Canadian Genealogy

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation has long been a herald of information about Canada, its people and its past. Over the years they have produced several programs aimed at the general public including, “Canada: A People’s History,” and the heritage minutes. They are also a leader in digital archives with their CBC Archives website, which includes clips from the entire history of the CBC radio and television. It also includes a feature called “Days to Remember,” showing what it was like to listen/watch the CBC in previous decades.

The latest program in CBC’s public history endeavours is a series called, “Who Do You Think You Are?,” which features thirteen famous Canadians and goes digging in their genealogical closets. The program was created in association with Library and Archives Canada as well as the website Ancestry.ca, both of which have easy-to-use genealogical research tools designed so that every Canadian has the possibility of tracing their past.
The most recent episode was on the well-known hockey commentator, Don Cherry. The show began by taking Cherry back to his home town of Kingston, Ontario, and followed him through his discovery of some of his family’s history. They traced the records back to both his maternal and paternal great-grandparents, although the focus was on the grandfathers, as he seemed especially interested in their military and hockey involvements. The show was able to find original documents and took Cherry to all of the places that had an impact on his family history, including travelling to Gloucester, England where his grandfather was an orphan who eventually made his way to Canada, and to Vimy Ridge in France, where his grandfather would have fought had he not been sick and taken off active duty. Vimy Ridge is an important icon in many Canadians lives, and Don Cherry believes (as do many) that it is the place where Canada first became a nation. There was more to this program than just tracing Don Cherry’s family history - it brought in information about Canada’s history, and the history of millions of other people. Cherry said that Canadians “should be proud,” and I agree. We have a rich and vibrant heritage that is recognised through such iconic moments as Vimy Ridge. It was a turning point not only in Don Cherry’s grandfather’s life, but the history of this country. His grandfather came here as an orphan with no family and very little hope for the future. What he found was a nation that he was proud enough of to fight for and willingly die for – though thankfully that was a sacrifice he did not have to make as we now have another Canadian icon, his grandson, who has been and will continue to be a central figure in Canadian culture.

The program used many historical resources to help Cherry find all of this information; they used archives from Canada and England, as well as military records and medical files. They visited historical buildings and places, and had photographs, documents, and knowledgeable people to help Cherry on his journey of discovery. CBC has done an excellent job of bringing history to the public by engaging them with a familiar person, whose family history reflected that of Canada itself. The best way to get people interested in the past is to make it relevant to them. By discovering aspects about their own family history, they learn the history of Canada as well because Canada is the history of its people.

For people interested in discovering their pasts, these are some excellent websites on which to begin your search:

Library and Archives Canada Canadian Genealogy Centre: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/genealogy/index-e.html

For genealogies and to build a family tree: http://www.ancestry.ca/

For Métis genealogies try the Métis National Council Historical Online Database:
http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/

For Immigration in the early 20th century, try the Young Immigrants to Canada:
http://retirees.uwaterloo.ca/~marj/genealogy/genealogy.html

There is also a great Genealogy 101 on the “Who Do You Think You Are?” website:
http://www.cbc.ca/whodoyouthinkyouare/genealogy101/index.php

The Rocky 'Knol'

When I was an undergrad, my professors strictly forbade us to use such “unreliable” and “nonacademic” sources such as Google and Wikipedia. We were to only use academically reliable secondary and primary sources such as the library and archives; the only digital resources allowed were such databases as JSTOR (online storage for academic journals). But as they say, the world is changing. Google has now announced that they will be venturing further into academic credibility. Their first foray was their beta Google Scholar, a search engine that brings up articles, books, etc. that relate to particular search words. Now they are launching a campaign that ousts Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, which anyone can edit/add to, by upping the ante to only accepting submissions by accredited specialists of each particular topic.
According to a BBC news article, Google has started to invite authors to write about their respected specialities on a new site that will be called ‘Knol.’ Since Google is the leader in Internet ranking, the Knol site will be the first hit on any subject that is searched and that finds a match in their encyclopedic site (which says something else about who controls the information on the Internet). Google offers this site as an open invitation to find out more about their brain child and gives people a chance to offer their opinions on it:
"KnolStuff.com is a brand new social networking community for Google's Open Encyclopedia. This is not Google's site but a Community to discuss and learn about "Knol" and take advantage of what Google is soon offering."

So what does this imply for the academic world? What will be considered a "reliable" source? Many post-structuralist profs already encourage their students to question what makes a source reliable or unreliable and what it means to be an "expert." What kind of screening process will Google have to consider? Wikipedia took a very casual attitude towards the information placed on their site as it is intended to be a public forum for anyone's opinion or view on a particular topic. Google might have a rocky road ahead to prove their validity as an academic resource. However, I think this is an excellent step in the organisation of the abundance of information that is available and provides an excellent venue for professionals to bring their expertise on a particular subject to a wider audience.

Week 12 Assignment

Alan Cooper wrote an article called "Your Program's Posture" that classified software programs into four main categories based on how they interact with the user: sovereign, transient, daemonic and parasitic. Our assignment this week for our Digital History class is to "make a list of all of the software that you interact with during a typical historical research process and classify it according to Cooper’s scheme."
I am not a computer person, so the programs I use to write a research paper are pretty standard. I use a library catalogue to search for books and the electronic journal storage, such as JSTOR, and electronic finding aids for archival sources to search for primary and secondary sources. None of these quite fit into Cooper's categories, although the recently discovered Zotero program might be considered a "transient" program as it is a tool that appears at the bottom of the screen and can disappear again when you no longer need it. I use Microsoft Word to write my paper or Microsoft PowerPoint to create a presentation of my research, both of which I believe would be considered sovereign programs as both dominate the page and are continuously used. I can not think of parasitic or daemonic programs that are running that I am aware of, though as I said, I know very little about what happens 'behind the scenes' as it were.

Software usability issues enter into the historians craft when they are trying to communicate that history to the public in digital form. Most people are able to use programs such as Word to hand in a research paper. Less people know how to programme a website to display the results of that research. What could be improved, if digital is (as it seems to be) the way of the future, is to create "humanities-friendly" programs. There are templates and easy, helpful guides to programs like PowerPoint, why can there not be more formulated programs for the not-so-computer-savvy historian? I recognize the importance of developing newer, faster, more interesting programs, but I also think that more time needs to be spent developing programs for ease of use, so that there are more sovereign programs available for humanity-type research to be displayed on the internet.

People's History

The focus of our Public History Masters program is basically how to bring academic history to the public. This means learning about the different theories and approaches to history in public forums such as museums, archives, and historic centres. This is learning about history and then taking it a step further and communicating it. Historical facts are less important than the ways in which history communicates, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to traditional academic historians. We have noticed in the program that very few people, including others in the history field, know what public history is even though the work of it surrounds people everyday. Treena Hein's article, "History for the people" in November's University Affairs magazine remarks on the new shift in attention public history is receiving as a valid and necessary component of historical education. What history is being told is the central question historians, curators, archivists, and historical interpreters need to be asking themselves. This article describes an important process in the recognition of the need for such programs as public history that takes academia and makes it applicable and useful by bringing it to the public. It is essential for people to have access to their history. By keeping it locked up in the ivory tower, history becomes self-serving and known to only a few.

Reclaiming Cymraeg

Language is a powerful force in cultural history. It is the voice that speaks to the future, and when that language is suppressed, so is the story of the past. Legends surrounding the figure of King Arthur have been retold for 1500 years in hundreds of languages around the world. His legend dominates late Celtic poetry, and he has played an integral role in Welsh cultural identity. Medieval Welsh poets were not that far removed from the druids who maintained the memories of the tribe. The intricacies of the language of the poems were not just artistic statements; they also acted as the history and memory of the Welsh people.

The Act of Union in 1536 by Henry VIII was the start of the Anglicization of Welsh language and culture, robbing a people of their past. This made it no longer acceptable to associate with their heritage. With the suppression of their language, they lost an integral part of their cultural identity.

The Celtic revival of the 20th century saw a slow reclamation of the Welsh language (Cymraeg) and now the country is legally bilingual. The survival of the Arthurian legends show that the Welsh wished to retain much of their cultural spirit and heritage despite an early suppression of their language. The Welsh are still struggling with the ramifications of so much cultural loss. Some stories will be lost forever; but by reclaiming their language, they can take back the power to control their own history and re-appropriate the poetic legends that were so definitive in their past.

Let's Get Digital, Digital

When the world starts to get too confusing, we often turn back for a nostalgic look at the past. For me, it was a return to the eternal wisdom of Olivia Newton-John. She cries out: "Let's get physical, physical. I wanna get physical, let's get into physical." While this motto has been successful for millions of years (or at least the 1980s), it is certainly not the slogan of our post-Y2K generation. It is no longer about getting physical, but about getting digital! The conflicting approaches, the intellectual battles, the death-cries of Luddites, we are all at the mercy of technology. Com'on! Everybody is doing it...

And we are. Just as we waved sadly goodbye to the Beta videotape player (despite their better quality) and on to the VHS, so are we now thrust by market forces greater than ourselves into purchasing the "latest" in digital technology. Every time there is a substantial technological "improvement" (and I say that heavy with irony), we are at their mercy. Eventually they stop making beta tapes, VHS, etc., so that we are forced to buy a whole new system in order to participate. In short, we become consumerized victims of technology. I could download Olivia right now without ever having bought a vinyl, a tape, or a CD; however, I will have had to buy a computer. With digital cable, we no longer need VHS, DVD or the employees of Blockbuster, to watch a movie; but, we do need to buy a modem. And I don't even need to get out of my chair and have any human contact whatsoever to do any of these things.

So who or what, in fact, do we need?

What we still need, and as far as I can tell will always need, are the teachers. To know what literature is we need the English teachers and professors; to know about technology we need the science classes (and yes, even Digital History); and to know our past we need to know our History. As public historians, we are all hoping to enter a field based upon the idea of bringing history with all of its educational baggage to the people. Raise your textbooks loud and proud.

But, we spend so much time theorizing about what history is and how to present it, that I wonder what answers are being provided. Tribal historians, the bards and community leaders, knew how to remember and present the history that was important for the tribe. Every generation passed down the stories and traditions to their apprentices and successors. There was a conclusion, an answer to the questions, that ensured the survival of their people both physically, and through the stories. Today, we are so bogged down in the theory of history that we have no straight answer to the questions history raises. Historians should be bards, but instead we are politicians.

The big bonus of the Internet and digital images of collections is having all that knowledge accessible and available for use to a wider range of people. And that is a wonderful thing. But we forget that the Internet is a tool. Not the teacher. We need the teacher, the leader, to show us what to do with this information. It is not that we need our hand held, we all crawled out of the swamp equally, but I think that living in the age of abundant information does not mean we live in an age of abundant knowledge.

We may have left the simple wisdom of Olivia Newton-John in the blurry decade of the 80s, but her message need not be forgotten. Sometimes, it's as simple as getting a little physical. I am all for the digital availability of the Internet, but as consumers - of products and of knowledge - we won't be able to keep up with the constant changes without our teachers. Change is sometimes forced upon us - such as when we have to buy a DVD player because VHS tapes aren't made any more - but, if we have been taught well, we will know what to do about it. The "getting digital" ship may have sailed, but hopefully those manning its direction took some swimming lessons.

Museum Exhibit Review: Ontario Museum of Archaeology

Museum of Ontario Archaeology
1600 Atttawandaron Road
London, Ontario
Canada N6G 3M6

The Gathering of Good Minds and Native Harvest Festival presents
‘A Celebration of First Nations Arts, Wisdom and Culture’ September 21-23, 2007.
Reviewed September 22 and 23, 2007


Main Gallery is a permanent exhibit. Temporary Gallery September 23, 2007-March 23, 2008. Lawson Village is an ongoing excavation with reconstructions beginning in July, 2007. Museum is open May-December 10-430 (Sept. to Dec. closed M & T). January-April 1-4 Sa. & Su. only. Family $10, Adults: $4, Seniors/Students: $3.25, Children 5 to 12: $2, Preschoolers and Sponsors Free. Village site open May to Nov. (Weather Permitting). Executive Director, Dr. Robert Pearce.

Internet description of museum, virtual tour, education resources, membership and employment information, the museum gift shop, and the Neutral Iroquoian Village, http://www.uwo.ca/museum/index.html


The Museum of Ontario Archaeology is located in London, Ontario, and was originally founded in 1933 by Amos and Wilfred Jury. It has been affiliated with the University of Western Ontario as a research facility and educational resource since 1927. The 500-year-old Neutral Iroquoian village was discovered in the 19th century, and the land was donated by Tom and Miggsie Lawson for the construction of a new museum and archaeological exploration. The museum’s current location beside the village was built in 1980, after it was discovered that the area was a 4,000-year-old campsite. Their directive is the research, education, archaeology, and collection of local Ontario history and Aboriginal pre-history.

On a beautiful, sunny weekend in late September, the museum hosted ‘A Celebration of First Nations Arts, Wisdom and Culture’ organised by The Gathering of Good Minds and Native Harvest Festival. The festival was supported by such institutions as the Ontario Arts Council, The University of Western Ontario, and the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. The celebration was outside the museum in the recently unveiled Lawson Iroquoian Village, which is an on-going archaeological excavation and reconstruction of a pre-historic Neutral Iroquoian village, the only one of its kind in Canada. The village is divided from the museum by a reconstructed wooden palisade and efforts were made to make it as “real” as possible. The effect certainly gives the enclosure a sense of “authenticity” and adds to the character of the museum. Within the palisade were several interactive activities and performances. There was a reconstructed longhouse, tipi, canoe, snowshoes, and drums—all of which were hand-made and based on archaeological evidence. The site was attended by local Natives ready and happy to explain the significance of the items, how they were built, and tell fascinating tales from their past or the lives of their ancestors. The interactive activities were mostly intended for children and families, but were interesting enough to capture the attention of any age. They had crafts, archaeological excavations, and song and dance lessons. This was an excellent effort by the museum to get people involved in history.

The museum displays its permanent exhibition in the main gallery, just off of the gift shop entrance. The exhibit was designed to reflect Ontario’s archaeological history, focusing largely on the Native peoples who have occupied the area for the past 5,000 years. According to the staff, the artefacts and displays are arranged chronologically from prehistoric times to the 20th century. There were many interesting artefacts, and a plethora of spearheads almost to excess, but the displays lacked labels and rarely had dates. It is a rather small room, and the displays were haphazard and dusty, making any arrangement difficult to follow. Granted, the main gallery is under renovation for some new permanent displays that will be placed near the entrance, but it is unfortunate that they did not take the time to dust off the displays and fix the broken shelving that had artefacts dangling from them in a most precarious manner.

At the back of the room there was an interesting miniature display showing the arrival of the ‘Black Robes’ to a typical 16th century Native village with a telephone through which you can listen to a dialog about Native life, subsistence, practices, and culture. The dialog was informative; however, it was presented in a rather dull and monotonous voice and the display was outmoded. It was quite dark in the gallery and there was nothing to try and engage the viewer to understand the implications of the myriad of artefacts—quite the contrast to the interactive focus of the outdoor exhibit. The virtual museum on the website for the exhibit provides a more in-depth look into Native lives during different time periods; it is unfortunate that they do not make the same wealth of information available in the museum itself.

In the centre of the room was a large textual panel dedicated to the two armed merchant schooners found on the bottom of Lake Ontario—the Hamilton and the Scourge—from the War of 1812, but there were no artefacts displayed from the discovery. There was also a small room dedicated to the founders of the museum, the Jury family, and their personal collections, but it was closed to viewers. These two displays lacked any identifying visual connection to the overall theme of “Aboriginal culture” and were the only testament to European culture in the local history. They looked awkward and very out of place.

The Temporary Gallery at the back of the building continued the Aboriginal theme of the museum and had a beautiful display featuring three Native artists—Zoey Wood, R. Gary Miller, and Gordon Miller. This room was more like a professional art gallery as the layout had an aesthetically pleasing and symmetrical pattern. The museum chose an excellent combination of artists, each with very unique styles, but all used bright, powerful colours that complimented each other nicely. The lighting was effective, and focused on the paintings on each wall, giving them a gentle glow, while keeping the centre of the room dimmer. The paintings were an excellent conclusion to round off the Native cultural experience; however, because it was so nice, it made the main gallery even drabber in comparison.

The Museum of Ontario Archaeology has many qualities to recommend it—the Village especially was successful in engaging visitors with history. There was more to learn about Aboriginal culture from the one Native woman telling the story of the gathering of the Sweetgrass than all of the indoor displays. The main gallery may not have appeared so vapid had it not been for the fact that there was a bright, fun, engaging, outdoor display. However, the overall effectiveness of the museum to communicate some aspects of Aboriginal history was successful because the culture the artefacts functioned within was recreated in the various exhibits and displays. The three exhibits together provided a more holistic cultural context to the traditional museum by demonstrating how Aboriginal culture, art, and artefacts all came together to form the local history of Ontario.