Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I have to agree with the original poster. The otherwise bright young person you met in BC is unfortunately very typical of many Canadians.
Teaching of Canadian history in schools in most parts of the country is woefully inadequate. Your average American may not light up the room with their knowledge of geography and world issues, but their knowledge of their own country's history is usually eons ahead of what your average Canadian will know about Canada's history.
Many Canadian provinces don't even require a single Canadian history credit to get your diploma and when they do it is usually just one measly course you need.
Another thing is that American history knowledge in the U.S. is buttressed by popular culture. This does not really exist in Canada and the result is the American history "boost" from Hollywood is what ends up in the minds of young Canadians.
Popular culture is one of the main reasons Canadians seem so knowledgeable on American history when you talk them. As kids, my generation grew up on stuff like Schoolhouse Rock and saw Archie. Jughead and Reggie Mantle marching as Minutemen in the American Revolution!
I wouldn't care so much if the ignorance of Canadian history didn't fuel so many ignorant views among many Canadians, about francophones and aboriginals in particular.
Your friend was educated in British Columbia?
Remember that education is a provincial/state responsibility.
When I first came to B.C. I talked to educational coordinators who told me history wasn't really pushed because that meant teaching politics. Political involvement, volunteering, and action was built right into my Los Angeles school. (ok,ok, it was the sixties) The B.C. provincial legislature was full of used car dealers and trailer park owners. (I'm not kidding)
Canadians think they know America. Some Americans think they know Canada. My very different brothers and I agree on one thing, being raised in areas of both countries: neither party really knows anything about the other. Americans don't have to, and Canadians just don't.
I think part of the problem in schools (at least in the 60's and 70's), was the lack of emphasis placed on Canadian history in the classroom. It simply, wasn't considered as important as the 3 R's. The evolution of Canada as a nation wasn't a topic of discussion.
I learned about Canadian history at home. Stories from my grandparents about their travel from a far away home to make a new life in Canada (Finland), Passchaendale from my Grandfather (on my father's side). The Great Depression from both my parents, and so on.
The best classroom for learning about Canadian history was provided by my parents.
I do think that some of the confusion is because "Canada" has been so difficult to define. It wasn't "really" independent until after WWII, the queen isn't "really" the head of state anymore but technically is, does a Canadian speak French, English, both, or neither, if Canadian culture = multiculturalism what were the people who lived in Quebec or Ontario in 1840 "really"!? So when you have a class about Canada, what exactly do you learn? Who exactly was "Canadian" or the predecessors to today's state of Canada - who should we learn about? Do we learn about the Canadiens, or the English Speaking people living in the US who would later move in with the Canadiens onto the territory of the Empire and be called English-Canadians?
This is really good stuff. They say that history is written by the victors, but in Canada it is not always clear who the victors are. Too much is still "up in the air" here (Quebec's place, the relationship to the U.S., etc.). I find that most countries (even those with tumultuous histories like the U.S.) have much more of a dominant "ethos" than Canada does.
Of course, some are of the view that this lack of a strong national "ethos" is what defines Canada, and makes it such a "free" and relaxed place to live. This may be true, but it is also a huge barrier to putting in place a national identity and sense of purpose.
We certainly didn't support the 'mother country' in the Iraq fiasco. I wonder if that means we are now "independent"?
Canada supported Iraq militarily - although not officially and in a very clever way. Canada didn't officially support the war and never officially declared war, so on CTV it was said "no, Canada is not supporting the Iraq War", but in reality Canadian soldiers were the third most populous nationality among troops in Iraq! About the same as say, Australia. They served under Americans/British, led them, and even involved proper Canadian units in conflict. So while in Canada it was being reported that they took no part, in the US news would say the Canadians didn't "officially" take part, but they did anyways.
Canada supported Iraq militarily - although not officially and in a very clever way. Canada didn't officially support the war and never officially declared war, so on CTV it was said "no, Canada is not supporting the Iraq War", but in reality Canadian soldiers were the third most populous nationality among troops in Iraq! About the same as say, Australia. They served under Americans/British, led them, and even involved proper Canadian units in conflict. So while in Canada it was being reported that they took no part, in the US news would say the Canadians didn't "officially" take part, but they did anyways.
Canada supported Iraq militarily - although not officially and in a very clever way. Canada didn't officially support the war and never officially declared war, so on CTV it was said "no, Canada is not supporting the Iraq War", but in reality Canadian soldiers were the third most populous nationality among troops in Iraq! About the same as say, Australia. They served under Americans/British, led them, and even involved proper Canadian units in conflict. So while in Canada it was being reported that they took no part, in the US news would say the Canadians didn't "officially" take part, but they did anyways.
I'm not sure if this is the proper forum, but this is a legitimate question. In Canadian school curricula, do they teach history to young people? I was talking to a young man last name from British Columbia. And, we were discussing various issues. He is an intelligent guy and is up on his history. He has an especially acute interest in European and Asian history and is a World War II buff.
This having been said, the conversation drifted to Canada's position in the Commonwealth, and it was me as an American that was explaining large portions of CANADIAN history to him such as why Canadians normally do not take British peerage titles (the Nickle resolution), just who Conrad Black is (former Canadian newspaper mogul), the fact that Canada REMAINS in the Commonwealth. I have a feeling if pressed, he would not have been aware of Canada's first prime minister, Sir John Macdonald. He could not even point out the province east of Saskatchewan, and asked in all seriousness if Ontario was a province (??!!). He WAS aware that Canadians under British rule did a pretty good job of kicking ass during the War of 1812, lol. ?
You meet ONE person and assume the entire country is deficient in educating its youth about its history??? One should be careful of perpetuating the stereotype that Americans are obtuse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
