A Social and Political History of Canada to 1911 and Nelson Socials 9

Decolonizing the Curriculum: A comparative ENDNOTES review of Canada Revisited: A Social and Political History of Canada to 1911 and Nelson Socials 9

In 2019, the American History Association and Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted a study on the public’s perception of history. Among their many findings, scholars Peter Burkholder and Dana Shaffer found that their “respondents had consistent views on what history is [but]… those views often ran counter to those of practicing historians.”1 Burkholder and Shaffer’s conclusions raise important questions concerning what factors have shaped the public’s views on the discipline and what role high school history education plays in shaping these views. When looking at Canadian history curricula, are topics such as nation building, European-Indigenous relations and gender taught in a way that is consistent with the work of experts in the field? Comparing Canadian Social Studies textbooks can help historians and educators answer these questions. Although published twenty-seven years apart, Canada Revisited: A Social and Political History of Canada to 1911 by Penney Clarke and Roberta McKay and Nelson Socials 9 by Brenda Ball, John Lyall and Tom Morton both cover a wide range of topics from the Social Studies 9 curriculum such as the initial contact between the European traders and Aboriginal communities and the role of women in the fur trade. Many historians, such as Richard White, Michael A. McDonnell, and Susan-Sleeper Smith have done valuable work in these areas but are the narratives presented in these textbooks consistent with their research?

Textbook Canada Revisited Nelson Socials 9

Publishing Date 1992 Key Themes Power, Co-operation, Decision-making, and Conflict

Years Covered No clear starting point- 1911 2019 Ideas and ideologies, Trade, technology and industrialization, Power and governance, and Land, water, and air 1750-1815

Consultation

Indigenous- European Contact

Fur Trade

Kinship Historical and Educational Consultants, Field Validators, Field Testers Presents contact through the lens of “exploration” history and European conquest Describes the fur trade in terms of French dominance

Both texts include information on the role of Indigenous- European marriage in expanding trading relations but fail to mention the significance of Indigenous women and Catholic kinship networks Advisors, First Peoples Advisors, Classroom Reviewers

Avoids “exploration” language by shifting the focus to Atlantic and global perspectives Use more neutral language when speaking about the voyageurs and emphasize the role of both European and Indigenous traders

A helpful starting point for evaluating these texts is exploring the themes that drive their historical narratives. For example, the opening chapters of Canada Revisited employ the lens of “exploration” to describe life before and after Indigenous-European contact. The problematic nature of this term has been discussed by historian Dane Kennedy, who writes about the connotation of the word in the context of North American-Atlantic history, noting that “exploration is a concept and a practice that carries a particular set of cultural, social, and political valences, and they originate in the European historical experience.”2 In other words, by speaking in terms of exploration, the historical narrative in this textbook becomes centered on European colonization, rather than the agency of Indigenous communities. This is also made evident in the later content of that chapter, as the authors focus on topics such as European motivations to explore, the process of colonization, and the French control over the fur trade. The authors make generalized statements that focus on the European experience and suggest their dominance in this time period such as “in the Americas, the Europeans claimed the land and extended their control over the people.”3

Nelson Socials 9, on the other hand, avoids the use of the term “exploration” but instead uses guiding questions that focus on a more Atlantic and global perspective. For example, the opening chapters of the book ask, “how did trade bring people around the world into contact”4 or “how did empires and revolutions change different societies around the world?”5 In these chapters, the European perspective is addressed but it is not the central narrative; Asian, African, and Indigenous storylines are included throughout these chapters with equal attention. Again, to cite the work of Dane Kennedy, the use of the word “exploration would connote a combination of scientific and technological achievement, state power, and national prestige”6 and by avoiding this language, Nelson Socials 9 moves away from the narratives of European power, nation building, and progress which is more visible in Canada Revisited, showing their intention to de-colonize the curriculum.

The fur trade is another topic that is addressed in these texts. Here, the work of Richard White in The Middle Ground as well as Masters of Empire by Michael A. McDonnell becomes relevant, as they both speak to the ways that Indigenous communities, specifically the Odawa, use their agency in trade with the French. For example, White writes that “the fur trade was a constantly changing compromise, a conduit, between two local models of the exchange- the French and the Algonquian”7 while McDonnell adds that the history of this time period needs to “move on from an older story of [Indigenous] dependence… and

begin to think about a history of the Anishinaabe Odawa… that emphasizes strength and expansion.”8 In other words, the fur trade was not controlled by the French but was a space in which Indigenous communities made use of their agency and alliances to benefit from this new trade relationship.

Both Canada Revisited and Nelson Socials 9 approach the fur trade from the framework of mutual benefit. For example, Clark and McKay speak about the “exchange of technology” in which “each group gave something of which they had more than they needed at that time”9 implying a mutually beneficial relationship. However, later in that chapter, the authors speak about the fur trade in terms of French dominance in statements such as “[the coureurs de bois]… did a great deal to extend French control (power) over an increasingly large amount of inland territory”10 and that they were “energetic and daring adventurers [who] became expert canoeists and shrewd businessmen.”11 Additionally, contrary to the work of McDonnell who sees the Odawa as the key players in the fur trade, Canada Revisited ignores this group and focuses instead on the Huron and the Iroquois confederacies. Nelson Socials 9 also speaks to the mutually beneficial relationship that stemmed from the fur trade; “First Peoples entered into trade alliances with European traders because they felt that there were benefits.”12 However, unlike Canada Revisited, the authors use more neutral language when speaking about the voyageurs, calling them “professional canoeists who transported furs for trade” and noting that they were both “Canadien and Métis.”13 In this way, the romanticized descriptions of French fur traders and the supposed upper hand of the French in this trade relation has been rejected in this later textbook.

Finally, the textbooks explain kinship alliances in similar ways and with similar shortcomings. Scholars such as Susan Sleeper-Smith who specialize in this area insist that the role of women in the fur trade is vital in understanding this historical narrative. As Sleeper-Smith writes, “Indian women probably exerted more influence than men on the types of cloth that became the staple of the fur trade”14 and through their marriages to European men, Indigenous women “incorporated their French husbands into a society structured by native custom and tradition”15 helping them in their fur trade dealings. Catholicism also strengthened kinship networks as Sleeper-Smith claims. She writes that Indigenous women were at the heart of “the creation of Catholic kin networks,”16 illustrating how religious affiliations contributed additional kinship ties to those created through marriage or birth. In these ways, Indigenous women used both their trade savvy, marriages, and Catholicism to further their power within their own communities and in dealings with the French.

Both textbooks make references to Indigenous kinship networks but fail to explain their importance in the trade. For example, the authors of Canada Revisited state that “Native trading between bands was customarily done through family contacts. To become part of this family trading system, the French left young men to live with a band during the winter. These young men adapted easily to the Native way of living, often married Native women and became part of their bands.”17 Similarly, Ball, Lyall and Morton write in Nelson Socials 9 that “First peoples women played a vital role in the fur trade. Many French traders married First Peoples women, and their marriage helped to advance trade relations between the traders and First Peoples.”18 Yet, this is the only information students are offered on the role

of women in the fur trade, further ignoring the work of scholars who call for Indigenouscentered narratives and emphasize the importance of women in this space. Furthermore, neither book speaks to the way in which Catholicism was used in order to expand kinship networks. Canada Revisited describes the Jesuit presence but the only women it referred to in this section are the Ursuline nuns who were sent to North America from France.19 On the other hand, Nelson Socials 9 makes no mention of the Jesuits, let alone the Indigenous women who would have been members of Jesuit congregations. Both textbooks, almost completely ignore the power that women had within the fur trade; women are presented as wedding candidates for French traders wanting to enter into preestablished indigenous trade networks, rather than as agents at the center of the industry.

What has changed in the twenty-seven years between these two textbooks? Do these changes mean that a more accurate history of the fur trade is being portrayed, one that is grounded in the work of historians? Positive changes include the movement away from the rhetoric of exploration as well as romanticized and exaggerated portrayals of the French. Yet, when comparing the content of these textbooks to scholarship on the topics of trade, kinship, and women, it becomes clear that improvements need to be made. The work of scholars such as White, McDonnell, and Sleeper-Smith can serve as a foundation to fully decolonize high school history curricula. While their approaches may be more nuanced than the traditional model of nation building and progress, textbook writers ought not underestimate their young readers. Students can appreciate that communities rather than individual “explorers” can do more to shift cultural landscapes, that Eurocentric narratives fail to acknowledge the important work of Indigenous people, and that women can use their agency to gain influence in their communities. Most importantly, as the work of Burkholder and Shaffer illustrates, young people want to learn more about history. It therefore becomes vital for textbook authors to revise their books to fit in with the work of scholars rather than focusing on traditional narratives that have long been debunked.

Karolina Zyra

MAIH (History stream)