach both Indigenous and Western historical thinking approaches is important.

Before I go any further, I want to include a couple of disclaimers. First, I haven’t read either of the pieces that Cutrara mentions in her article. I know that these articles have taken up the bulk of attention in critiques of this work. Since I haven’t read either of them, I don’t feel qualified to make any comments on this aspects of the article. And second, as many of you know, I am a long-time fan of the Historical Thinking Project and its approach to teaching historical skills.

What I appreciated most about this article was its blunt and honest argument about the need for increasing dialogue and conversation about how these two epistemologies can fit together, while recognizing the ongoing power imbalance between the two. I don’t know many people who would argue against this perspective, but I also recognize that while we’ve done a lot of talking about the importance of acknowledging multiple ways of knowing with respect to history, there hasn’t been a ton of research or discussion about how this would work in practice. This, to my mind, is especially important as more and more students exit school thinking that science is irrefutable, and that all other ways of knowing are illegitimate.

Favourite quote: “The fit [between the aligned Benchmarks of Historical Thinking and Indigenous epistemologies] is oxymoronic. It is designed to be. [….] To answer the Calls of Action identified by the TRC, we have to engage in history education in ways that invite us to respect the different ways of seeing into the past and present, to believe these stories as truths, and to court our relationships that allow these ideas to exist together.” P. 268.

Suggested uses: Anyone who has an interest in history education will want to read this piece. It fits well with a recent piece by Heather E. McGregor, who deals with many of the same issues.

 

Asa McKercher, “Reason over Passion: Pierre Trudeau, Human Rights, and Canadian Foreign Policy,” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 73, no. 1 (March 2018): 129-145. 

Author’s Twitter:@asa_mckercher

Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702018765079

What it’s about: McKercher argues that the (Pierre) Trudeau government adopted a “realist” foreign policy agenda that was often at odds with its stated commitment to human rights on the domestic front. According to McKercher, although the Trudeau government pursued a human rights agenda at home throughout the 1970s, culminating in the Charter of Rights and Freedomsin 1982, it was unwilling to extend human rights beyond its borders in a meaningful way. Trudeau’s reticence to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries was due at least in part to his sensitivity toward Quebecois nationalism; it would have been untenable for him to express support for national minorities and secessionist groups, like the Biafrans in Nigeria, while simultaneously denying the right of the Quebecois to do so at home. At the same time, the government pursued closer economic ties with socialist bloc countries, while attempting to normalize relations with China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. Under Trudeau, Canada pursued human rights causes overseas only in concert with other countries, via multilateral agreements. Most importantly, McKercher shows that the Trudeau government believed that Canada, unlike the United States, was not in a geopolitical position to push other countries to stage their own “rights revolutions.”

What I loved: It is nice to see a clear-eyed assessment of Trudeau’s (and Canada’s) inability – or, in this case, unwillingness – to extend one of its keystone domestic policies overseas. Rather than condemning the Liberal government for its failures, McKercher outlines the very real domestic and international constraints that held it back. He also does a good job of showing that there was pushback from activists, diplomats, and even the Secretary of State for External Affairs (1980-1982), Mark MacGuigan. It’s a nice reminder that our stated commitment to ‘human rights’ is both debatable and subject to political will.

Favourite quote: “In considering Trudeau’s handling of national self-determination movements and of Canada’s approach to human rights through bilateral and multilateral frameworks, it is apparent that his realism—which prized stability and respected the inviolability of state sovereignty—clashed with the idealism of growing numbers of Canadians concerned about human rights abroad.” p. 131

Suggested uses: This is a very clearly-written article that would be useful for a mid-level Canadian history survey course, an upper level course on diplomatic history, or as a counterpoint to readings about Canada’s “rights revolution.” Combining this reading with selections from Michael Ignatieff’s The Rights Revolution, Dominique Clément’s Human Rights in Canada: A History, and/or Will Kymlicka and Magda Opalski’s Can Liberal Pluralism be Exported?would make for an interesting discussion in an upper-level Canadian Studies course.

 

Also Recommended:

 

Slowly but surely catching up! In a couple of weeks, I’ll do June and July together. It’s nice to get back into reading these articles though! Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the latest Best New Articles post. If you did, please consider sharing it on the social media platform of your choice. And don’t forget to check back on Thursday for the final review of CBC’s Back in Time for Dinner! It’s the 1990s….

Liked this post? Please take a second to support Unwritten Histories on Patreon!