Free the Children

 

I use this book and video in class when talking about current events, and highly recommend the book to students.


The story of Craig Kielburger is inspiring. He was just 12 years old when he started looking into the issues of Child Labour and decided to do something about it. He asked his Socials Studies class to help and got 11 people to join him, starting an organization called Free the Children. He now has another organization called "Me to We" that organizes We Day and encouraged youth to support social issues affecting other youth around the world. This is a must-read book to realize that youth can make a difference in our world.


Here is the amazon link:    Free the Children

Immigration

Immigration can be a fairly dull topic in Socials 10 if you stick to the textbook platitudes. Students are supposed to learn about why people were immigrating to the area in the 1800's and how our immigration policy was initially shaped when Canada became a country.

There are two ways to make this more interesting and relevant.
1) Personal immigration stories. When each person in the class shares about how their family immigrated to Canada, it makes for a greater appreciation for the event. I will do another post later about the project I do in class.
2) Curent events and debate. Immigration is always a current issue. In previous years, there have been stories of "boat people" or "disguised old men" to spark discussion of immigration. Currently, the Globe and Mail is running a series on the issue with some ideas for discussion. I haven't read through it all, but looks like there are some good discussion ideas.

I fund that students are generally unaware that Canada allows some immigrants and not others or why.. It generally sparks good classroom discussion.

Cabot

I have never really paid much attention to the story of John Cabot, since his "discovery" of Newfoundland was not followed up with attempt at trade or settlement until much later. I generally don't include him in my list of significant events:
1) Christopher Columbus "discovered" South America and promoted settlement and trade on behalf of Spain
2) Jacques Cartier "discovered" Canada and Samuel de Champlain led settlement in "New France" on behalf of France
3) Sir Walter Raleigh "discovered" America and promoted settlement in Jamestown on behalf of the English (oh, and Henry Hudson "discovered" Hudson's Bay and claimed it)

So this article that just appeared in the Vancouver Sun is interesting, because it claims that John Cabot may have seen Newfoundland before Christopher Columbus spotted South America. Again however, I am not sure how significant this is. What matters more is what those men and the countries they represented DID with their discoveries. The reality was that in the time of John Cabot, King Henry 7th was not so interested in colonization, and so the discovery was not significant for England until later.

The "Myth" of 1812

Being 2012, the government of Canada is planning to spend 28 million dollars this year to commemorate the War of 1812. This article in the Globe and Mail explains the "myth" that the War of 1812 was somehow foundational to our Canadian national identity. The author explains that our current government is capitalizing on this "myth":

History is once again there for the taking in the Conservatives' eyes, a perfect confection of flag-waving patriotism, swaggering belligerence, old-fashioned loyalty and long-gun longings.

 I have to admit that this "myth" lines up pretty well with the summary of the War of 1812 that I provide in my Social Studies class. I typically explain how the War of 1812 shows how French, English, and First Nations could have something in common that brought them together to define our nation in its earliest form as "not-American".

So why does the article claim that this paradigm is a "myth"? Apparently, the role of the Canadian militia has been over-exaggerated. The War of 1812 was really just an after-shock from the American Revolution. Proof? No Canadians were even present during the peace-negotiations in Belgium. The article also reminds us that Canadians weren't even really Canadians yet. In 1812, the term "Canadian" referred to French-Canadians and their First Nations allies. The English people who lived in the region were either British army or simply immigrants from other lands.

Debunking a "myth" makes for a good headline, but I still prefer elements of the "myth". Why did the French-Canadians not join the Americans in rebelling against Britain? Why did many First Nations people fight alongside the British army in the War of 1812? Didn't America represent "freedom and democracy", the "rights of man" and freedom from tyranny? Not to those living in the north. The fact is that they preferred an alliance with the British crown over the republicanism of the United States. This DOES bind together our national history as being not necessarily "pro-Canadian" but definitely "not-American", and should be a source of national pride to be celebrated.

After all, if we are not to some small extent "anti-American" then for what purpose is our distinct identity? If we aren't better alone, then why not just join the United States? Of course, this leads to great discussion in Social Studies class: "so what makes us better than Americans today?"

I recommend reading this entire article, and sounds like there will be lots of interesting resources to look forward to this year on the War of 1812.

Education and the Manitoba Schools Crisis

Its always a risky topic to bring up education as a current event in Social Studies class, especially considering the current job action. This particular article may not be the best to discuss in a classroom depending on the number of special needs students that you have. However, education has long been an important political issue in Canada. In fact, at the end of the 19th century, it was probably the most divisive issue in Canada that highlighted the fissures in our country at the time. Since then, it has been a deciding issue in several Provincial elections (and perhaps in the next BC election?). In my experience, students really engage well in this topic and it leads to good discussion and understanding of historical issues.

Today the issue is how to adress special needs in the classroom? A hundred years ago, the issue was how to address different forms of Christianity and different languages in the classroom?

In 1870, the Canadian government signed the Manitoba Act which created the Province of Manitoba and guaranteed the rights of the French-Catholics to their own schools and official language. In 1890, the Manitoba government signed the Manitoba Schools Act, which reversed this and made English the only official language and removed funding for Catholic schools, making public (protestant) schools the only option. Of course, this became a political issue not just because of education but because of the federal-provincial government relationship involved and that is a whole other topic in itself.

But the Manitoba Schools Crisis brought up questions that are still relevant today (and good discussion material for Socials class):
Should minority groups, such as French-speaking Canadians in BC or English-speaking Canadians in Quebec, have the right to school in their own language?
Should minority religious groups have the right to their own schools? To what extent should these schools be funded?
Should some students receive more funding than others? Why?
Is 'public' school really for everyone? or just the majority cultural group?
etc.

Election Corruption and The Pacific Scandal

I was just scanning the news for current events that relate to Canadian history, and found this article in the Globe and Mail:   Canadian-owned firms are funding U.S. election campaigns

There is usually something in the news about nefarious ties between corporations and government. I usually like to have a few of these on hand when we get to the Pacific Scandal in class.

Of course, this topic usually leads to me to side tangent on American politics and examples of corporate ties to government (such as the funding sources of the current President)

"I admit I took the money and banked the election with it, is there anything wrong with that?