What do you do when a course goes wrong?

      6 Comments on What do you do when a course goes wrong?

By Andrew Nurse

What do you do when a course goes wrong? This is not a title but a question. One that I am asking, perhaps, while treading on thin ice.

There is a chance that a student of mine (perhaps even a student in the course that is on my mind) will read this and wonder if I am talking out of turn. I do feel bad about that and I have thought fairly long and hard before writing these words; I write them, though, because problems keep magnifying and I think this is worth broader discussion, especially as many of us are shifting our pedagogies in response to emerging literature about teaching and learning.

What I want to do with this post is report on that course without, I hope, calling anyone out or intimating that it is all the students fault. Inspired, in part, by Andrea Eidinger’s recent post in Unwritten Histories on rejection, I want to talk about what sometimes seems like another form of rejection: a course that goes off the rails.  More exactly, I want to ask:

  • Is this my fault?
  • What could or should I have done about it?

If you have taught even a little while (as a TA, tutorial instructor, lecturer, running an extra help session, LTA, faculty member), I’m going to gamble that you know the deal. Continue reading →

The Nuclear Renaissance in a World of Nuclear Apartheid

      No Comments on The Nuclear Renaissance in a World of Nuclear Apartheid

Castle Bravo, March 1, 1954

This is the fifth post in a collaborative series titled “Environmental Historians Debate: Can Nuclear Power Solve Climate Change?”. It is hosted by the Network in Canadian History & Environment, the Climate History Network, and ActiveHistory.ca.

Toshihiro Higuchi

Nuclear power is back, riding on the growing fears of a catastrophic climate change that lurks around the corner. The looming climate crisis has rekindled heated debate over the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. However, advocates and opponents alike tend to overlook or downplay a unique risk that sets atomic energy apart from all other energy sources: proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Despite the lasting tragedy of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the elusive goal of nuclear safety, and the stalled progress in radioactive waste disposal, nuclear power has once again captivated the world as a low-carbon energy solution. According to the latest IPCC report, released in October 2018, most of the 89 available pathways to limiting warming to 1.5 oC above pre-industrial levels see a larger role for nuclear power in the future. The median values in global nuclear electricity generation across these scenarios increase from 10.84 to 22.64 exajoule by 2050.

The global nuclear industry, after many setbacks in selling its products, has jumped on the renewed interest of the climate policy community in atomic energy. The World Nuclear Association has recently launched an initiative called the Harmony Programme, which has established an ambitious goal of 25% of global electricity supplied by nuclear in 2050. Even some critics agree that nuclear power should be part of a future clean energy mix. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S.-based science advocacy group and proponent of stronger nuclear regulations, recently published an op-ed urging the United States to “[k]eep safely operating nuclear plants running until they can be replaced by other low-carbon technologies.”

But the justified focus on energy production vis-à-vis climate change obscures the debate that until recently had defined the nuclear issue: weapons proliferation. It is often said that a global nuclear regulatory regime, grounded on the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s safeguards system, has proven successful as a check against the diversion of fissile materials from peaceful to military uses. There is indeed a good reason for this optimism. Since 1968, only three countries (India, Pakistan, North Korea) have publicly declared possession of nuclear weapons – a far cry from “15 or 20 or 25 nations” that President Kennedy famously predicted would go nuclear by the 1970s. Continue reading →

Remembering Richard Allen

      3 Comments on Remembering Richard Allen

By Christo Aivalis

A couple weeks ago, historian of the Canadian Christian left Richard Allen passed away at the age of 90. This piece is not meant to be an obituary, nor a reflection of the deep impact he had upon Hamilton, which he represented as an Ontario NDP Member of Provincial Parliament during much of the 1980s and 1990s. Those matters are covered better in other places. Rather, I want to reflect on Allen’s scholarly influence, as well as our brief—but meaningful—personal interactions.

Allen was raised in a Christian family, being the son of a United Church minister, and this no doubt influenced his academic interests, which took him to Duke University where he completed his doctoral studies. Out of this came his first major work, and one which still inspires scholars of Canadian socialism and Christianity to this day: The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada, 1914-28. Published in 1971, it served as a defining work for how scholars understood the figures, events, motivations, ideologies, and theologies which shaped the social gospel movement in Canada. While of an age that many might deem ‘dated,’ this book was deeply influential on my own understanding of the Christian left in this country, which existed in rudimentary form given my interest in key CCF figures like J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, but wasn’t developed in a meaningful way until graduate school. In Allen’s writing, I saw figures and movements that—however imperfectly—melded the ideas of secular social justice with a conviction that Christ was sent to earth not only to teach us about the afterlife, but about how to build a New Jerusalem in the here and now.

Continue reading →

Research Diary II: A Small Island in Low Season

      No Comments on Research Diary II: A Small Island in Low Season

Alban Bargain-Villéger

This is the second and final part of the diary I kept during a research trip to Groix island in December 2018. The first episode covered my journey to Paris and the train ride to Lorient. The following pages begin on the evening of my arrival, after a rough, though bearable, ferry ride across the Courreaux Strait.

Approaching Groix. Author’s photo.

December 9, 2018 – Port-Tudy, L’Auberge du pêcheur, 8:00pm

J. X. [my contact in Groix] is absolutely lovely; a tad territorial when it comes to local history, but very helpful. We had a drink at the Mojo, the bar located on the ground floor of the Hôtel de l’Escale, where I’m staying. My room is on the third floor, with a view on the harbour. At some point, the clinking of cables against masts lulled me into a reverie. I was on the brink of dozing off, when I thought I could make out “Jingle Bells.” Continue reading →

A Narrow Vision: Politics in Canada in Historical Perspective

      1 Comment on A Narrow Vision: Politics in Canada in Historical Perspective

By James Cullingham

As the imbroglio concerning Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and the Liberal government emerged, an immediate wave of sentiment broke across social media. The panicky message can be summed up:  “In light of this scandal, Canadians will inevitably end up with an Andrew Scheer government.”

This type of thinking reflects a reductive historical and political fallacy that assumes Canadians have only two choices.

It also seems that many cannot distinguish the Conservative Party’s identity from that shaped under the tenure of Stephen Harper. The assumption that any conservative government is a right wing threat to Canadian civility seems baked into the perception of many who consider themselves progressive.

Actually it is too early at present to discern whether Scheer will discover electoral good sense and distance himself from the harder social conservative elements of his Conservative party as October’s federal election nears. From a historical perspective, however, the belief that a Liberal regime is automatically more righteous than a Conservative one is based on thin historical evidence. Continue reading →

Using Infographics to Teach about Canadian History

      1 Comment on Using Infographics to Teach about Canadian History

Krista McCracken

As part of my work at the Shingwauk Residential Schools Centre (SRSC) I’ve recently been working with a group of colleagues to update some of our handouts, educational material, and brochures. As part of this work we’ve created promotional banners, postcards, brochures, and an infographic.

The infographic we created (below) was designed to discuss the history of the Shingwauk Residential School in a way this is accessible to a wide range of audiences. We aren’t the first organization to consider using infographics to teach about Residential Schools. For example, the Alberta Teachers’ Association created one in 2014 and Athina Lavoie created a “Canada’s Indian residential schools by the numbers” infographic in 2018. Indeed, infographics have become an increasingly popular education and outreach method over the past decade.

Shingwauk IRS infographic

Creating good infographics is challenging. Infographics often condense large amounts of information or statistics and a lot of choices have to be made around content and presentation. Infographics are a type of data visualization which create narratives.

In the case of the SRSC infographic we wanted to communicate important information about the Shingwauk site, but we also recognize that this infographic will work best when contextualized. We intend to use it accompany other educational resources and programming. The legacy of Residential Schools is a complex and challenging topic that can not be neatly summarized by an infographic. Continue reading →

Research Diary I: A Small Island in Low Season

      No Comments on Research Diary I: A Small Island in Low Season

Leaving Lorient (To the left, Keroman Submarine Base). All photographs by the author.

Alban Bargain-Villéger

This post consists of excerpts from the research diary I kept during my research trip to Groix, France, in December 2018. Groix is a small island off the coast of Brittany, France’s westernmost region. This investigation into Groix’s understudied past is part of a long-haul project on three small northern European islands that I presented in a previous post. I am currently in the final phases of research for the Groix portion of the trilogy, as I have now read all of the secondary literature on the topic and scoured several Parisian and Breton archives. After another trip to the departmental archives (in Vannes) and the Lorient harbour and navy archives (also located in Lorient), I believe I will have enough material for a solid, well-documented book.

By the summer of 2018, I finally managed to scrounge up some funds for a one-week trip to the island; enough time, I believed, to peruse or photograph an unknown number of documents stored at the bottom of the town hall’s cupboard. Thus, I was well aware, before I even began writing the following pages, that a trip to Groix’s barely catalogued fonds would be a leap into the unknown. While every archive is a world of its own, ridden with idiosyncrasies, any well-organized researcher should not experience any major issue navigating such places, as long as he/she abides by the local etiquette. In the present case, however, it took me approximately two years to find out who was in charge of the municipal archives, only to realize that they were, in fact, the island’s best kept secret.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I would like to clarify that the idea of publishing excerpts from my research diary preceded the writing process. Although I tried my best to let the words flow, the outcome could be anything but the result of spontaneity. I could not adopt a stream-of-consciousness approach either, as this was intended as a research diary, not a creative writing experiment. Thus, I would not be surprised if some found the published version somewhat contrived. In my defence, I will simply answer that many primary sources historians use are also written with ulterior motives. In that regard, I plead guilty as charged: this report is artificial and has been proofread and amended. In addition to correcting the occasional typo or awkward sentence, I have taken the liberty of discarding the few paragraphs that have nothing to do with research, or history in general. In addition, although the “spirit” of the diary has been preserved, I must admit that I did censor some of its contents. Just as historians frequently engage in cherry-picking, source producers naturally select (more or less consciously) what they want to record and share with others.

That being said, I deemed it appropriate not to censor the few contemplative, frivolous moments that punctuate the diary. Since the present post purports to give a general idea of what a research trip looks like, it would have been unfair to portray historians as workhorses unconcerned with the real world. Also, not all researchers are alike, and no one trip to the archives is the same. The following pages reflect my own experiences and how I go about my business during the research phases of my projects. From the discussions I have had with various historians, I came to realize that each one of us has their own routines and strategies, which not only stem from our respective personalities, but are also shaped by the subjects we choose to investigate.

By now, you have probably realized that this diary should be treated like any other source. First of all, you should not take what follows at face value. Testimonies often are impressionistic, even when they aim for objectivity. Emplotment is, at the end of the day, a necessary evil. Secondly, please keep in mind that three simultaneously interdependent and autonomous dimensions are at play in every source, namely, (1) the intentio auctoris (the author’s intention), (2) the intentio operis (the work’s intention, or how a text can take a life of its own), and (3) the intentio lectoris (the reader’s intention).[1] While I was always aware of (1), the power and personality (so to speak) of (2) occurred to me while copying the text. As for (3), it is now your business. Continue reading →

Anti-69 FAQ

      1 Comment on Anti-69 FAQ

Tom Hooper, Gary Kinsman, and Karen Pearlston

(The Anti-69 Forum is taking place March 23-24, 2019 at Carleton University. See www.anti-69.ca for more information)

When we say we are Anti-69, we are referring to the mythologies surrounding the 1969 Criminal Code reform. We are not Anti-69 in all contexts. There are many important events from 1969 that deserve to be celebrated, including the Stonewall riots against police repression and the origins of the gay liberation movements around the world. Some people also really enjoy 69 as a sexual position.

1. Why are you Anti-69?

We are Anti-69 because the federal government has planned and funded several efforts at commemorating the 50th anniversary of the so-called ‘decriminalization’ of homosexuality.

These include:

We argue that no such decriminalization took place, and these efforts at commemoration only serve to perpetuate a myth. This myth is being used to legitimize Liberal governments, both past and present, as pro-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, or Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2+).

2. What law related to homosexuality was changed in 1969?

Clause 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (also known as the Omnibus Bill) reformed two provisions in the Criminal Code: buggery, and gross indecency. These were not repealed. Instead, the bill added an exception clause that allowed individuals to commit these crimes under certain circumstances: they had to take place between only two adults (21 years old and older), in a strict definition of private. Continue reading →

The Cold War Constraints on the Nuclear Energy Option

      No Comments on The Cold War Constraints on the Nuclear Energy Option

This is the fourth post in a collaborative series titled “Environmental Historians Debate: Can Nuclear Power Solve Climate Change?”. It is hosted by the Network in Canadian History & Environment, the Climate History Network, and ActiveHistory.ca.

By Robynne Mellor

Shortly before uranium miner Gus Frobel died of lung cancer in 1978 he said, “This is reality. If we want energy, coal or uranium, lives will be lost. And I think society wants energy and they will find men willing to go into coal or uranium.”[1]

Frobel understood that economists and governments had crunched the numbers. They had calculated how many miners died comparatively in coal and uranium production to produce a given amount of energy. They had rationally worked out that giving up Frobel’s life was worth it.

I have come across these tables in archives. They lay out in columns the number of deaths to expect per megawatt year of energy produced. They weigh the ratios of deaths in uranium mines to those in coal mines. They coolly walk through their methodology in making these conclusions.

These numbers will show you that fewer people died in uranium mines to produce a certain amount of energy. But the numbers do not include the pages and pages I have read of people remembering spouses, parents, siblings, children who died in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and so on. The numbers do not include details of these miners’ hobbies or snippets of their poetry; they don’t reveal the particulars of miners’ slow and painful wasting away. Miners are much easier to read about as death statistics.

The erasure of these people trickles into debates about nuclear energy today. Any argument that highlights the dangers of coal mining but ignores entirely the plight of uranium miners is based on this reasoning. Rationalizations that say coal is more risky are based on the reduction of lives to ratios. Continue reading →

History Slam Episode 130: No Surrender

      1 Comment on History Slam Episode 130: No Surrender

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

By Sean Graham

As an undergraduate student, I remember reading about settler-Indigenous relations and how some of the problems the relationship could be attributed to cultural misunderstandings. This was a theme within some of the historiography, particularly as it related to treaty negotiations. In his new book No Surrender: The Land Remains Indigenous, Sheldon Krasowski challenges this idea and demonstrates how treaty negotiators for the federal government misled First Nations, particularly when it came to the surrender clause. By looking  As a result, the numbered treaties signed in the 1870s were not defined by cultural misunderstandings, but rather a concerted effort to deceive First Nations during negotiations.

In this episode of the History Slam, I talk with Professor Krasowski about the book. We talk about the tactics used by the government, the motivations of individual agents, and how outside pressures influenced negotiations. We also talk about how treaties influence contemporary discussions and working towards Reconciliation.

Continue reading →