By Ian Milligan
Yesterday afternoon, in the atrium of the University of Waterloo’s Stratford Campus, a packed room forewent what was likely the last nice weekend of summer to join Peter Mansbridge and guests for a discussion around “What’s the future of the library in the age of Google?” It was aired on CBC’s Cross Country Checkup on CBC Radio One, available here. It was an interesting discussion, tackling major issues such as what local libraries should do in the digital age, issues of universal accessibility, and whether we should start shifting away from a model of physically acquiring sources (notably books) towards new models for the 21st century. Historians, and those who care about history, have much to contribute to these sorts of conversations. Those who know me or have read my writings over the last three years know that I’m not a luddite. But I came away worried about some of the assumptions made in the conversation, and what they mean for us who write about the past.

A big crowd of folks who care enough about libraries to spend a beautiful Sunday afternoon in a university building lobby.
I don’t want to rehash the conversation, as you could rewatch it, but a brief summary of some of the main themes might help. The broadcast began with Peter Mansbridge asking the major question “Digital technology is changing the way we store information, and how we learn from it. Does it make sense to stack printed books in costly buildings when virtual libraries are just a mouse-click away?” Mansbridge was joined by Christine McWebb, director of academic programs at the Waterloo Stratford Campus, and Ken Roberts, former chief librarians of the Hamilton Public Library and a member of the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel on the Future of Libraries and Archives in Canada. Continue reading
“What Use is History?” This is the question asked by a 1958 article in The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter. I will confess that I have no particular soft spot for the Royal Bank (even though, I suppose, it technically owns the house in which I live), but I was intrigued that a bank’s newsletter addressed this issue. It is, I’d suggest, yet another sign that history — or, more precisely arguments for its relevance — never go out of vogue. Even more intriguing, however, were the answers. The article is marred by the language of the time that will periodically sound very odd to our ears. There is much, too, in this short piece (four pages) with which a great number of people — particularly practicing historians — will disagree. Yet, there is also a surprising breadth of vision and, more importantly, an effort to catalogue precisely why history is not simply interesting but important to public culture.







By Timothy Humphries