Did the test from citizenshipcounts.ca, a site funded by the federal government. But this answer does not seem right: pic.twitter.com/XSSw54DrgC
— Éric Grenier (@308dotcom) February 26, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
The media had a striking story this week about how aboriginal kids do in school when they get the kind of educational support used in mainstream schools. Louise Brown in The Star writes of "an astounding turnaround" at a couple of Ontario reserve schools where a test project was implemented over several years. Joseph Friesen in The Globe reports
The year before it began, only 13 per cent of students achieved the provincial standard on grade three reading tests, and only 33 per cent met the standard on writing tests. By 2014, just less than 70 per cent of the school’s students met the reading standard, very close to the provincial average, and more than 90 per cent met the writing benchmark, significantly higher than the Ontario average.Before the kids got the education they deserved, 45% of them were deemed to have special learning needs. With proper teaching available, that proportion fell to 19%. Funding for the project came through an NGO, the Martin Aboriginal Education Initiative.
Good news: the catastrophe in aboriginal education seems fixable with standard, familiar tools. Bad news: all it takes is money. Because hell will freeze over before either the feds or the provinces fund reserve schools adequately, given their lack of voting clout and the general public's lack of interest or actual hostility to giving "charity" to "Indians."
So like everything else, it comes back to land and treaties. When the First Nations secure control of their economic base, they will able to address the educational crisis (and gradually, most of the other crises too)
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Slate has published news of an academic study on the steeply hierarchical nature of scholarly hirings, particularly in history:
just a quarter of all universities account for 71 to 86 percent of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada in these three fields. Just 18 elite universities produce half of all computer science professors, 16 schools produce half of all business professors, and eight schools account for half of all history professors.That is, the graduates of Ivy league schools can and do teach everywhere, but the graduates of less prestigious schools will rarely ever move "up" to teach higher on the prestige ladder. If they teach at all, that is.
One would like a lot more granularity -- is that what they say? -- regarding the "US and Canada" thrown into that quotation. A lot of Canadian graduates look to be hired at Canadian universities, and I would have assumed the hierarchy is less clearly established here, where nearly all universities depend almost completely on public funding and do not have the vast financial advantage of the great American private universities.
I don't doubt the Harvard grad has a huge advantage over the grad from Generic Midwestern State, but not so many Harvard grads apply in Canada, I would guess. Among Canadian universities hiring young historians, does a (let's say) McGill history grad inevitably crowd out the graduate of (fill in your local provincial university here) ?
Anecdote in lieu of data: Doing legal history, I once interviewed a very successful female litigator and judge. She grew up poor and lefty in a big US city, came to Canada with a draft-dodger boyfriend, and went to an Ontario law school because it was cheap and local. She then articled with a high-prestige, big-money Bay Street litigation team. Being a woman there was a much greater obstacle than being a nobody from an average Canadian law school, she argued, but she went on to a stellar career, along with colleagues from similarly obscure backgrounds and law degrees from average Canadian schools. She might have gone to law school in the US, she insisted, but she would have had no access to the Ivy League schools from which all prominent US law firms draw their talent -- who become the new generation of leading American lawyers. She thought it was different here.
Does hierarchical hiring on the Slate pattern apply in Canadian history and the humanities? I genuinely wonder. Anybody researching this?
Yesterday this cover won Canada's History a Canadian covers award, from the people who stock news stand magazine racks -- and keep a close tally of which covers make copies fly off the stands.
Probably not something the Canadian Historical Review has to worry about too much, but there may be some kind of heavy-metal hunger out there in the news stand browsing public. Worked for CH, anyway.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Planning Armageddon by Nicolas Lambert, from Harvard University Press, was published in 2012, and the implications of its analysis have taken awhile to settle into the minds of readers, it would seem. As I understand it, Lambert argues that British did have a strategy in the years before 1914 for a quick victory in the event of a European war, and that the strategy focused neither on Dreadnaught battleships nor on sending an army to the continent. One reviewer declares that Lambert “essentially has rewritten our understanding of what produced the Great War.”
Lambert argues the master plan was economic, more specifically financial. Britain by the early 1900s was facing stiff competition in manufacturing and economic output generally, but it still overwhelmingly controlled the financial and fiscal underpinnings of world trade. Lambert demonstrates that Britain had a comprehensive plan to hit the financing of German trade and economic activity so hard and so fast that Germany would quickly become unwilling or unable to continue pursuing a continental war. Furthermore, Britain engaged this plan in the first week of August 1914.
Okay, it doesn't seem to have worked. Germany was not deterred or destroyed. The war continued. Indeed, Lambert argues that it was the rapid falling apart of the "weaponisation of trade" strategy that obliged Britain to send an expeditionary force into Belgium and northern France instead... with the results everyone knows.
The economic warfare project fell apart, argues Lambert, because as soon as Britain began to apply it, large sections of the financial community, in the United States, in Britain itself, and throughout the British-led world trading network, began to scream and kick about the damage they too were suffering from it. Britain's economic sabotage of German finances and trade was making life difficult for bankers, financiers, and debtors on the Allied side of the line. And they screamed so loudly that the British government capitulated. It agreed to rely instead on traditional military efforts, substituting a traditional naval blockage of Germany for its more sophisticated financial sabotage plan, and turning to the dreadnaughts and the expeditionary force instead. With world-historical results.
The Planning Armageddon thesis sounds profound in itself. A hundred years later, maybe historians are starting to understand what they were thinking ("What were they thinking!"). But -- contemporary relevance -- it sems it is current diplomats and strategists who are really thinking hard about the book's message.
What is the west's plan to deter President Putin from his military adventurism? Targeted fiscal and economic sanctions. What would be the west's plan in the event of a confrontation with China? Same thing, you can readily guess. Much of global strategy today depends on deploying the (million times more elaborate) tools of financial and fiscal sabotage to deter rival powers from starting or continuing military action. How's that going to work out this time?
Coincidentally (there are no coincidences), there's a column today about how the Harper government talks very tough about sanctions to deter Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But Canadian sanctions on the Putin regime have mysteriously omitted key elements of the Russian energy sector, ones that have invested heavily in the Alberta energy sector. Apparently sanctions there might have uncomfortable repercussions in the Calgary oil patch. The Lambert thesis about the domestic obstacles to the effective weaponisation of international finance seems to be working out in real time.
Key readings, if you are not up for reading the whole of Planning Armageddon: This David Warsh column at Economic Principals, particularly the second half, when he gets to the Lambert book. But even more, look at the comprehensive review essay and roundtable discussion at H-Diplo, which is impressively scary.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
What's the special sauce for great public broadcasting? Kate Taylor observes that in a geographically-small space and (mostly) one language, the BBC gets 8 time the funding the CBC does
|Gordon S. Wood|
So there seemed to be something more going on when I found Wood (age 81) writing for the very conservative Weekly Standard a review of a new work by his mentor Bernard Bailyn (age 92 -- these guys do go on producing forever) that is also an attack on just about everybody else among Americanist historians -- and issued in a very "kids today!" tone of voice.
Turns out there is a lot of history to this historiographical spat. As an intellectual historian focussing on the ideas and philosophies of the American Founders, Wood has always been looked at askance by historians who emphasize class conflict, slavery, aboriginals, women, and the whole social history project, and who doubt or criticize Wood for his alleged lack of interest in such issues. Add to that the fact that Wood turned years ago from new academic research to successful trade-market generalist works (sometimes derided, apparently, as "Founders Chic"), and you can see motives for younger Americanists to start to criticize.
So even as Wood wrote books like The Radicalism of the American Republic and reviews like a very positive one of Annette Gordon-Reed's very unworshipful analysis of Thomas Jefferson's intimate relations with his slave Sally Hemings, he was also beginning to be defined as a rather traditional celebrator of the great and exceptional American Republic. The American history blog The Junto laid a lot of this out a couple of years ago.
Now, praising a book of essays on historiography by Bailyn, Wood comes back at his critics in a review pointedly titled "History in Context":
It’s as if academics have given up trying to recover an honest picture of the past and have decided that their history-writing should become simply an instrument of moral hand-wringing.And
It has gotten worse. College students and many historians have become obsessed with inequality and white privilege in American society. And this obsession has seriously affected the writing of American history. The inequalities of race and gender now permeate much of academic history-writing, so much so that the general reading public that wants to learn about the whole of our nation’s past has had to turn to history books written by nonacademics who have no Ph.D.s and are not involved in the incestuous conversations of the academic scholars.As a contribution to a debate among scholars, it could seem like a point worth discussion. Published in the Weekly Standard, surrounded by promos for paleo-conservative seminars and how-to-kill-Obamacare strategizing, it sound more like a new front culture war. Bridges are burning.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. And the truth is so precious, it needs to be guarded by a bodyguard of lies. And...
Anyway, tonight CBC-TV launches a new drama series, X Company, with the press duly repeating all the usual announcements about Canadians' lamentable ignorance of all the great stories from our history that historians have kept from us, but which will now be revealed by these groundbreaking filmmakers
'Course, most of the secret that has been kept from us is legend. There was a Camp X east of Toronto, at which some North American intelligence officers did some preliminary training between 1941 and 1943. But most of the Camp X legend is drawn from the largely fictional A Man Called Intrepid, in which pretty much everything that happened during the Second World War was attributed to the secret heroics of a Canadian-born British liaison officer in New York, William Stephenson.
The Canadian Encyclopedia entry on Camp X notes the popular account and calmly says of it: "Most of this is untrue." Realistic appraisals of Camp X are available, as in Camp X: SOE and the American Connection (1986) by historian David Stafford, But promotion and press reports on the television series suggest Stafford's sober account is not going to set the tone, not when all this great stuff is around, and it's such fun to diss the moronic historians who have never told us.
So expect the usual: a fictional drama attended by loud statements about how important it is for Canadians to know their history.
The CBC says
CBC's new drama series, X Company, may do for a secret Canadian spy training camp what the Oscar-nominated film The Imitation Game did for Britain's code breaking centre Bletchley ParkNow that sounds about right. The Imitation Game ain't exactly a documentary, either.
Friday, February 13, 2015
|Accountability... it'll get you in trouble every time, Tony!|
Ettinger might have mentioned that Stephen Harper has never faced a caucus leadership review as Abbott just did, because Canadian prime ministers cannot be reviewed. Because
Among those resigning are Margaret MacMillan, Steve Hewitt (security and intelligence scholar at U Birmingham), Susan Hodgetts (social sciences, U Ulster, scholar of Canadian foreign policy and editorial board member of the British Journal of Canadian Studies), and Diana Carney, (spouse of Bank of England governor Mark Carney, international development scholar, and advisor to the think tank Canada 2020).
Their replacements are to be civil servants from the Canadian High Commission in London, whose first move has been to remove another board member, scholar Rachel Killick. MacMillan writes:
It is also increasingly clear to me that the high commission intends effectively to take the foundation over and use its funds for the promotion of Canada’s interests as defined by it.
The government of Canada has already defunded Canadian Studies programs worldwide along with Parks Canada, the Archival Development Program, the Historical Thinking Project, along with most other independent and arm's-length historical programs that had public funding. Increasingly all direction for publicly funded projects in Canadian history and Canadian studies comes directly from the prime minister's office, with research objectives set by political criteria.
Update, February 16: Steve Hewitt, one of the directors who is out, speaks out here at Active History
Thursday, February 12, 2015
|All about ... Justin?|
Memo to The Star: it is not a free vote when you need someone's permission. The Star should be reminding us that for a prime minister to dictate the freedoms of MPs is an abuse of power and an abuse of Parliament.
More to the point: why aren't the MPs themselves, in all the caucuses, determining whether on this issue they will seek to maintain caucus solidarity or encourage their members to vote as they each see fit.
Similarly, there has been much attention to Justin Trudeau's unwisdom in admitting the, ah, turbulent Conservative MP Eve Adams to "his" caucus. (Here too, the Star is all over what the leader should have done.)
Again, why is this at a party leader's discretion at all? All members of a parliamentary caucus, including the leader, are there by the consent of the caucus. Rather than criticizing Trudeau's judgment in choosing to admit this particular MP, we should be asking why the Liberal caucus has not held a quick meeting to decide whether or not it wished to welcome Adams into its ranks.
Obviously, when these situations and opportunities arise, there is good reason to have a leader to take direction. Parties need good management. Hell, they need good leadership. But cannot MPs ever remind leaders, and us, and themselves, that parliamentary leadership depends on the consent of the caucus being led? The leader is a member of caucus like other members and should be subject to caucus discipline, not the source of it.
Update: Nice to see Maclean's Aaron Wherry, a sometime reader of this blog, taking note of the Canadian implications of the recent leadership events in Australia (noted here well before Maclean's got to them.)
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
You could probably guess that the board game, now officially eighty years old, was invented as a critique of capitalism. But it also seems it was actually invented by a woman a good thirty years before the official version was launched in 1935, so that Parker Brothers and the Darrow family have been monopolizing someone's work.
Apparently Monopoly would not make the grade today either. Among board game pros, it would be disqualified because it is discouragingly hard for players to reverse their situation once they begin losing (remember that feeling?) and because most players are eliminated long before the game is over (that, too).
Anyway Mary Pilon has written a book about the whole thing.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
According to this new study (free download from here) by Jordan Brennan for Policy Alternatives, it all came true.
this report reveals that the last quarter-century of trade and investment liberalization (TAIL), beginning with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) in 1988, is marked by lackluster growth, underinvestment and weak employment results. However, the most important and until now overlooked legacy of this period might be the scale and character of corporate merger activity, which has contributed to the expansion of large firms and is a key ingredient in the sluggish GDP growth and heightened income inequality of recent times.