What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Killed Canadian History?
Have we lost our past, and, in turn, ourselves?Who is slamming shut our history books -- and why?In an indictment that points damning fingers at our education system, the media and our government's preoccupation with multiculturalism to the exclusion of English Canadian culture, historian J.L. Granatstein offers astonishing evidence of our lack of historical knowledge. He shows not only how "dumbing down" in our education system is contributing to the death of Canadian history, but how a multi-disciplinary social studies approach puts more nails in the coffin. He explains how some teachers think studying the Second World War glorifies violence and may worsen French-English conflicts if conscription is mentioned, And he tells how the pride Canadians should feel over their past has been brushed aside by efforts to create a history that suits the misguided ideas of successive ministers of Canadian heritage and multiculturalism. Finally, he shows that there is hope, and there are steps we must take if we are to renew our past -- and ensure our future.With his intelligent and outspoken "blow the dust off the history books" approach to his subject, J.L. Granatstein has produced a brilliantly argued book that addresses a subject too important to ignore. Published to coincide with the anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge (April 9, 1917), and appearing at a time when our education system is coming under ever sharper attack Who Killed Canadian History? is a timely and provocative release.A recent test on Canada given to 100 first-year students at an Ontario university revealed the following-- 61% did not know that Sir John A. Macdonald was our first English-speaking prime minister-- 55% did not know that Canada was founded in 1867-- 95% did not know that 1837 was the date of the Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada-- 92% did not know the year of the first Quebec referendum
156 pages, Hardcover
First published March 5, 1998
7 people are currently reading
444 people want to read
About the author
J.L. Granatstein
77 books19 followersJack Lawrence Granatstein is a Canadian historian who specializes in Canadian political and military history. Granatstein received a graduation diploma from Royal Military College Saint-Jean in 1959, his Bachelor of Arts degree from the Royal Military College of Canada in 1961, his Master of Arts degree from the University of Toronto in 1962, and his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Duke University in 1966.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
March 15, 2015
Who Killed Canadian History? was my airplane read on the the way home from a course the other week. I don't know why but I always manage to read non-fiction much better when stuck on a plane or in an airport.
The title raised a couple of interested looks from passers-by. Unfortunately, none commented. Unfortunately because the book has the interesting topic of whether Canadian history is at risk of being forgotten because of the prevalence of the US media and its focus on US history as well as a tendency within the Canadian education system to focus on the history of minorities or specialist aspects in history rather than on a general history of Canada.
Of course, my knowledge of Canada and its history is pretty non-existent and I have no intention to weigh in on Granatstein's argument. However, I did find his book interesting in that it is easy to follow, thorough, and provoking thoughts about how history, not only in Canada, is recorded and taught.
Parts of it reminded me of Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death but this was more in relation to the style of argument which is easy to follow but still conveys a lot of information.
I loved that I actually learned a few things along the way, too.
So, in short I have no idea whether Granatstein's argument is valid but it did make for entertaining and educational reading.
The title raised a couple of interested looks from passers-by. Unfortunately, none commented. Unfortunately because the book has the interesting topic of whether Canadian history is at risk of being forgotten because of the prevalence of the US media and its focus on US history as well as a tendency within the Canadian education system to focus on the history of minorities or specialist aspects in history rather than on a general history of Canada.
Of course, my knowledge of Canada and its history is pretty non-existent and I have no intention to weigh in on Granatstein's argument. However, I did find his book interesting in that it is easy to follow, thorough, and provoking thoughts about how history, not only in Canada, is recorded and taught.
Parts of it reminded me of Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death but this was more in relation to the style of argument which is easy to follow but still conveys a lot of information.
I loved that I actually learned a few things along the way, too.
So, in short I have no idea whether Granatstein's argument is valid but it did make for entertaining and educational reading.
February 25, 2017
An impassioned and punchy plea by one of Canada's foremost historians on the importance and value in understanding our national past. J.L. Granatstein laments the piteous state of Canadian history among Canada's citizens (I read the first edition of this book, published in 1998, but I doubt much has changed since the revised edition was released a decade later). In particular, he decries how Canadians are constantly divided up ethnically, regionally, etc...which makes it impossible to create or maintain a universal Canadian identity. Canada is more than Tim Horton's and hockey. Granatstein does not dismiss the value in Albertans' knowing about their own province's history or of dividing history into distinctive labour, military, political, religious, etc...streams but he is forceful in his call for Canadians to also understand how all of these link together. Surely to offend the SJWs, he questions why Emily Howard Stowe is so lauded simply for being the first female Canadian doctor while Frederick Banting, the inventor of insulin, is ignored. History is so politicized and the politicizers warp and twist the past for their own ideological purposes (Granatstein explores "The Valour and the Horror" debacle but I would point to the awful, atrocious, astonishingly inaccurate Canadian documentary "The Burning Times" about the "genocidal" witch hunts in Europe during the Middle Ages; I was forced to watch it twice, once at Capilano University and once at Simon Fraser University). Granatstein believes contemporary educators (he has sharp words for the child-centric pedagogy that arose in the 1960s) only teach how horrible Canada has been in the past - the European colonizers savagely slaughtered the saintly First Nations, Canada was racist for "interning" (Granatstein disputes most were interned) Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, etc...events in the past WERE indeed horrible and tragic, but we always need to pay attention to the historical context instead of judging the past according to our current values (I think we need to keep this in mind especially when thinking about the residential schools).
Canadians are not Americans. We do not lionize the Fathers of Confederation like Americans do the Founding Fathers. We zealously embrace multiculturalism whereas the USA prefers to be a melting pot. I think it is actually this "multicultural mania" (Granatstein's words) that encourages Canadians to dismiss the past; until after the Second World War, Canada's history was dominated by white people, usually men (all of our prime ministers have been white; I acknowledge specific incidents such as the KOMAGATA MARU and the use of Chinese workers to build the railway that involved ethnic minorities) so we feel awkward and guilty for having to spend so much time talking about white people. But as a WASP, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Granatstein ends the book by offering suggestions for how Canadian institutions can facilitate a greater understanding and appreciation of the past. At times, Granatstein sounds Neil Postmanesque in his desire for contemporary Canadians to comprehend the past and not fill their minds with useless trivia and distractions.
Canadians are not Americans. We do not lionize the Fathers of Confederation like Americans do the Founding Fathers. We zealously embrace multiculturalism whereas the USA prefers to be a melting pot. I think it is actually this "multicultural mania" (Granatstein's words) that encourages Canadians to dismiss the past; until after the Second World War, Canada's history was dominated by white people, usually men (all of our prime ministers have been white; I acknowledge specific incidents such as the KOMAGATA MARU and the use of Chinese workers to build the railway that involved ethnic minorities) so we feel awkward and guilty for having to spend so much time talking about white people. But as a WASP, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Granatstein ends the book by offering suggestions for how Canadian institutions can facilitate a greater understanding and appreciation of the past. At times, Granatstein sounds Neil Postmanesque in his desire for contemporary Canadians to comprehend the past and not fill their minds with useless trivia and distractions.
July 18, 2020
An excellent rallying call to action, and one that will resonate with Canadians like me who have many times looked for interesting Canadian history books in Chapters, and only found one row, located next to the two full bookshelves of US history.
I can also echo the frustration of university teaching. I sat in classes utilizing the History of the Canadian Peoples text books, and it helped me understand one thing: why Canadians think their own history is boring. I've had the pleasure of reading some of the few good history books on Canada, and so I was incredibly frustrated and even angry as the professor taught of my country as one that "fell together", with a constitution that "was almost acidental", and that has little glory in its past.
I can also echo the frustration of university teaching. I sat in classes utilizing the History of the Canadian Peoples text books, and it helped me understand one thing: why Canadians think their own history is boring. I've had the pleasure of reading some of the few good history books on Canada, and so I was incredibly frustrated and even angry as the professor taught of my country as one that "fell together", with a constitution that "was almost acidental", and that has little glory in its past.
April 22, 2019
3.5 stars
This tiny book sat on my shelf for 20 years until I read it this weekend, purchased because I long respected the work of historian Jack Granatstein. And I agree with his premise: Canadians do not know enough about their history, not enough history is taught in school and a strong understanding of the past is needed to create context for the future.
Most Canadians don’t know that Canada has no federal standards or guidelines on what historic elements must be taught, since education is a provincial responsibility and each province or territory controls what is and is not covered in the classroom curriculum. This often leaves national context in the dustbin and it’s clear that many provinces would prefer to keep their citizens angry with Ottawa.
This was true in the 1990s and it’s true today.
Yet beyond that we differ. Granatstein is on a bit of a rant here as he rails against the choices of what perspectives should be taught to students. He comes off as a grumpy old white man clutching onto his privilege, howling in praise of myth and wanting us to do the same: Let’s all forget about the other perspectives, the ones that fail to glorify the central figures in our history. These he dismisses as “political, not historic lessons.”
Hmm, maybe not.
He prefaces several of these diatribes by noting that “of course” the perspectives and contributions of women/labour/immigrants should be better reflected in history. But he spends so much time dumping on multiculturalism and any perspective that disagrees with his point that it’s hard to consider him sincere. I’m in total agreement with Granatstein’s position that students need to be taught how to assess evidence and history can help with global context. Of course, I’d probably be more on board if he could have found it in himself to praise a female historian or researcher somewhere along the line.
This tiny book sat on my shelf for 20 years until I read it this weekend, purchased because I long respected the work of historian Jack Granatstein. And I agree with his premise: Canadians do not know enough about their history, not enough history is taught in school and a strong understanding of the past is needed to create context for the future.
Most Canadians don’t know that Canada has no federal standards or guidelines on what historic elements must be taught, since education is a provincial responsibility and each province or territory controls what is and is not covered in the classroom curriculum. This often leaves national context in the dustbin and it’s clear that many provinces would prefer to keep their citizens angry with Ottawa.
This was true in the 1990s and it’s true today.
Yet beyond that we differ. Granatstein is on a bit of a rant here as he rails against the choices of what perspectives should be taught to students. He comes off as a grumpy old white man clutching onto his privilege, howling in praise of myth and wanting us to do the same: Let’s all forget about the other perspectives, the ones that fail to glorify the central figures in our history. These he dismisses as “political, not historic lessons.”
Hmm, maybe not.
He prefaces several of these diatribes by noting that “of course” the perspectives and contributions of women/labour/immigrants should be better reflected in history. But he spends so much time dumping on multiculturalism and any perspective that disagrees with his point that it’s hard to consider him sincere. I’m in total agreement with Granatstein’s position that students need to be taught how to assess evidence and history can help with global context. Of course, I’d probably be more on board if he could have found it in himself to praise a female historian or researcher somewhere along the line.
July 30, 2025
In “Who Killed Canadian History?” Granatstein completely changes my understanding of how Canadian history is taught, and indeed how Canadian culture is learned and passed down. The book is 20 years old but blends really nicely with the cultural divide in society and academia today - How do we celebrate the triumph of the past while also honouring the mistakes we’ve made? There needs to be a healthy balance and today, there isn’t. We need more thinkers in Canadian history like this who are balanced and well researched - not advocates or activists with their own personal agendas, but historians who are able to challenge contemporary “micro/social historians” with honest work.
November 17, 2014
For the most part, as a high school history teacher, I agree with JL Ganatstein's analysis...especially in the sacrifice of content & chronology at the expense of various "other" bureaucratic & educratic concerns. Occasionally he does come off as a ranty, grumpy old man...and if he could tone that down a bit (and admit that he has just as much of a political agenda as the social historians he excoriates), this slim volume would be even more effective.
September 17, 2016
He's a smart guy who goes to great effort to find rifts rather than bridge amongst historians. IMHO.
March 29, 2017
A worthwhile overview of history education and history knowledge in Canada, with some recommendations and plenty of finger pointing. Useful for all teachers of Canadian history.
Read
May 11, 2023Reading this book a quarter century after it was written is an odd experience. It is difficult to argue against the key point that Canadian history has been killed, historical study in the country as a whole has plummeted in interest.
Some of his points are born out by the 25 year time period- students continue to not learn important dates and figures, of course. Academic historical writing continues to be unread, while tim cook and Margaret Macmillan are selling well and winning awards.
But throughout most of this book I had a sinking feeling, knowing how history would be abused in the 21st century. Granatstein's plea to focus on political and military history was grotesquely answered by the harper government, seeking to portray Canada as a warrior nation. It is difficult to parse what Granatstein would have thought of that; possibly students better equipped with a sense of national history would be able to see through crass political demonstrations, but I'm not so sure.
The most glaring historical event in the interregnum is the media discovery and furor over graves at residential schools. Most working in Canadian history had awareness and understanding of these realities, but obviously these awful episodes from the past were less known among the public. It is difficult to read his complaints against teaching indigenous history over political/national history in schools, when so few Canadians have an understanding of these past crimes. How can you argue for less education on this topic when the bar is already so low?
Overall, there are two key suspects in the case that Granatstein ignores- firstly, university administrators. If there is a shadowy cabal of figures at Canadian universities seeking to influence the operations of the history department, it's the president's office and administration, not professors in the department; Granatstein has no answer for the chronic underfunding of history departments across the board, seeking instead to lambast "politically correct" professors. Given his long experience in the university system in Canada, this seems like a major missed opportunity.
Secondly, Granatstein neglects to consider the demand side of this issue. The survey evidence he presents of the Canadian public's interest in history is flimsy and overused. Why Canadians are not interested in Canadian history is a more difficult question, and one the book doesn't seek to resolve. But, missing an answer, or even a theory, to this question undermines Granatstein's paternalistic and idealistic governmental responses (which are also extremely misguided given fed-prov relations, lol). This Field-of-Dreams thinking is trite and not worthy of a scholar Granatstein's experience and stature.
Some of his points are born out by the 25 year time period- students continue to not learn important dates and figures, of course. Academic historical writing continues to be unread, while tim cook and Margaret Macmillan are selling well and winning awards.
But throughout most of this book I had a sinking feeling, knowing how history would be abused in the 21st century. Granatstein's plea to focus on political and military history was grotesquely answered by the harper government, seeking to portray Canada as a warrior nation. It is difficult to parse what Granatstein would have thought of that; possibly students better equipped with a sense of national history would be able to see through crass political demonstrations, but I'm not so sure.
The most glaring historical event in the interregnum is the media discovery and furor over graves at residential schools. Most working in Canadian history had awareness and understanding of these realities, but obviously these awful episodes from the past were less known among the public. It is difficult to read his complaints against teaching indigenous history over political/national history in schools, when so few Canadians have an understanding of these past crimes. How can you argue for less education on this topic when the bar is already so low?
Overall, there are two key suspects in the case that Granatstein ignores- firstly, university administrators. If there is a shadowy cabal of figures at Canadian universities seeking to influence the operations of the history department, it's the president's office and administration, not professors in the department; Granatstein has no answer for the chronic underfunding of history departments across the board, seeking instead to lambast "politically correct" professors. Given his long experience in the university system in Canada, this seems like a major missed opportunity.
Secondly, Granatstein neglects to consider the demand side of this issue. The survey evidence he presents of the Canadian public's interest in history is flimsy and overused. Why Canadians are not interested in Canadian history is a more difficult question, and one the book doesn't seek to resolve. But, missing an answer, or even a theory, to this question undermines Granatstein's paternalistic and idealistic governmental responses (which are also extremely misguided given fed-prov relations, lol). This Field-of-Dreams thinking is trite and not worthy of a scholar Granatstein's experience and stature.
November 2, 2021
3.5 Stars.
This was a good thrift store find, and I'm glad I read it. I'm a homeschooling mom, so naturally I'm very interested in making sure my children receive a good education. It's been surprisingly difficult to find good homeschool resources to teach Canadian history, especially since I'm so ignorant about it myself. This book is absolutely bang on in terms of just how ignorant my entire generation (more or less) is - and it was written in 1998! The children coming of age today are at an even greater disadvantage.
I am a firm believer in the classical style of education, which emphasizes fact knowledge as well as critical thinking. The author of this book rightly points out that students can't JUST "learn how to think", but must also learn the people, places, and - yes - dates that make up a comprehensive knowledge base.
I share his concerns with "multicultural" "feminist" and "anti-racism" education. While I do think some of the sub-topics concerning these things are important to learn (I of course teach my kids about great women, people of other races, different cultures, and such), it should NOT be at the expense of reality. And that reality clearly includes the basic fact that most of the great people who shaped our country were indeed straight white religious men.
Where the author goes wrong, in my opinion, is in his solutions. He strikes me as a typical "conservative" that is actually just a progressive in slow motion. He treats the amount of immigration we have as basically irrelevant, as though we can just get millions of people to accept the very Canadian values that he admits we are struggling to transmit to children born here. On top of that, I really don't appreciate his conflation of defensive Christian crusades with the Armenian genocide, for example. I get the feeling this guy isn't very much a fan of religion and especially not Christianity.
Sorry sir, but you can't preserve the West without teaching about the Christianity that largely shaped it.
Also, his core solution seems to be some kind of federal Canadian history Common Core...thing. No. No no no. The only thing that could possibly make our school system worse is giving MORE power to the feds. At least there's some hope for a couple of provinces as things stand now!
Overall, this was an enjoyable read and I got through it in a couple of days :)
This was a good thrift store find, and I'm glad I read it. I'm a homeschooling mom, so naturally I'm very interested in making sure my children receive a good education. It's been surprisingly difficult to find good homeschool resources to teach Canadian history, especially since I'm so ignorant about it myself. This book is absolutely bang on in terms of just how ignorant my entire generation (more or less) is - and it was written in 1998! The children coming of age today are at an even greater disadvantage.
I am a firm believer in the classical style of education, which emphasizes fact knowledge as well as critical thinking. The author of this book rightly points out that students can't JUST "learn how to think", but must also learn the people, places, and - yes - dates that make up a comprehensive knowledge base.
I share his concerns with "multicultural" "feminist" and "anti-racism" education. While I do think some of the sub-topics concerning these things are important to learn (I of course teach my kids about great women, people of other races, different cultures, and such), it should NOT be at the expense of reality. And that reality clearly includes the basic fact that most of the great people who shaped our country were indeed straight white religious men.
Where the author goes wrong, in my opinion, is in his solutions. He strikes me as a typical "conservative" that is actually just a progressive in slow motion. He treats the amount of immigration we have as basically irrelevant, as though we can just get millions of people to accept the very Canadian values that he admits we are struggling to transmit to children born here. On top of that, I really don't appreciate his conflation of defensive Christian crusades with the Armenian genocide, for example. I get the feeling this guy isn't very much a fan of religion and especially not Christianity.
Sorry sir, but you can't preserve the West without teaching about the Christianity that largely shaped it.
Also, his core solution seems to be some kind of federal Canadian history Common Core...thing. No. No no no. The only thing that could possibly make our school system worse is giving MORE power to the feds. At least there's some hope for a couple of provinces as things stand now!
Overall, this was an enjoyable read and I got through it in a couple of days :)
October 28, 2024
I read this for an essay in a university course I am taking as of writing.
Granatstein published this book in 1998, where the status of general Canadian historical knowledge was lamentably bad according to numerous surveys, tests and documents. The author is still alive, and I wonder what he thinks of the present day where the knowledge of students regarding their own country's history is even worse?
I think Granatstein makes a point about the need to teach political/national history. These give a general overview of what was happening, what was on most people's minds, what was going on and why. He does not say that social, gender, or labour history is useless or should not be taught, but they are often taught with the impression that people already know the political or national background behind them when it becomes more and more true by the day that they don't. What wisdom are you going to impart on students about the oppression of Indigenous Peoples by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants when students have no grasp on the history of Indigenous Peoples in relation to Canada, much less what an Anglo-Saxon or a Protestant is?
Granatstein makes more points throughout this book but I think he does have a genuine argument about historical education. We need to make sure students and the general public understand their own history. If not, then they will fill the historical void with the drivel of revisionists and extremists who are willing to fill the minds of others with whatever they please.
Granatstein published this book in 1998, where the status of general Canadian historical knowledge was lamentably bad according to numerous surveys, tests and documents. The author is still alive, and I wonder what he thinks of the present day where the knowledge of students regarding their own country's history is even worse?
I think Granatstein makes a point about the need to teach political/national history. These give a general overview of what was happening, what was on most people's minds, what was going on and why. He does not say that social, gender, or labour history is useless or should not be taught, but they are often taught with the impression that people already know the political or national background behind them when it becomes more and more true by the day that they don't. What wisdom are you going to impart on students about the oppression of Indigenous Peoples by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants when students have no grasp on the history of Indigenous Peoples in relation to Canada, much less what an Anglo-Saxon or a Protestant is?
Granatstein makes more points throughout this book but I think he does have a genuine argument about historical education. We need to make sure students and the general public understand their own history. If not, then they will fill the historical void with the drivel of revisionists and extremists who are willing to fill the minds of others with whatever they please.
February 7, 2019
Bigot, racist, extremely terrible work against the multiculturalism fabrics of Modern Canada. He is a privileged white old man that desired for grand narrative history (see that military history background) and wants the old "white Canada" vision back.
Would give this 0 stars if I can figure out how to.
Would give this 0 stars if I can figure out how to.
September 2, 2024
It accomplished its purpose, so four stars; it was both entertaining and informative. Highly readable, even if you don't love history and political commentary. The author's patriotism is refreshing.
But could also be three stars, because it read more like an online commentary piece, rather than a book seeking to be authoritative.
But could also be three stars, because it read more like an online commentary piece, rather than a book seeking to be authoritative.
Read
September 29, 2015If you want to go in to any depth in Canadian history, reading Granatstein is a must. This is one of his more controversial books, it's always under fire from other scholars, which makes it an interesting read about Canadian history.
September 25, 2010
Granatstein is one of the most prominent voices in Canadian Studies and one of my favourites. This book is one of my most used books I have and its a joy to read.
June 16, 2011
Great book! Reaffirmed to me the importance of History.
February 28, 2021
Jack is gonna be Jack ... Back to his histories.
September 20, 2021
In Who Killed Canadian History? Granatstein argues that Canadian history entered a state of distress when "envious" social historians who, in their efforts to study women, Indigenous peoples, and the working-class, threw out the study of politicians, militaries, and diplomacy. As Granatstein makes clear, it is the political and military histories that provide Canadian’s with national narratives and unite the country. Thus, as a result of social historians’ fragmentation of the profession, Canadians find themselves uninformed, uneducated and divided. He also argues that historians have vilified Canada’s “benign” history (p. 4).
Granatstein provides a convincing array of evidence to support his analysis. He utilizes various polls and surveys to demonstrate how little Canadians know about their past, analyzes provincial school curriculums to show history’s relegated status, and quotes recent wordy social histories to demonstrate why no one, outside of their niche, would purchase and read the book. He also analyzes textbooks that increasingly leave out military history and details of battles in the World Wars to discuss labour history and women working on the home front (p. 132). Through these examples, among others, Granatstein convincingly demonstrates the apparent destruction of Canadian history and Canadian identity.
Granastein poses several important questions about the state of Canadian history. As such he encourages readers, academics and the public alike, to begin to think about the state of history, what we want the field to look like, and what changes could be beneficial. He also provides a list of recommendations to set Canadian history back on the right path. For example, he suggests the federal government could provide grants to libraries and schools to purchase more history books as well as scholarships for high school students. Frequently, however, these strengths are overshadowed by Granatstein’s dismissive treatment of social history. For example, in arguing Canadian history is not boring he states, “Yet no history that…recounts wresting a half-continent from the wilderness, settling it, and constructing great cities and small towns...can be boring.” (p. 173). Although the sentiment that Canadian history is not boring is important Granatstein neglects the Indigenous perspective on this process. A process, which when phrased less romantically, is called settler-colonialism.
Just as Granatstein’s background in military and political study influenced his view in this book, so too do current graduate students write histories that speak to their lived experiences. Students and historians research the people, events, and narratives that old national narratives that favoured white, elite men who conquered and civilized Canada’s wilderness left out. Although Granatstein says he hopes for national narratives moving forward to include these marginalized groups, he fails to understand that these histories are being written. Is an unknown female doctor in Northern Alberta worthy of a book? I would argue she is just as worthy as another biography on Sir John A. Macdonald. After all, the Northern Albertan doctor’s story is only unknown because it has yet to be told.
Granatstein provides a convincing array of evidence to support his analysis. He utilizes various polls and surveys to demonstrate how little Canadians know about their past, analyzes provincial school curriculums to show history’s relegated status, and quotes recent wordy social histories to demonstrate why no one, outside of their niche, would purchase and read the book. He also analyzes textbooks that increasingly leave out military history and details of battles in the World Wars to discuss labour history and women working on the home front (p. 132). Through these examples, among others, Granatstein convincingly demonstrates the apparent destruction of Canadian history and Canadian identity.
Granastein poses several important questions about the state of Canadian history. As such he encourages readers, academics and the public alike, to begin to think about the state of history, what we want the field to look like, and what changes could be beneficial. He also provides a list of recommendations to set Canadian history back on the right path. For example, he suggests the federal government could provide grants to libraries and schools to purchase more history books as well as scholarships for high school students. Frequently, however, these strengths are overshadowed by Granatstein’s dismissive treatment of social history. For example, in arguing Canadian history is not boring he states, “Yet no history that…recounts wresting a half-continent from the wilderness, settling it, and constructing great cities and small towns...can be boring.” (p. 173). Although the sentiment that Canadian history is not boring is important Granatstein neglects the Indigenous perspective on this process. A process, which when phrased less romantically, is called settler-colonialism.
Just as Granatstein’s background in military and political study influenced his view in this book, so too do current graduate students write histories that speak to their lived experiences. Students and historians research the people, events, and narratives that old national narratives that favoured white, elite men who conquered and civilized Canada’s wilderness left out. Although Granatstein says he hopes for national narratives moving forward to include these marginalized groups, he fails to understand that these histories are being written. Is an unknown female doctor in Northern Alberta worthy of a book? I would argue she is just as worthy as another biography on Sir John A. Macdonald. After all, the Northern Albertan doctor’s story is only unknown because it has yet to be told.
December 27, 2023
His main point is legit but the way he attacks the status quo needs improvement.
I teared up when he explained how the city of Apeldoorn in the Netherlands (and many others) still remembers how the First Canadian Army liberated them from Nazi occupation in WWII. In 1995, there were commemorative events in the Netherlands, houses were decorated with Canadian colors and flags. One banner said, “Bless You Boys”. 50 years later Canadian veterans were being recognized and appreciated for their service.
I was not aware of Canada’s contribution in WWII and only know a little about their contribution in WWI due to Rilla of Ingleside.
And that’s his main point, Canadian history (good, bad, and otherwise) needs to be taught and learned as it happened, not airbrushed or revised so as to be inoffensive.
And the same thing in the US. The US has done some really great things and also some horrendous things and it all needs to be taught. How else can we learn?
I teared up when he explained how the city of Apeldoorn in the Netherlands (and many others) still remembers how the First Canadian Army liberated them from Nazi occupation in WWII. In 1995, there were commemorative events in the Netherlands, houses were decorated with Canadian colors and flags. One banner said, “Bless You Boys”. 50 years later Canadian veterans were being recognized and appreciated for their service.
I was not aware of Canada’s contribution in WWII and only know a little about their contribution in WWI due to Rilla of Ingleside.
And that’s his main point, Canadian history (good, bad, and otherwise) needs to be taught and learned as it happened, not airbrushed or revised so as to be inoffensive.
And the same thing in the US. The US has done some really great things and also some horrendous things and it all needs to be taught. How else can we learn?
September 27, 2022
Just finished this as my July book of the month for the gospels books reading challenge (book about your country).
This was an interesting topic and one I have often mused. Why wasn’t I taught Canadian history in school? Why do Americans study their history every year?? I’ve asked many times but now have some real hard answers to.
I found it interesting that he was decrying the woke cried decades before it became “trendy” to do so.
I will say that most of his suggestions requIre substantial government intervention and big government dollars. He sees the solutions in more government intervention. Which I heartily disagree on.
But I did like some of his suggestions, including a national competition and a national Canadian history heritage day.
Overall worth the read.
This was an interesting topic and one I have often mused. Why wasn’t I taught Canadian history in school? Why do Americans study their history every year?? I’ve asked many times but now have some real hard answers to.
I found it interesting that he was decrying the woke cried decades before it became “trendy” to do so.
I will say that most of his suggestions requIre substantial government intervention and big government dollars. He sees the solutions in more government intervention. Which I heartily disagree on.
But I did like some of his suggestions, including a national competition and a national Canadian history heritage day.
Overall worth the read.
April 18, 2024
As a homeschooling mom, it’s been difficult to get my hands on great history books to read to my kids. This book explains why.
“History is no panacea for our national ailments. But a nation cannot forget its past, obliterate it, subdivide it into micro-histories, alter it, and bury it. Too often in the past half-century, Canadians seem to have done just that, and it is time to restore the past to its proper place in our national cultural consciousness, in our schools and universities, and in our public discourse.”
“History is no panacea for our national ailments. But a nation cannot forget its past, obliterate it, subdivide it into micro-histories, alter it, and bury it. Too often in the past half-century, Canadians seem to have done just that, and it is time to restore the past to its proper place in our national cultural consciousness, in our schools and universities, and in our public discourse.”
July 20, 2025
Still relevant, still true. Despite attempts by the woke mob to discredit what this book says, and (quite unfairly) the author, it remains a must-read for any patriotic Canadian who loves his/her country, does not believe we are a "post-national state" (whatever that means), and disagrees with the attacks on our national story.
August 7, 2018
Cranky old man rant with more than enough straw man and non sequiters to fill a book 10 times this one.
October 27, 2018
Avery good account of Canadian history being lost
March 9, 2021
A useful perspective on the need for a Canadian national narrative.
September 11, 2023
A good book which gave me lots to think about. It may be something the boys read this year too
March 12, 2025
The few good points in this book are buried by a whiny curmudgeon of an author.
June 22, 2020
I might have a few quibbles for the occasional quirky opinion or literary style of Granatstein's book, but i think this is truly a fantastic book in some ways, where a nation has issues in trying to explain its own history, when there are issues of its identity.
I see a lot of Harold Bloom [Yale Literature] and Samuel P. Huntington [Political Science Harvard] here
It's interesting but i think one of the best books i ever read was one of my mother's batch of Edwardian books [it seemed like some teacher's shelf from the 1920s or 30s] she bought once that had one on Canadian History. The book had one of the clearest explanations of Canadian History i've seen right up to World War I.
Another book on Canadian History i found was
Western Canada: An Outline History
J. Arthur Lower
Douglas and McIntyre 1983
nice stuff on European trade, The Hudson's Bay Company, the Railways, the Gold Rush, Indian Treaties, Louis Riel, the Mounties, Eastern/Western and English/French Rivalries, and Labor tensions and farmer tensions.
"it summarizes and compresses a bewildering array of history, biography and fact into a spare, crystal-clear narrative"
definately an 88 out of 100 for books on the problems of history
and uncomfortable truths
---
I would also recommend Huntington with:
Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004), which examined sources of U.S. political culture and emerging threats to unified national identity.
(the book is useful for America's lessons being applies to any issues of National Identity to any Western nation, and probably non-Western cultures too)
"Huntington was essentially an academic, a Harvard professor who worked incidentally as a consultant for the State Department, the National Security Council and the CIA under the Johnson and Carter administrations."
---
Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (2004)
The book attempts to understand the nature of American identity and the challenges it will face in the future.
---
Challenges to American identity
Huntington argues that it is during the 1960s that American identity begins to erode. This was the result of several factors:
a. The beginning of economic globalization and the rise of global subnational identities
b. The easing of the Cold War and its end in 1989 reduced the importance of national identity
c. Attempts by candidates for political offices to win over groups of voters
d. The desire of subnational group leaders to enhance the status of their respective groups and their personal status within them
e. The interpretation of Congressional acts that led to their execution in expedient ways, but not necessarily in the ways the framers intended
f. The passing on of feelings of sympathy and guilt for past actions as encouraged by academic elites and intellectuals
g. The changes in views of race and ethnicity as promoted by civil rights and immigration laws
Huntington places the passage and subsequent misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 at the center of government actions that eroded the American Creed.
---
A lot of people tend to think I'm a dogmatic ideologue, which I'm not.
Samuel P. Huntington
Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope.
Samuel P. Huntington
---
Granatstein might act like someone's goofy uncle on television, or inflates Canadian content more than one should (hey it happens sometimes to Pierre Berton), or has odd opinions about military funding or the Avro Arrow, but he's a pretty sharp guy.
Huntington basically told his critics to f-off if his conclusions upset people, since he basically felt he was stating very real truths, and such is the problem of historians, that have to deal with uncomfortable issues of the past, and many a soul, just wishes some things in the past never existed.
Way too much lately is all about stifling debate and censorship, and I think, what we need to do is start respecting the opinions of other people, no matter how much we cringe, and feel offended, or outrage.
April 24, 2015
On the back cover, TGAM's Roger Hall called it "a classic, timely polemic about how little we know of our past". Agreed. That was its first effect on me. I know the British North America act, and that makes me a minority among friends I polled as I read through the book. It's definitely also a bit of a rant.
If I may summarize, JLG holds that a unitive Canadian history is nowhere to be found b/c 1) the fed gov't abdicated education to the provinces, who have baldly taught regionalism, 2) the most seminal points in defining Canadian identity are being stamped out in history's retelling, thanks to the march of political correctness across the intellectual landscape, on a related point #3) professional historians have contented themselves largely to write niche histories about various marginalized groups, in an overcorrection of 'Great Man' historiography, 4) multiculturalism, advanced on slipshod [and one almost hears the author say 'liberal'] principles, have rendered Canada impotent in advancing her own history over against the clamouring of more recent immigrants and their precious perspectives.
I largely agree with his analysis. Canada, in the times that it stamped its own identity on a global stage, was of British (predominately WASP) stock with a sizeable French contingent. But her more recent stance is to privilege as many groups as possible whose numbers are great. So why would a history that seems to be about 'white Canada' (if I may be reductive) be as embraced as a history that pulls at different strands, which portions of our variegated polity can identify with? I don't think JLG has prevailed in trying to shame the professional historians into writing more popular histories, and the education system is probably too messy to bother with. I think a resurrection of Canadian history has to start upstream of these concerns.
If Canada will soon be 'post-nationalist' as they say, with only its historical Anglo-Franco poles to anchor it, then a history that wholeheartedly learns what her denizens have done would do just well to furnish it with a unique identity. It will be at some points French/Scottish/English, then Ukrainian/Polish, then South Asian/East Asian. But they will be Canadian. We will likely end up reading much of our history differently than those men read it when they were living it, but what else is new? For Canada to downplay her Western European heritage would be to cheaply pander to the spirit of the age, but to artificially constrain her to Western European nationalism would be shortsighted--and ultimately unworkable. As the descendants of immigrants filter into all the socioeconomic strata, the shared of experience of winter-heavy, near-American life will help. But a more proactive forging of a Canadian identity will rest on negotiating how we hold on to our past. I guess job one is knowing our past, so to that end, JLG wrote a helpful book for me.
There. Now I, too, have rambled my thoughts about Canadian history.
If I may summarize, JLG holds that a unitive Canadian history is nowhere to be found b/c 1) the fed gov't abdicated education to the provinces, who have baldly taught regionalism, 2) the most seminal points in defining Canadian identity are being stamped out in history's retelling, thanks to the march of political correctness across the intellectual landscape, on a related point #3) professional historians have contented themselves largely to write niche histories about various marginalized groups, in an overcorrection of 'Great Man' historiography, 4) multiculturalism, advanced on slipshod [and one almost hears the author say 'liberal'] principles, have rendered Canada impotent in advancing her own history over against the clamouring of more recent immigrants and their precious perspectives.
I largely agree with his analysis. Canada, in the times that it stamped its own identity on a global stage, was of British (predominately WASP) stock with a sizeable French contingent. But her more recent stance is to privilege as many groups as possible whose numbers are great. So why would a history that seems to be about 'white Canada' (if I may be reductive) be as embraced as a history that pulls at different strands, which portions of our variegated polity can identify with? I don't think JLG has prevailed in trying to shame the professional historians into writing more popular histories, and the education system is probably too messy to bother with. I think a resurrection of Canadian history has to start upstream of these concerns.
If Canada will soon be 'post-nationalist' as they say, with only its historical Anglo-Franco poles to anchor it, then a history that wholeheartedly learns what her denizens have done would do just well to furnish it with a unique identity. It will be at some points French/Scottish/English, then Ukrainian/Polish, then South Asian/East Asian. But they will be Canadian. We will likely end up reading much of our history differently than those men read it when they were living it, but what else is new? For Canada to downplay her Western European heritage would be to cheaply pander to the spirit of the age, but to artificially constrain her to Western European nationalism would be shortsighted--and ultimately unworkable. As the descendants of immigrants filter into all the socioeconomic strata, the shared of experience of winter-heavy, near-American life will help. But a more proactive forging of a Canadian identity will rest on negotiating how we hold on to our past. I guess job one is knowing our past, so to that end, JLG wrote a helpful book for me.
There. Now I, too, have rambled my thoughts about Canadian history.
Read
July 21, 2007I read this ages ago, so my memory is rather fuzzy on the details. There are some interesting points made in the book--some I even agree with--but I can't truly support Granatstein's argument, as I have always been more interested in social history over the biographies of leaders, and the dates and statistics of wars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews