Battle Re-enactments and the Role of the Past in the Present

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been fascinated by the debate about the scheduled re-enactment of the Battle of Plains of Abraham. I have found myself reading through many of the news articles posted about the event, such as this and this, as well as the (literally) thousands of comments that people have posted in discussion groups about the issue. Clearly, in our country, historical events are not dead and past, and debates about the historical meaning and significance of the “facts” still incite emotion and debate.

The event is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and while it is this particular re-enactment that is sparking debate, this event is not an isolated one, but rather one in a series of re-enactments of events that occurred between 1754-1763. Interestingly other battles, including the Battle of Sainte-Foy, which I understand was a French victory (the last during the Seven Year’s War) that was much more fatal to both the English and French Armies than the Plains of Abraham that had occurred a year earlier. Also interesting is the fact that the planning for this event is being organized by a federal agency, the National Battlefields Commission, and that the planning for this event goes back at least 5 years.

While reading the articles on this event, I found myself struggling with which side I supported. At first, I thought the voices that were reacting to the re-enactment were over-reacting. There are many nations around the world through frequently re-enact historical events, many which are bloody battles that divided their country. Civil war reenactments are common, and seem to exist without the passionate debate that has accompanied this particular event.

However, after reading through some of the articles and comments, I found my opinions starting to change. I realize that in other nations, such as the USA, the divisions between the historical separate parties are no longer as enflamed (thinking again of the Civil War reenactments). And in those countries where divisions still exist, such as Northern Ireland, the re-enactments (such as the Orangemen marches) as occasionally accompanied by violence and controversy.

As I wrestled with the issue, I also found my own historical understanding was limiting my opinion. I have always viewed this particular battle as “key event” in the creation of our county, which initially led me to disagree with those against the re-enactment. As I researched additional information around the historic event, I realized the complexity of the situation and how this particular event was one among many, as was not the mythical event that led to the “Fall of New France”. I realized that I have taken a “heritage” approach to the event, giving it mythical status, without taking the time to develop and informed opinion. I see now that this particular event was not as central to our history as I once believed, and that I need to continue to develop a mature understanding of the events of the past. I also see that I am being to questions the idea of “our history” at all, whether it is desirable, or even possible to view our nation this way. I have always viewed history as our story of the past – even if the interpretations of the events are malleable. Now I am seeing that “our story” might not exist – that the past is rather a collection of stories – and in the case of Canada, stories being told be a multitude of voices and perspectives.

The larger issue for me is the place of re-enactments in our country. Again, my first opinion was a certain level of comfort with them. Naively, I saw re-enactments as a way to experience the events of the past – but as I spend more time in the study of history, I realize this is impossible. All re-enactments are interpretations, and I after reflection I see creating a detached, objective experience is not possible. What were are left with is the interpretation of the victor. I also thought that re-enactments might be a venue in which to celebrate “our” past and provide a spark of interest and engagement in the study of our past. Like I have written before, I wonder whether heritage has a place in the classroom, as it has the intention purpose of creating feelings of nationalism, patriotism and passion. Could re-enactments play a role?

After reflection, I now see the danger and pitfalls of this attitude. The issues of British/French relations run so deeply through our past, and continue to enflame citizen today. I see that it is impossible to create a politically neutral re-enactment, just as it is impossible to create a historically objective one. I see that re-enactments fall prey to the weaknesses of heritage – and that if they educate at all, the teach a simplified, emotionalize and overly patriotic version of the past. Interestingly, historican Desmond Morton was quoted as saying that re-enactment do little to educate, but rather fail because “the uniforms and drums and gunfire tend to overshadow everything else.”

Anthems and Objects: Heritage in the Classroom

I found the last set of readings quite interesting, having never thought about the significance of classroom decoration before. I think this is a result of a number of factors, including the school where I currently teach, as we don’t have any overtly political ornamentation on our walls. However, two years ago, we started playing “Oh Canada” each morning, something I was a little uncomfortable with when it first started. Throughout the entirety of my public school experience I never attended a school where either the national anthem or any pledge or prayer was recited, and so the ritual each morning was a new experience for me.

So far, I have enjoyed the morning anthem, more for its classroom management advantages than the citizen-building or patriotic aspects that the anthem might stand for. During the national anthem, students stand respectfully quiet, which provides a appropriate leading off point for the morning classroom duties. I suppose the anthem itself is not what I appreciate, but the exercise of a quiet, shared, respectful moment.

I have also never considered deeply what the anthem might mean for different populations and voices within our country, and how many groups identify strongly or negatively toward the written message. I plan to soon engage my students in a dicussion about the morning ritual, as I am curious to know their responses to a number of questions: Do they relate to the lyrics of our national anthem?
Do they have any family connections/stories/traditions involving the anthem?
What are they thinking about during the national anthem?
Why do they think the anthem is played everyday?

After last week’s discussion and readings, I’m starting to notice public displays of Canadian culture, and I’m seeing a repeated connection with the notions of heritage and history. I wonder if it’s because we live in such a multi-cultural, multi-heritage nation, but it seems like the celebration of any voice leads to the exclusion of others. I brings me back to similar questions that I’ve raised before – is it possible to celebrate our history or culture in a fair and just way? How do we take up our culture fabric in an honouring way?

I noticed this public display when working in Kelowna over the weekend and immediately noticed a connection with the ideas from last week. The object was mounted on the wall entering the Faculty of Education at the Okanagan campus of the University of British Columbia. It appears as though it is a classroom project, and my assumption of the work is that students choose a symbol or image to represent their understanding of Canadian identity, with the knowledge that they would be piecing them together to create the unified artifact. There are 28 tiles that have then been collected, mounted and painting with the overlying Maple Leaf as the unifying symbol.

What I found interesting at first was the choices (and I’m assuming that it was the students, not the teacher) made about which symbols and images would be used on the individual tiles. There’s a wide range of sports (Lacrosse, Hockey, basketball, snowboarding sailing, canoeing, taboganning, ballooning) to clothing items (mitts) to some historic items (James Naismith presumable inventing basketball, the CPR) and mixed cultural symbols (masks, buffalo and various fish, apple and school books, a loonie, Inuit?). I wondered what the exercise in the classroom might have looked like – what had the teacher asked the student’s to do? Was there a focus? Was there criteria for deciding which topics to make? I wonder if the student’s had the opportunity to see the final assembled product, and if so, did they engage in discussion about the collective message? Were they asked whose voices were represented? Did they wonder whose voices were missing? What events are represented? What events are absent? I keep going back to our early discussions – what criteria do we utilize to determine historical significance? Cultural significance? In a nation with so many voices – how we/should we decide these issues? What might Levesque or Seixas say about this piece? Should be we critical of the historical thinking it demonstrates?

I also find the unification of the individual pieces with the Maple Leaf interesting. Perhaps I’m analyzing too deeply, but does the creation of 28 individual tiles, merely painted over with a national symbol, create a unified national display? There is nothing on any tile that demonstrates an awareness or dialogue with the rest. Do we live in a country of fragmented groups/regions/cultures/nationalities that united by veils of nationalism such as flags and anthems? What is the heritage/history/story that brings us together? What do we all have in common?

Additional thoughts on this post: (March 15th)

As I've been reading and wrestling with the Stanley article, the notion of the grand narrative continues to circle. I find it interesting going back to this educational object, that is it is physical and visual attempt at a grand narrative. By overlaying the Canadian flag over these 28 images, I get the feeling of unity and cohesion between the tiles. I also get the sense that this is the complete "Canadian experience." Again I wonder, who's grand narrative is created and hung on this wall? Interestingly, Stanley writes that "Canadians in fact do not have a common history, and no single narrative will ever make it so." How many social studies classes around the country have engaged in similar exercises of narrative building? Do I?

The Making of Citizens

I found last weeks reading on the foundations of Canadian Curriculum to be quite interesting, even thought I feel I missed the critical lesson that was to be learned about the importance of understanding the perspective and history of authorship.

One idea that I was fascinated by was the obvious tie between the school system and the type of citizenry the government was attempting to mold.  I thought some of Ryerson's comments were so interesting, particularly when his purposes were so overtly stated. Specifically, I found the comments about immigrant children to be shocking, more of a comment on the current values that I read back into the text.  As Tomkins writes, " Schooling was viewed as the prime means of uplifting them (immigrants) and their children from iniquity to Canadian levels of morality and industry."

I was also intrigued by the attendance medal brought in by one of my classmates.  I love how this is a symbol of the important goals of education at the time, a celebration of what was valued at certain time and a certain place.  I also found it interesting how the owner of the medal still valued it meaning and memory, almost as though the physical object represented a story that someone likes to know/tell about themselves.  I saw it as a another object in the questions I have about personal memory versus collective memory and the stories we use to define ourselves.  I think we like to create our own heritage and think its our history.

I also wonder what the medals for today's students might look like.  Are we still striving for "good conduct, punctuality, regularity and diligence?" in our schools today?  It's a great question for me as a teacher to reflect on which four values would I put on a school medal and are they the same as the foundation of the curriculum(s) that I teach.

Obama as History or Heritage?

Thinking through the issues around history and heritage over the last few weeks, it has been fascinating to observe the events leading up to and including the inauguration of Barak Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Countless pieces of media coverage contain a common thread, that this event is “historical” in nature and that we are witnessing “history in the making.” 

Since starting this course, I have been thinking more critically about statements like these, 

and tend to now perk up and listen closely when ideas or statements involving historical themes are raised. During the planning stages for my group’s first week presentation, we discussed a number of topics, including the concept of what makes something “historic.” One of the members of my group brought forth a newspaper that was published on the day that her first son was born. This piece of “personal history” is meaningful not because of the content (she admitted she had not read or even opened the newspaper) but because it signifies the day her first child was born.

It seems as though one of the collective or public criteria for what makes an event historic is the phenomenon of “firsts.” We celebrate firsts – in news, sports, politics, and economics. The inauguration of Obama has been repeatedly deemed historic because of his colour. I have an African friend who recently said to me, “Ok, we get it- he’s black, can we move on now.” But will the second black US president get the same ‘histori

c’ label.’ Interestingly, the group member who kept the newspaper from her first child did not keep a newspaper from her second.

So then I wonder whether the Barak inauguration would be a historic event or a heritage event. Chances are I should see it as both.  Obama’s comparisons with Lincoln, King and Kennedy seem to be a overt desire to connect him with a particular theme and strand of what it means to be “American.” Watching the news, following the stories online, I sensed a number of celebrations running parrellel, while the election of Obama the person was one focus, so was the realization of the “American dream” in the election of this man. I sensed that the country was not celebrating him, but celebrating themselves, and that this first Black president was a heritage symbol for what American has been, can be and will be.

And yet, even in the loud and numerous voices, chanting for emergence of this new era of change an

d hope, and for the emotion that I have seen on so many faces at so many Obama events, I now wonder whether this time of change is really a time of change for everybody? Are all voices in America chanting in unison? Obviously this is not the case, is it possible to have an account of history that does cover all voices and give time to all perspectives? 

This iconic image of Barak was taken from Wikipedia.  One of the things I find interesting about this poster is that is has already been acquired by the Smithsonian Museum, which (according to Wikipedia) is usually an event that happens as a President is leaving office, not before they have been inaugurated.

Historical Consciousness Presentation