Reviewed by: Canadas of the Mind: The Making and Unmaking of Canadian Nationalisms in the Twentieth Century R. Douglas Francis Canadas of the Mind: The Making and Unmaking of Canadian Nationalisms in the Twentieth Century. Norman Hillmer and Adam Chapnick, eds. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007. Pp. 326, $29.95 paper Creating and defining Canadian nationalism was the great pastime of Canadian intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; chronicling that nationalism has been the pastime of Canadian historians in late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Canadas of the Mind is yet another attempt to analyze the elusive subject of Canadian nationalism. The editors note that 'the inspiration for this book comes from Peter Russell's multifaceted Nationalism in Canada, published exactly forty years ago' (ix.) Thus, a useful way to review Canadas of the Mind is to compare it to its earlier companion to show in what ways the theme of nationalism and the way historians examine it has or has not changed over time. Nationalism in Canada was the work of the University League for Social Reform, a think tank of Canadian academics committed to reform. The contributors to that volume were also writing in the heyday of Canadian nationalism, on the eve of Canada's centennial and amidst rising Quebec nationalism. They were also conscious of nationalist unrest in the rest of the world. Peter Russell, the editor, and [End Page 445] Frank Underhill, who wrote the foreword, spoke to these currents of change; there was, in essence, a sense of urgency and excitement about the topic and the book. The authors were on a 'mission.' Canadas of the Mind, by contrast, grew out of a conference by the Organization for the History of Canada on the subject, and the introduction to the volume lacks the dynamism of its predecessor. The editors also fail to note the need for such a volume, and what distinguishes the writings in Canadas of the Mind from earlier writings on the subject. The editor of Nationalism in Canada organized the essays around themes – The Land, The People, The Federation, Policy, Culture, New Perspectives, and Ideology, often with articles that offered opposing perspectives on the topic. Canadas of the Mind consists of fourteen essays on the theme of nationalism but otherwise lacks unity. If these are some of the general differences between the two volumes, one of the striking similarities is the topics discussed. Essays appear in both volumes on the North, technology, the National Policy, foreign policy, federal–provincial relations, culture, and multiculturalism. Thus, while things have changed over the interval of forty years, much remains the same, particularly the subjects that have formed the basis of Canadian national mythology. Still, Canadas of the Mind is not simply a rehash of Nationalism in Canada. For one thing, the new volume has a refreshing new topic: Aboriginal nationalism. Michael Behiels looks at Aboriginal nationalism over and against Canadian nationalism since the white paper of 1969 and concludes that the former lost out to the latter because it posited a form of nationalism that would lead logically to Aboriginal separation from Canada, and hence was unacceptable. David Newhouse, an Aboriginal scholar, highlights the success of Aboriginal leaders over the past thirty years at cultivating a strong Aboriginal nationalism, which has enabled them to stand up to the Canadian government and achieve concessions. Another significant difference between the two volumes is the approach. The articles in Canadas in the Mind offer a postmodern perspective. They deconstruct familiar subjects of Canadian nationalism to show that they are not what the myth-makers claimed them to be. The result is a refreshingly new look at familiar topics, reassuring the reader that there are still new things to be said about Canadian nationalism. One notable absence in Canadas of the Mind – which was not the case in Nationalism in Canada – is of articles on Quebec nationalism written by Quebecers. Is this a sign of a significant change between the 1960s and the early twenty-first century? Has Quebec nationalism lost its appeal as a subject of analysis by Quebec [End Page 446] historians? The omission is a glaring weakness in...
Read full abstract
Jun 25, 2012
Ken Flegel + 1
Open Access
