It seems that there is no over-arching historical view given to our students. Each province has designed its own curriculum. Kids in grade six in one province might be learning about the ancient world, while kids in New Brunswick are learning about their timber barons. Then, inevitably, the Quebecois are learning, yet again, about their particular regional history.
My interest was drawn by this article, entitled Learning Curves: Only a Lucky Few Learn the Wider past of Canada. (The National Post, Aug, 11 2003) Sarah Schmidt lays out the need for a more cohesive history curriculum in Canada. Quebec is excluded. As she puts it: "Then in Quebec, there never was any interest. They were so self-protective. They just wanted to tell their own story." I might have used another adjective for "self-protective, such as "self-absorbed", but we get the drift.
As though that were not enough of a barrier, we get the musings of Peter Seixas, a honcho at some Center for the Study of Historical Consciousness at UBC (Where else?), who has decided that, "There is no common historical perspective...now we have contested notions of significance." The article ends with a "children attending a history camp that tells 165 distinct stories about 165 distinct Canadian communities."
And we wonder that here is no real glue holding together our national identity! A further claim was made by Professor Seixas, "We are at a very different point nationally and culturally. Once upon a time we could point to the significant people, those who needed to be studied, but as a result of cultural changes..."
It is as though we start to discount the historical data that has occurred over four centuries in favour of some touchie-feely multicult story. It is not that our immigrant contribution should be smothered, but simply it should be understood that they arrived at the end of our evolving national saga. Their story should not begin our narrative, rather it should embroider its final stages -- at least up to this point.
