Another CHA Annual Meeting is in the books! This was definitely, if you will excuse the pun, a conference of historic proportions. Before I go any further, I want to recognize all of the amazing work that was done by this year’s Program Chair, Katrina Ackerman, the rest of the Program Committee (James Naylor, Carolyn Strange, Jo-Anne McCutcheon, Keith Carlson, Laura Madokoro, Kurt Koneski, Melissa Shaw, Michel Ducharme, Philip Charrier, Roger Sarty, Stéphane Castonguay, and Susan Roy), and the Local Area Committee (Raymond Blake and Ian Germani). They, but Katrina in particular, did a really fantastic job! Thank you!
As strange as it sounds, this was actually the first time that Stephanie and I got the chance to meet in person (I know!). So to honour this, we thought it would be fun to do this reflection as a conversation between the two of us. Enjoy!
A Shifting Job Market
Andrea: One thing that I did notice was that this year’s CHA paid a little more attention to the issue of the changing job market. There were several panels dealing with this question, including the “What Will That Get You? Becoming a Historian in a Changing Job and Academic Market” panel that I participated in as a discussant, the Speed Networking session organized by Jessica Knapp and sponsored by the National Council on Public History, as well as the panel on the working as a historian for the government. The “What Will That Get You?” panel in particular focused on revising the CHA’s booklet, “Becoming a Historian,” to better reflect the changing job market and decentre the academic perspective. There were also a number of panels on public history and archives as well. I think that this was really fantastic, and I would love to see more in future years.
Stephanie: I found the Speed Networking event to be especially relevant; a direct acknowledgement of the fact that who you know is just as important as what you know. It was by far some of the most useful advice I’ve ever received at a conference, and made me rethink my entire post-doctoral career track. So I really want to thank the people who participated in this event, and Jessica for organizing it, because it may be my biggest takeaway this year.
Andrea: Absolutely! And I really hope it both makes a return for CHA 2019 and draws even more participants.
Territorial Acknowledgements
Andrea: In my previous reflection on the 2017 CHA Annual Meeting, I mentioned the problems around the issue of territorial acknowledgements. I’m not going to repeat what I said in great detail (though you can definitely check out the post here), I did note that that they seemed more like an afterthought than anything else. While there were some improvements this year, I still believe that we have a long way to go. I was pleased to see that the territorial acknowledgement appeared on pg. 3 of this year’s program.
It was also much more detailed than last year’s version (although it was absent from the app!). Congress’ actual website did contain a little more information, but it was once again very difficult to find. Though the placement seems strange to me, the “About Congress” page included a land acknowledgement. And if you did a little more digging around in the organizer’s section, you could also find a document titled “Protocol, Guidelines, and Recommended Practices of Host Indigenous Communities in Regina.” In addition to providing three different versions of the territorial acknowledgements for the University of Regina, they also provided a short pronunciation guide. I was also really pleased to see the detailed information around inviting Elders or Knowledge Keepers, particularly with respect to the importance of establishing long-term, reciprocal relationships.
Stephanie: Not to mention the keynote speaker, Blair Stonechild ; I thought Katrina handled his welcoming extremely well! Dr. Stonechild’s talk was amazing, and I bought his book with my Congress gift certificate for the University of Regina book store.
Andrea: But I still feel like there were some serious issues here. For instance, all three versions of the territorial acknowledgements privileged the University of Regina over the nêhiyawak, Anihšināpēk, and Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda, and the Métis. Without exception, The University is always mentioned first, and as the welcoming body. What’s more, the larger history behind the territorial acknowledgement is neither mentioned nor explained. As my dear friend Sarah Rain (Sakimay First Nation, Treaty 4) asserted, “how can there be ‘reconciliation,’ when our histories aren’t even shared?” Take the example of Regina’s original name, oskana kā-asastēki, which literally translates to, “The place where bones are piled up.” According to various accounts that I could find, this either refers to the historic use of the site for the processing of bison carcasses, the way in which the local nêhiyawak used piles of bison bones to ensure the continuation of the bison hunt, or in reference to the piling of bison skulls from the late nineteenth century government-sponsored bounty hunt.* I wasn’t able to independently verify any of these accounts. But regardless, each of these stories point to the central connection between nêhiyawak, Anihšināpēk, and Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda, and the Métis and the bison, the traumatic impact of colonialism in this area, and the revitalization of local Indigenous communities. But none of this information can be learned from the existing territorial acknowledgments, and their power and impact is lessened as a result. As historians, we need to do better.
Bison sculpture in downtown Regina, a visual representation of the piles of bison bones that used to lie within the area. Photo by Andrea Eidinger.
Stephanie: This is especially stark when you consider the placement of the university, right next door to First Nations University. You can’t miss seeing First Nations University every day of the conference. You are constantly reminded that there is something missing.
*For instance, see: http://wascanapark.tripod.com/history.html, http://regina.foundlocally.com/Local/Info-CityHistoryIndians.htm, and https://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/sites/regina.ca/residents/residents-regina-facts/.media/pdf/brief_history_brochure.pdf.
Our Favourite Panels (Other than Ours!)
Stephanie: I can’t decide between two panels for my favourite. The first is “Indigenous Histories and the Canadian Narrative,” which featured a fantastic talk by Carolyn Podruchny on how including the history of indigenous peoples changes the history of Canada, as well as Alison Norman, who talked about, and featured, the online, interactive treaty map being developed by Ontario, which shows the history of the province’s treaties, the territories they cover, and gives quick descriptions of them. The panel also featured Thomas Peace, who spoke of a course he’d recently taught on Early North America which included various field components, and Krystl Raven, whose paper focused on teaching Métis history. My second choice is “Imperial Ideas, Claims, Diversities and Delusions,” and not just because two of the speakers are my supervisors. Elizabeth Mancke’s paper was on the re-annexation of Cape Breton to Nova Scotia and the proclamation of 1763, which is a topic near and dear to any Cape Bretoner’s heart. Jeffers Lennox spoke of a colony that almost was, New Ireland, which I had never heard of before, and which is a fascinating topic. And Greg Kennedy gave a new interpretation of Paul Mascarène, Governor of Nova Scotia, and the story of what could have been. I’ve always had a soft spot for Mascarène; the only British governor of Nova Scotia who was actually French, the poor guy was never really trusted by anyone. And of course, “Diversifying Narratives” was excellent, with what I thought was some really great discussions around not only digital history, but navigating controversial topics in an online space when you identify as female and dealing with the resulting abuse.
Andrea: Same problem! It’s a pretty close tie between “Confronting Canada 150 (and Beyond) with Art, Activism, and Public History” and “Symbols of Canada.” The first panel was a detailed look at the Remember/Resist/Redraw (or ‘ARR’ as it is pronounced…) project by organizers Sean Carleton and Julia Smith, with presentations by two poster creators, Jesse Thistle and Crystal Gail Fraser. It was a really fascinating look at such a successful public history project from the inside out. And I especially loved how Thistle and Fraser emphasized their personal connections to their research, and how to translate academic research for a public audience. The fact that Fraser also brought her daughter made it even more special. My other favourite, “Symbols of Canada” was just plain fun. A panel on poutine, beavers, and totem poles? That’s like click bait in conference form. Caroline Durand’s paper, “La poutine, authentiquement québécoise ou ‘Truly Canadian’ was just superb and a highlight of the conference for me. And not just because I am a poutine-lover from Montreal! I really appreciated the way she wove together funny stories with sharp analysis on the idea of historical memory and the process whereby poutine transitioned from small-town Quebec to becoming a Canadian symbol. Though of course, the real winner was Don Wright’s amazing comment about euphemisms for sex in Canada, preserved for posterity in my tweet:
#chashc2018 Wright: Canadian euphemisms for sex: sugaring off, finding the northwest passage, having a double double. This is news to me, and I think I’ve been traumatized.
— Andrea Eidinger (@AndreaEidinger) May 29, 2018
I did ask Don about this later, and he claims it comes from a CBC article. I’m still looking for it, so let me know if anyone finds it!
Subverting Traditional Historiographies: Seeking Diversity in the Archives and Beyond
Stephanie: I thought our panel went extremely well. I’d like to take a moment and acknowledge the work that Michelle Desveaux did putting it together. The whole thing was her idea, and it came together amazingly well. Going in, I had no idea how such disparate papers were going to fit together, but they all fit the overall theme of finding things in the archive that are usually deemed “unfindable.” Erin and I had very similar circumstances, finding people that the historiography has claimed simply don’t exist, and having to dig deep in order to prove that, actually, yes, they are here, you just have to look in the right places. I was also pleased to see it so well attended, especially for Wednesday afternoon.
Andrea: I totally agree! I really loved how it played with archival silences, and how it showed how valuable creative and painstaking approaches to history can be to restoring the voices of those who have been silenced. I thought Katherine MacDonald’s discussion about the “real” archive that had been lost, and the edited version that remains was really evocative. I was also really impressed by Stephanie’s paper and Erin’s paper, with respect to the use of digital history methodologies. The ways in which these papers demonstrated hidden Huguenot kinship networks in New France and the lives of eighteenth-century working class women working as nurses in British naval hospitals, respectively, was just astounding. And what’s more, this approach creates databases that can be used by other historians to learn even more!
And keep an eye out for an upcoming blog series based on the panel!
Renaming #SirJAM
Stephanie: I think we should go full disclosure here, and admit that we were off site for a business meeting and therefore did not attend the full AGM. But we did get accosted the minute we arrived on campus and were informed that we needed to get ourselves to the AGM IMMEDIATELY because there was an actual debate over the changing of the book prize, which we were not anticipating (which is why we didn’t plan to attend the AGM). We arrived just in time to cast our vote, and then caught up on what had happened at the debate.
Andrea: I don’t want to comment too extensively, since we didn’t actually attend. But I was struck both by how overwhelmingly in favour of the change the CHA was, as well as the tone of the responses published afterwards. For instance, The National Post’s article on the subject used the word “erase” in the headline, which clearly communicates their thoughts on the matter. And the comments are as disturbing as one would expect. Kevin Brushett provided some important context in this Twitter essay. But I think one thing many people are forgetting is that this isn’t a national prize. It’s a prize given out by a professional association. So really, the name should be up to voting members.
Representation
Andrea: While we don’t really have the space to go into this in detail, I do want to draw attention to the issue of representation at this year’s CHA. Five years ago, Tom Peace put together a great blog post on Active History looking at past CHA Annual Meeting programs. He repeated the analysis for 2014, 2015, 2016 (with Dan Ross), and 2017.* I did, however, create the word cloud that appears at the top of this blog post from the preliminary program posted on the CHA website. I entered only paper titles (as well as the titles of roundtables). Commonly-used words like “the” or “and” were removed. The results were pretty interesting. The top ten words were, in order:
- History: 35 mentions
- Canadian: 25 mentions
- Canada: 25 mentions
- War: 20 mentions
- Indigenous: 15 mentions
- British: 11 mentions
- World: 10 mentions
- Early: 10 mentions
- North: 9 mentions
- Ontario: 9 mentions
If we, like Tom, remove “History,” “Canadian,” and “Canada,” we end up with a top ten that looks like this:
- War: 20 mentions
- Indigenous: 15 mentions
- British: 11 mentions
- World: 10 mentions
- Early: 10 mentions
- North: 9 mentions
- Ontario: 9 mentions
- National: 8 mentions
- Public: 8 mentions
- First: 7 mentions
Now there are limits to what a word cloud can tell you. For instance, I was really pleased to see that the number of papers on Indigenous history in Canada increased substantially, though that is not reflected in the word cloud (since most papers referred to individual Indigenous communities and peoples by their proper names). But I do think it is telling that the words “War,” “British,” and “Ontario” continue to be so dominant, pointing to the persistence of more traditional forms of Canadian history. More worrisome is that the terms “woman,” “women,” and “women’s” are still very low, a trend first noted by Tom back in 2015. A full analysis is beyond the scope of this blog post, but this issue is definitely something that we plan to revisit.
*For 2018, Tom looked at Canadian history courses instead.
Before we go, we want to again say thank you to the many people who helped to make this another fantastic CHA: Krista McCracken, Jessica Knapp, Jessica DeWitt, Carmen Nielson, Katrina Ackerman, Lynne Marks, Margaret Little, Adele Perry, Jon Weier, Anne Dance, Jo McCutcheon, Danielle Lorenz, Krystl Raven, Maddie Knickerbocker, Joanna L. Pearce, Jenny Ellison, Jamie Trepanier, Rhonda Hinther, Nancy Janovicek, Alison Norman, Stacey Nation-Knapper, Caroline Durand, Colin Grittner, Erin Morton, Elsbeth Heaman, Michelle Desveaux, Katherine MacDonald, and Elizabeth Mancke. We were also so grateful to meet many of the wonderful people we interact with on a regular basis online! The best part of being a historian is the amazing community that we have.
We hope you enjoyed this week’s blog post! If you did, please consider sharing it on the social media platform of your choice! And don’t forget to check back on Friday for a better-late-than-never look at the upcoming publications for June 2018. See you then!
0 Comments
1 Pingback