November 20, 2001

I am not pleased with this venture so far. I am having some difficulty maintaining a regular time commitment to the topic as other demands seem to take priority. Also, I am not satisfied with my overall approach or format. I have just viewed the Canadian Museum of Civilization web site - beautifully laid out, although I wish the photographs were larger.

My first thoughts are to begin with a very broad overview and then permit some form of elaboration or "burrowing" to go after a topic in greater depth. This could begin with text only, and then be altered later to a more pleasing visual display (much like the Museum of Civilization). Then again, perhaps an Inspiration chart would be a good way to provide an entry point.

History is fundamentally a temporal topic. Geography is fundamentally spatial. Combining the two gives one a time-space identity. Anthropology attempts to recognize the cultural dimension, which encourages one to view events from the perspectives of the various groups involved. Even the temporal dimension can be tricky: we tend to view past events from our present perspective, yet for the people at the time of the story the perspective would be quite different (e.g. is the North-west passage just around the next corner?). I like the idea of trying to include as many old maps as possible, but this will be time-consuming. I will also need to obtain permissions.

Will Ferguson (Canadian History for Dummies) uses a thematic approach for dividing Canadian History into 8 chunks:

1. When worlds collide
2. Rise of New France [1608 - 1701]
3. Fall of New France [1701 - 1766]
4. The Failed Republic? [1766 - 1838]
5. Confederation [1838 - 1891]
6. End of "English" Canada [1891 - 1929]
7. Dark Days [1929 - 1959]
8. Noisy Evolution [1960 - 2000]

The list has a strong political current. Politics and government are important. The type of government, and it's stability, are important factors in the development of mercantile and trade efforts. They also permit the evolution of cultural threads.

Should a web site be written in the "neutral" (objective?) third person, or should it be written in the first person, interspersed with the voice of the author. I like the latter idea! This could also contain a number of questions as they occur to [me]. Stay with this for a moment. Then each entry could be the result of an hour on the topic. I could try this with Elementary Mathematics as well. Perhaps the "honesty" of the web site would make it attractive to others... :-)

One of my concerns is to not focus too tightly on any one topic on the first iteration. For example, I could become so interested in early aboriginal history and culture that I never get to the point of discussing the early European settlement, or anything else after 1500. Or should I begin with a form of geological history? I seem to recall a new book that focuses on this. I think I will pass on this and begin with the end of the last ice age (about 10,000 years ago) and the arrival of the first humans over the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska.

While chatting with Paul Dawson I happened to notice a book on his desk titled, "A Short Guide to Writing About History", Third Edition by Richard Marius. This led to a visit to the University of Lethbridge Bookstore where I also bought the Fourth edition of two volumes by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones and Donald B. Smith called "Origins: Canadian History to Confederation" and "Destinies: Canadian History Since Confederation".

The aim will be to spend contiguous time of 1 to 2 hours, at least 4 times a week, to chronicle my note taking and understanding of Canadian History. A cursory glance at the Marius book describes various ways of writing about History, but does not mention the approach I am about to try, which I might call web-based auto-didactic.

Let's look at the table of contents for the two volumes by Francis et al.:

Part One: Early European Settlement to 1760

Part Two: British North American Colonial Societies, 1760 to 1815

Part Three: The Canadas, 1815 to the 1860's

Part Four: Communities East and West, 1815 to the 1860's.

Part One: Building the New Dominion, 1867 - 1914

Part Two: Urban and Industrial Canada, 1867 - 1914

Part Three: The Impact of Two World Wars and the Great Depression, 1914 - 1945

Part Four: Modern Canada, 1945 - 2000

What do I make of this? As with Ferguson's chapters, there are eight divisions. Ferguson devotes two of his eight chapters to "New France". This is all subsumed within the one chapter called "Early European Settlement" in Francis et al. The real issue is not the titles but the level of detail in each, and what topics are selected or omitted.

Francis et al begin with 20 pages on First Nations cultures before the arrival of the Europeans.

Ferguson has 21 pages on the same topic.

Ferguson has major sections based on the geography of different tribes, Francis focuses on the different views about the origins of the first people in the America's. It makes sense for me to begin with Francis and then look at Ferguson. A quick read indicates that Francis also provides descriptions based on geography. The literary style of the two books is quite different: Ferguson, aiming at the general public, is organized around a number of isolated, but memorable, anecdotes. Francis is a university textbook, and is more restrained and organized. The combination of both is good. Now to make some notes, using Francis for the structure, but enlivening it with stories from Ferguson. The real issue is not the merit of either book, but an enhanced understanding of the topic. In this case the topic is the life of aboriginal peoples in Canada before 1500.

How to make the notes? I will try a point-form approach and see how it goes. ...

• It is generally believed that the first people arrived in North America from Siberia about 15 - 20 thousand years ago. At that time the two continents were joined because sea levels were lower than today. This land area is now called Berengia (there is a museum on this topic at Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory). Originally there was a solid ice mass to the south, but this began to melt about 10,000 years ago and soon there was an ice-free corridor along the east slope of the Rocky Mountains. It is thought that people moved through this corrider, then into the area now know as the United States and eventually further south into Central and South America. Another movement of people travelled east and then north as the ice receded. By about 5,000 years ago the ice had pretty well retreated to its present position, and the entire continent was peopled.
  
  
• How should one describe these native cultures? One approach is by language, but this has led to a system that where groups that share the same language, but are widely disparate in terms of location and even culture are grouped together. Another approach is to rely on basic geographic areas, even though there were often differences among the people within an area. This latter approach yields 6 basic areas:
  • arctic
  • sub-arctic
  • north-east woodland
  • plains
  • plateau
  • north-west coast.
    These are not firm boundaries or groupings. Ferguson provides a map showing 11 distinct native groups, based - I think - on linguistic criteria, each with a number of well-defined sub-cultures (eg. Cree, Blackfoot, Huron).

Now to make a few notes about each of these 6 groups.

• North-west Coast
  • There are 19 distinct language groups in this area, suggesting that this is an "old" area, perhaps eventually leading to the emigration to other parts of the continent. However there is little factual evidence to support (or refute) this idea. Perhaps isolation (much like the outports of Newfoundland) give rise to different language characteristics in a relatively short period of time.
  • Depended on abundant fish and sea mammals for their food. It was the most densely populated area of Canada before 1500. Almost half of the native population of Canada lived in BC in 1500! [Ferguson, p. 25]
  • Built houses and sea canoes, using large cedar trees.
  • Developed a strong social structure
  • Possessed a sense of property and ownership, almost unknown in other Native groups
  • Totem poles: family heraldic symbol
  • Potlatch: gift-giving ceremony that indicated how much one could afford to give away

I hope to complete my notes on this topic tomorrow. Today was a promising beginning. I realize that I have only a brief snapshot of each group, but it is a start. I think the appropriate approach is to continue with the history, and return to this later for a second look.

November 22, 8:00 am

I must plan ahead with this web site. I need a structure from the outset so this page doesn't become a "long vertical scroll". More importantly, it will give me a conceptual map for the topic. I will try to create a map using Inspiration and insert it here. There are two issues that need to be faced at the outset. One is the conceptual chart, the other is the temporal notes of my learning. If I create a number of pages for each of the main topics, and then create a table that shows both the date and topic addressed, that should do it.

E-mail: dale.burnett@uleth.ca