Quebec’s latest history
Quebec’s new secondary history course comes into effect in September. Every decade or so, Quebec nationalism promises a brand new past to fit its latest vision of the future. The current History and Citizenship education course came into effect in 2011 and will be replaced completely by t his new course by 2017.
Prime minister Stephen Harper’s recognition of the Québécois as a “nation” has caused confusion and is often misunderstood; no federal legislation ever recognized Quebec as a nation — the term used was Québécois, not Quebec. The course explains: “The study of the history of a nation does not begin when the existence of the nation is recognized.” It is unclear if this refers to the ambiguous term “Québécois” nation or to Canada as a nation. To add to the confusion, the new course is labelled “History of Quebec and Canada” and is not the story of Quebec in Canada. Citizenship, as a central theme, has been replaced by “nationhood.” Devised by a sociologist, there is no history of local, Canadian nor international citizenship rights and responsibilities in the course.
The new past retains some of the characteristics of the old past. The course defines English Quebecers as exhibiting a “British Nationalism” in 1837, but who now oppose “Canadien Nationalism.” The War of 1812 is now referred to as the “British- American War of 1812.” There is also a redefinition of French-speaking settlers as sturdy nationbuilders seeking democracy rather than as businessminded fur traders. The term “Québécois” is not used nor defined in this first half of the new course.
The first year of the course ends, not with the British conquest of 1763 or Canadian Confederation of 1867, but with “the demands and struggles of nationhood 1791— 1840.” Rather than placing the 1837 Rebellion within the context of world events such as T= the Great Depression of the 1830s, the course paints the rebellion as a new nation seeking democracy.
Throughout, the course presents a flattering self-image of French- speakers and exhibits historical amnesia about progressive changes brought about by the British after the conquest of 1763. Emphasis is placed on “Allegiance, Assimilation, Constitution, Bourgeoisie, Nationalism, and Parliamentarism” ( Parliamentarianism?). As George Orwell indicates, sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking. In contrast to most North American educational jurisdictions, Quebec is continuing to promote political ideology via an Orwellian misuse of language rather than an evidencebased curriculum based upon age-appropriate language and history, which research has shown to be of more interest to teenagers.
In fairness, the course spends much more time on the First Nations than the previous course, but continues to define them as “Natives,” eschewing their more appropriate name. Until recently, Quebec’s history started in 1535 with the coming of Jacques Cartier, and provincial examinations reflected this fact, thus promoting the impression that the French, not the First Nations, were here first. Early “Exploration and occupation of the territory” refers only to French exploration and omits places explored and occupied by the British. Consequently, the new course omits Canada’s oldest company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and its considerable dealings with the First Nations in Rupert’s Land, a huge section of territory in northern Quebec. The Northwest Company, created after the conquest and based in Montreal, is also absent from the course outline, as is Alexander Mackenzie. With the aid of First Nations peoples and French- Canadian canoeists, he was the first to cross the continent making the North West Company a massive transcontinental organization that led to Canada claiming western lands.
Curiously, great i ndividuals have almost disappeared from this sociologically inspired national landscape. The only individuals mentioned in the 17911840 section of the outline, for example, are Lord Russell and Lord Durham. Even Papineau seems to have taken a hit in the new curriculum.
The second part of this course, from 1840 to the present, has yet to be publicly revealed. Possible updates could include the “BritishGerman War of 1914-18” and the second “British- German War of 1939- 45.” It is difficult to produce textbooks in time for the course’s start this August and therefore impossible for teachers to adequately prepare their lessons. This deplorable situation also happened with the previous re- write, and nothing was said or done by teachers, boards or parents. The failure of English- Canadian historians, academics, and school boards to reject previous bad history has permitted the education ministry to continue to promote i gnorance and misinformation. The Anglophone mindset that accepted the “French face” brought about by Bill 101 has also accepted the French face put on the official high school history course.
THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM PRESENTS A FLATTERING SELF-IMAGE OF FRENCH SPEAKERS AND EXHIBITS HISTORICAL AMNESIA ABOUT CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE BRITISH.