Oh I’m not saying there’s no distinction. I’m saying that while comparison and continuities are important to look into, if we only evaluate Canadian state-Indigenous relations against the American model we will always find ways to feel like we are better. It’s an old historiographical trick…
Oh noone’s saying Canadians know this history well. That number would be low. We’re both saying Canadian history is too wrapped up in American stories, I think. I’m just suggesting that I don’t think we should return to an old way of understanding Canadian expansionism. I’m with you on a lot.
I am writing a book that covers some of this. What seems important to me, at this time, is to not gloss over Daschuk and similar inconvenient facts, as earlier historians did.
Definitely it can’t be glossed over. I think where we differ is I think that the colonial archipelago of institutions and petty violence from settler Canadians and the state is the central story. I think we need to stare into the pit. But I look forward to your book!
Comments