Who Killed Canadian History? A View from the Trenches

In his book Who Killed Canadian History ? (1998), J.L. Granatstein accuses Canadian academic historians of having abandoned the writing of a national past in favour of overspenalized and ideologically driven forms of history. This article contends that in the interests of polemic, he miscasts the role of the scholar as citizen, misrepresents the purpose of scholarship, and distorts the nature and quality of academic historical writing. In doing so, he puts forward a conception of Canada’s ‘national’ history that is no better suited to serve national self-understanding than the scholarship he dismisses. His narrow and traditional view of national history ignores the impact of geopolitical conditions on the world of scholarly interpretation. Nominally without ideological purpose, it can be viewed instead as part of the process of political legitimation. His construction of the important ‘facts’ of Canadian history ignores the way event-driven facts arc inseparable from considerations of value and therefore from the realm of the interpretive. Finally, by ignoring contemporary works of international historiography and structural determinants of professionalization, his polemic is largely written in an intellectual and contextual vacuum. Abstract: Dans son livre Who Killed Canadian History? (Qui a tue ľhistoire canadienne?) [1998]. J.L. Granatslein accuse les historiens universitaires canadiens de ne plus ecrire sur le passe national mais sur des formes ďhistoire tres specialisees et fondees sur une ideologie. Cet article sourient que, dans le but ďalimenter la polemique. Granatstein attribue a tort au chercheur le role de citoyen, qu’il represente faussement le but de la recherche universitaire et qu’il deforme la nature et la qualite des ouvrages historiques ecrits par les universitaires. Ce faisant, il met de l’avant une conception de ľhistoire «nationale» du Canada qui ne convient pas mieux a la promotion ďune autocomprehension nationale que la recherche universitaire qu’il rejette. Sa vision etroite et traditionnelle de ľhistoire nationale ignore ľimpact des conditions geopolitiques sur le monde de ľinterpretation universitaire. Cette derniere etant essentiellement depourvue de but ideologique, on peut au contraire la voir comme faisant partie du processus de legitimation politique. La construction que fait Granatstein des «faits» importants est inseparable de considerations fondees sur la valeur et appartient donc au domaine de l’interpretation. Enfin, en ignorant des ouvrages contemporains ďhistoriographie internationale et des determinants structuraux de la professionnalisation, sa polemique s’inscrit largement dans un vide intellectuel et contextuel.