Canadian history section of Chapters bookstore, North London, Ontario, May 2010.

ActiveHistory.ca is happy to announce its first paper of 2012: “A Polyphony of Synthesizers: Why Every Historian of Canada Should Write a History of Canada,” by Alan MacEachern.

Here is Alan’s introductory blurb:

The following was my contribution to a 2010 Canadian Historical Association roundtable, “So What IS the Story? Exploring Fragmentation and Synthesis in Current Canadian Historiography.” In it, I tried to a) graphically illustrate the marginalization of Canadian historical scholarship, b) argue why demography is likely only to make this problem worse, and c) suggest a response. All in under 1400 words. As far as I know, only one person was at all convinced, let alone inspired, by my presentation: me. It got me thinking about how one might go about writing a history of Canada that would necessarily cover the entire country from the beginning to the 21^st century, that would treat Canada in global terms, and that would be relevant. Last month, I published a very, very early outline of such a history, “A Little Essay on Big.” In an uncharacteristic fit of confidence, I’ve dusted off my presentation and asked ActiveHistory.ca if they’d like it, largely unchanged. I welcome your thoughts.

You can read Alan’s paper here.

Share/Save

Our blog posts are normally in the realm of four to six hundred words, and we aim to have them written in an accessible, lively, and engaging style. We have posts on a variety of themes, including but not limited to:
- Does History Matter?
- Environmental Issues
- History and Everyday Life
- History in the News
- History on the Internet
- Local History
- Teaching History

Participants will be listed as “Contributing Editors” and are welcome to take a role in shaping the future direction and mandate of our web project. Our contributors range from engaged community members to faculty members to graduate students, and the more diverse the better! Participation may vary from a monthly post to a few posts a year.

We would like to find historians from a wide range of backgrounds and expertise in all periods and geographic regions of history.  We also hope to encourage participation from historians outside of academia, whether this is people with historical training who now work in another field or laypeople with a passion for history. Please feel free to forward and distribute widely.

If you are interested please contact us at info@activehistory.ca. We look forward to hearing from you!

A few months ago the American Radio Works posted a very interesting podcast on the art of making radio documentaries.  The podcast included a live presentation given by Stephen Smith and John Biewen about a new book Reality Radio: Telling True Stories in Sound.  While the whole discussion is very interesting, the second half focuses on Smith’s essay in the book on making historical documentaries: “Living History”.  Smith made a number of documentaries about 20th Century American history using archival sound.  For example, he used the Presidential tapes from Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in The President Calling to show the human side of high politics, by focusing on how presidents persuaded other individuals over the phone.  In another documentary he followed the legal career of the first African American Supreme Court Justice: Thurgood Marshall: Before the court.

As these two topics suggest, using archival sound clips, instead of oral history interviews, might limit historians to focus on the great men and women of the 20th century, as most of us don’t leave hours of audio tape behind.  Smith and his co-producer Katie Ellis did a third documentary: Say It Plain: A Century of Great African American Speeches which shifts the focus away from those with power to the great orators of a social movement.  Looking through the list of documentaries on the American Radio Works Website, there are a lot of other projects that look at history in different ways, including ones that use oral history.  A particularly good one that I’ve had the chance to listen to is The Great Textbook War on the early days of the Culture Wars in West Virginia in 1974.  It does a great good job presenting both sides of the struggle through a mix of news recordings from 1974 and oral history interviews.

How many academic historians are making audio documentaries?  I know a lot of people doing oral history, but this still generally involves endless transcription and the production of dissertations, journal articles and books. Not many historians use high enough quality recording equipment or have the audio editing skills to present their research in an audio format. Smith does interview historians to provide context to the sound clips he found, so maybe it makes sense to leave the documentary production to the experts, and academic historians can focus on our strengths.  However, this means that others decide on the focus of the projects.

Joy Parr and Jon van der Veen found a number of creative ways to include sound in their Megaprojects New Media website that complements Parr’s recent book Sensing Changes: Technologies, Environments, and the Everyday, 1953-2003.  While they do not create full audio documentaries, they do use oral history interviews to illuminate the history of the moving of Iroquois Ontario for the St. Lawrence Seaway and some sound compositions to represent the experience of living near the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant in Kincardine, Ontario.

As someone who loves to listen to quality radio documentaries from around the world, I highly recommend listening to the “Reality Radio” interview and I look forward to reading the book.  I study the nineteenth century, which means there are no sound archives or oral history opportunities for my project, but I do hope I can study something in the future that would allow me to learn more about presenting my research in a different medium than our beloved books and journals.

Share/Save

Keep it, sell it or release it to everyone?

Copyright isn’t a topic of which many young academics have a strong understanding. But, as a writer, it’s something to which you should pay attention. And you shouldn’t be afraid to assert your rights when it comes to assigning copyright when you publish.

Your copyright is your ownership over the fruits of your labour. You did the research and the writing, so you have a right to benefit from that writing. Copyright is the only thing that legally protects you from people who want to steal your work and make money from it.

The catch is, it only works if you don’t give it away carelessly.

When you publish something, the editor of the publication has to obtain your permission, and you can count on each publication having a set of rights that they require you to sign over in return for publishing your work. There are thousands of combinations of rights publishers can and will ask for. Here I’ve put together the four most common types: Publication Rights, Grant of Rights in Exchange for Compensation, Pressure to Relinquish Rights, and Releasing Rights.

PUBLICATION RIGHTS

First worldwide publication rights including in translation, and the rights to reproduce, transmit, distribute and translate in whole or in part, on magnetic, optical or any other form of electronic media or transmission, whether now in existence or developed in the future, including electronic transmission to on-line terminals and computer networks for searching, displaying and printing.

—

These are the rights University Affairs magazine asked for when commissioning an article from me this past spring. In exchange for these rights, they wrote me a cheque. I still own the piece of writing, which means I can hand out copies of it to my students as long as I let University Affairs publish it first. They can republish it as many times as they like, in as many formats as they like. This agreement protects the publisher’s ability to make money from my article in exchange for the money they paid me.

Another article I wrote last year for a different publication had more stringent rights:

GRANT OF RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPENSATION

Work-made-for-hire: Writer acknowledges that the Work has been commissioned by the Publisher as a contribution to a collective work and that it shall be deemed a work-made-for-hire under U.S. copyright law. Against the possibility that the Work might be deemed, for any reason, incapable as a matter of law of characterization as work-made-for-hire, Writer hereby assigns to Publisher all right, title, and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation all copyrights throughout the world.

—

This time, the publisher wanted to purchase all forms of copyright related to the article. Unlike the article for University Affairs, which I still technically own, another publisher now owns this, and I would have to obtain permission to reproduce it, as would anyone else. For these rights, I was again sent a cheque. In essence, I sold my rights to the work in the same manner a farmer sells his eggs and gives up any right to eat them afterwards. Even though it’s not as liberal as the deal with University Affairs, I was still fairly compensated.

A third model many small publishers attempt to use is as follows:

PRESSURE TO RELINQUISH RIGHTS

Once the editor has decided to publish your piece, the article may not be published in another publication without our express consent. Once articles are submitted, the rights belong to the publication.

___

In exchange for giving away your rights entirely, these publishers will give you a variety of benefits, including “seeing your work published” or “a chance to win a prize in our annual draw” or even “a share of advertising revenue” which by the end of ten years may be worth upwards of 25 cents. If they’re an academic journal, they dangle the “line on your C.V.” in front of you.

These are the publishers you need to watch out for. Unlike more established publications, they don’t make enough money from subscriptions or advertising to stay afloat, so they can’t pay you for the rights they demand. They want to make money from your labour without giving you a tangible return on your efforts.

If you see this on a website or from a magazine publisher, either negotiate the copyright, or run away. Most editors should be completely satisfied with the promise of “First worldwide publication rights” that lets them publish it first and reap the rewards of any buzz the article creates. If they aren’t happy with that, they’ve got ulterior motives and you shouldn’t be afraid to ask why they don’t want you to be able to reproduce your own work in exchange for nothing.

I’d suggest you should also be wary of academic journals who demand full rights to your work. Academic journals are vehicles for disseminating academic knowledge. For a journal to require you to transfer ownership of the work to them, thereby preventing you free access to further disseminate the work is against the best interests of you and of those who could benefit from your knowledge who may not have access to the journal. In this case, the fourth option may be the best:

RELEASING RIGHTS

Author hereby releases this article under an “Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported” license.

—

The fourth model, and the perhaps best suited to academia, is to release the rights under a Creative Commons License.  There are several different Creative Commons licenses, which provide flexible solutions to granting various rights, while protecting others. You can read more on the various option on the Creative Commons website, but to get you started, you might consider an “Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported” license.

This license lets anyone publish your work anywhere in the world (UNPORTED), as long as they don’t make changes to it (NO DERIVATIVES) and they attribute the work in the manner specified by you, but not in any way that suggests that you endorse them or their use of your work. (ATTRIBUTION)

If you are dealing with a non-commercial publication such as a not-for-profit journal or website, you could change your license to an “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported” which would disallow use by anyone out to make money.

The advantage of a Creative Commons license is that everyone knows how the work can be used without having to track you down and ask you directly. As the original creator, you will always have the right to republish or change the work, and your publisher can negotiate terms, which allow them to achieve all their publishing needs without taking anything from you.

Take some time to learn about the various copyright options out there. And don’t be afraid to assert yourself. Publishers need writers just as much as writers need publishers. Don’t be taken advantage of. And if you’re going to give your work away, make sure the cheque’s in the mail; if it’s not, give the work to everyone.

Protect Your Copyright by Adam Crymble is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Share/Save

The ActiveHistory.ca team is looking for more contributors for our collaborative blog on how history and historians actively engage communities and contribute to current debates.  This blog has a growing readership – last month we had over 2,000 distinct visitors – and it provides potential contributors the opportunity to reach a wider audience. If you’re interested in contributing, please read more to find out what we’re looking for!

Our blog posts are normally in the realm of four to six hundred words, and we aim to have them written in an accessible, lively, and engaging style. We have posts on a variety of themes, including but not limited to:
- Does History Matter?
- Environmental Issues
- History and Everyday Life
- History in the News
- History on the Internet
- Local History
- Teaching History

Participants will be listed as “Contributing Editors” and are welcome to take a role in shaping the future direction and mandate of our web project. Our contributors range from engaged community members to faculty members to graduate students, and the more diverse the better! Participation may vary from a monthly post to a few posts a year.

We would like to find historians from a wide range of background and expertise in all periods and geographic regions of history.  We also hope to encourage participation from historians outside of academia, whether this is people with historical training who now work in another field or laypeople with a passion for history. Please feel free to forward and distribute widely.

If you are interested please contact us at info@activehistory.ca. We look forward to hearing from you!

Photo Credit: David Dennis, creative commons licensed

By Adam Crymble

Thanks to a successful workshop held in Vancouver last month, the Popular Publishing Writer’s Guild has added a new Western Canadian chapter. The guild is a support network of new scholars who are trying to engage a wider public with their research and ideas through newspapers, magazines or online.

Every five months, the group holds an internal call for participation that encourages members to draft a submission for an editor of a popular publication. The group offers feedback and encouragement when requested – though some members have submitted content directly to editors on their own.

Originally the group consisted of a handful of members who attended the first Popular Writing workshop in London, ON in the fall of 2009. That group managed to publish six articles out of eight attempts in various Canadian publications out of the first call and many of the Active History editors are part of the team. For some participants, it was their first ever popular article.

Now they’ve got some friendly competition from the folks out West who will be holding their own first call for participation this month. Some may suggest this will once and for all settle the East vs. West dispute. We in the guild like to think everyone wins when academics engage the public.

Right now, membership is limited to people who have attended one of our Popular Publishing workshops. We don’t claim our guild is responsible for our members successes, but we’re pleased to be expanding and hope to have more content out for the world on a regular basis.

Some of that content will be coming your way in the form of new or revitalized blogs. At the Vancouver workshop, co-organizer Dr. Sean Kheraj led a popular session on “Controlling your Google” and has convinced at least one of the participants to start blogging.

Read what the participants had to say about the event (two of whom started their blogs after being converted at the workshop):

• Merle Massie, University of Saskatchewan, History
• Sean Howard Atkins, University of Alberta, History & Classics
• Lauren Wheeler, University of Alberta, History & Classics

If there are other similar groups out there working towards the same goals, I’d love to hear from you. And if you’d like to learn how to set up a similar group with your friends or classmates, drop me a line and I’m happy to help.

Thank you to the Network in Canadian History & Environment (NiCHE), The History Education Network (THEN / HiER), Canada’s History Magazine and the University of British Columbia for their support bringing the last workshop together.

Share/Save

Our book reviews will have community members and involved citizens reviewing academic works. We hope this will provide a new perspective on history books not regularly found in academic journals. If you’re interested in being added to our database of reviewers (and aren’t a current graduate student or faculty member), please contact info (at) activehistory.ca.

Please check back frequently, either on the page or via Facebook/Twitter, as we plan on putting up more reviews over the next few weeks and months.

Share/Save

There are plenty of excuses young historians turn to when they convince themselves not to write opinion pieces for the newspaper. But, there are even more good reasons why they should: what if it makes government reconsider policy related to my research? What if I can convince Canadians to think differently about a topic for which I am passionate? What if my research makes a tangible difference because I put it where people would read it?

An opinion piece – sometimes called an “Op-Ed,” is a great way for a young Canadian historian to engage the general public. I’m not talking about a letter to the editor; instead, an op-ed is generally a 500-1000 word essay that addresses a timely and newsworthy issue, which appears in the editorial section – frequently “Op”posite the “Ed”itorial. Any Joe Schmoe can write a letter to the editor; when selecting an op-ed, editors generally seek someone with expert knowledge. And that’s just what academics are.

Historians certainly do contribute to our nation’s editorial pages; perhaps Jack Granatstein is most famous for his contentious essays about Canadian history. But it’s good to see that there are plenty of young historians finding their way into the papers as well. Recent UWO history PhD student Mark Humphries had an op-ed in the Globe and Mail last summer about the lessons Canada could learn from the 1918 pandemic when dealing with the Swine Flu outbreak. When Mark chose his dissertation topic – the response to the Spanish flu of 1918 – he surely could not have predicted the oubreak of H1N1, but he did recognize the opportunity to apply his research to a contemporary problem and for that was rewarded with a large national audience.

• Mark Humphries, “Lessons from the 1918 pandemic: Focus on treatment, not prevention“, The Globe and Mail. July 24, 2009.

More recently, another UWO PhD student, Ryan O’Connor, has been tearing up the editorial pages. Ryan researches the birth of the environmental movement in Toronto and has published three articles since November, twice the Charlottetown Guardian – his home province, and once in the London Free Press in a joint editorial with fellow student, Jeremy Marks. The three essays address issues relevant to his research and Canadian history and are a good example of how others can turn what they do into something the Canadian public can benefit from.

• Ryan O’Connor, “Cornelius Howatt at 200“, the Charlottetown Guardian. February 6, 2010.
• Ryan O’Connor & Jeremy Marks, “Copenhagen is PM’s Big Chance“, London Free Press. December 13, 2009.
• Ryan O’Connor, “Bring Prince Edward Island back to the land”, the Charlottetown Guardian, November, 25, 2009.

If there are other good examples of history graduate students writing op-eds, let me know. And if you’re interested in learning more, check out the Network in Canadian History & Environment’s Popular Writing for young historians workshops, with which I and other members of the Active History team have been involved. There, you’ll find some good readings to get you started in writing for a popular audience.

• ‘Reaching a Popular Audience – Vancouver: March 26, 2010.

Photo credit: “Newspaper and Tea” by Matt Callow.

Share/Save

Nature's Past

Here in Canada there is a lot less to choose from. CBC’s ideas (iTunes) occasionally deals with history or the history of ideas and our popular history magazine, Canadian History (formerly the Beaver) posts some short interviews (iTunes). The Network of Canadian Environment and History produces a great podcast that I will address further below.

Two history buffs, who are not academic historians, produce interesting independent podcasts in the United States. Bruce Carlson’s My History Can Beat Your Politics (iTunes)(Website) examines many of this same political issues address by pundits on Sunday talk shows and cable news networks from a historical perceptive. It is largely the kind of “Great Men” political history rarely found in university departments now a days, but nonetheless it is often much more informative and thoughtful than the talking points and spin found in mainstream American news analysis. I believe it challenges us to think about what kind of “applied history” is useful to inform our politics and whether we can present social, cultural or environmental history in such an engaging way. A second podcast, which I’ve only listened to one episode, called Hardcore History (iTunes)(Website), was both well produced and thought provoking. Dan Carlin openly admits that he is not a historian, but he reads widely on a topic and presents a well developed argument. I plan on listening to more episodes in the future.

My own field of Environmental History has a wealth of podcasts (two) produced in England and Canada. Dr Jan Oosthoek of the University of Edinburgh has been producing the Exploring Environmental History Podcast (iTunes)(Website) for four years now and he has interviewed some of the leading scholars in the field, such as Donald Woster and relatively obscure historians, like myself. Here in Canada, Dr. Sean Kheraj (an ActiveHistory.ca editorial board member) started a podcast two years ago for NiCHE called Nature’s Past (iTunes)(Website) and has producing a great series of podcasts exploring Canadian Environmental History.

Here at ActiveHistory.ca we are thinking about starting a podcast of our own. What do you think about this idea?

Do you know of other history podcasts?

Share/Save

“We were discussing history in general, and my view is that the history curriculum from Grade 4 to high school, they deal with Canadian history, Nova Scotia history, the American revolution, American civil war, the British empire, ancient Greece, but nothing of the community that the children are living and growing up in, whether it be Dartmouth or Digby or Annapolis Royal or Parrsboro,” said Chapman.

In this book, then, the Dartmouth Historical Association discussed schools, ferries, canals, street names, and the general local history of people. They’re certainly connecting “historians with the public,” as ActiveHistory.ca aims to do.

This raises several fascinating questions. Should local history have a bigger role in history curriculums?

I know at the post-secondary level, it’s often useful to drop a local anecdote or story into a tutorial discussion. It helps make history seem less abstract and more immediate, more directly relevant. Buildings that students might not have thought twice about suddenly assume additional meaning, or they can try to imagine an earlier history in the same space they now live. It’s also something that seems to have nearly universal appeal: why does this road curve this way? What is that statue? Why is Toronto’s Front street so far from the water? Seemingly mundane things, but stories that interest many people in a way that other historical topics might not immediately pique one’s curiosity. They can often be tied into broader topics too.

Yet there are downsides to local history. Civic boosterism, for one. Could a historian be too close to the community in question, providing an uncritical narrative of its past? It also may need to be connected to a broader narrative, generating broader arguments.

I’m curious to see if readers have any views. What do you think of local history? If you’re a teacher, do you use it in your pedagogy? Is this Active History, or a direction that we could be taking more often? Are local histories only important if tied into broader arguments, or does that ignore the important role the local plays in the lives of everyday people?