Who Killed Canadian History?

Author and Intellectual Context

J. L. Granatstein is a Canadian historian and former professor. He served in the Canadian Army and received a BA from the Royal Military College of Canada and an MA from the University of Toronto. After receiving a PhD in 1966 from Duke University, he taught history at York University until his retirement in 1995. Stephen Azzi of Carleton University describes Granatstein as the most prolific Canadian historian of his generation. In the 1970s and 1980s, Granatstein's writing focused primarily on the Canadian government during the Second World War, especially Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, before pivoting to military history in the 1990s. Besides his history writing, Granatstein is known for his neoconservative critique of Canadian post secondary institutions, co authoring polemics like The Great Brain Robbery: The Decline of Canada's Universities (1984) and Petrified Campus: The Crisis in Canada's Universities (1997). In his 1990 book on the Meech Lake Accord, journalist Andrew Cohen argues that Granatstein, alongside historians Michael Bliss and Ramsay Cook, helped instigate public opposition to the failed constitutional deal.

The book emerged during a period of intense academic conflict dubbed the 'history wars' in the 1980s and 1990s. Historian Christopher Dummitt classifies the two groups as an older generation of 'nationalists' who focused on studying historical leaders, and a younger generation of 'inclusivists' who studied the stories of marginalized groups. Granatstein occupied the former camp and had previously provoked controversy by dismissively referring to some social history as 'the history of [a] housemaid's knee in Belleville in the 1890s'. This comment sent the historical establishment to the battlements in defence. Historian Adam Chipnick describes Who Killed Canadian History? as the pinnacle of these disputes. The book also coincided with increased fears regarding Canadian unity, coming three years after the near secessionist victory in the 1995 Quebec independence referendum.

Core Arguments of the Book

Granatstein's central thesis is that Canadians suffer from a dangerous ignorance of their own history, which has eroded national unity. He argues this historical amnesia is the result of several interconnected factors that have degraded history teaching and scholarship since the 1960s. The book identifies parochial regionalism, anti elitist educational methods, and a focus on victimization in historical analysis as key problems. Granatstein places particular blame on official multiculturalism, suggesting that in an effort to avoid privileging one culture, Canada has refused to engage with its own foundational European traditions. He contrasts Canada's 'mosaic' model unfavourably with the American 'melting pot', citing American intellectuals like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. who warned of the downsides of multicultural disunity.

The book presents a struggle for control within university history departments between political historians and social historians. Granatstein characterizes political historians as those emphasizing narrative, chronology and personality, which he views as essential for a national story. He portrays social historians as having little interest in political or military history, instead using the study of the past for contemporary political purposes. As a prime example, he criticizes the popular textbook History of the Canadian Peoples for focusing on the working class, minorities and regions outside Central Canada instead of war, politics and leaders. This shift, Granatstein laments, has produced history departments lacking experts in key national topics, where remaining professors teach ignorance and profess trivia, graduating students who are culturally illiterate about their own country.

Granatstein uses international comparisons to underline his concerns about Canadian historical forgetfulness. He notes that Dutch schools heavily emphasize Canada's role in liberating the Netherlands from Nazi Germany, ensuring children understand the value of freedom and sacrifice. Canadians, by contrast, have largely forgotten this contribution along with other seminal events like D Day and the Battle of Vimy Ridge. This collective amnesia, he argues, leaves citizens unappreciative of their past and ill equipped to understand their present and future. The book concludes that preventing the decimation of history and resurrecting the past are key to improving Canadian unity.

Proposed Solutions and Reforms

In response to the problems he diagnosed, Granatstein proposed a series of concrete measures aimed at reviving the study and teaching of Canadian history. His solutions were designed to create national standards and inject resources into the field at multiple levels. The proposals were ambitious and sought to reshape the historical landscape from elementary schools to postgraduate research. The book's key recommendations included the following specific initiatives.

• Implementing national history teaching standards to ensure consistency across provinces.
• Creating a 'Canadian History Day' to foster national celebration of the past.
• Establishing five 'national history' research chairs at Canadian universities.
• Founding a dedicated Centre for Canadian History.
• Providing federally funded scholarships for history students.
• Expanding resources for public libraries and history teachers.

These recommendations reflected Granatstein's belief that a nationally coordinated effort was necessary to counter the fragmentation he observed. He argued that without systemic interventions, the trend toward trivial history would continue, further eroding common knowledge. The proposals aimed to improve academic rigor and to popularize history, making it a part of Canadian public life. They were designed to ensure history received the institutional support he felt it desperately needed.

Reception and Academic Debate

The book was a bestseller in Canada, selling around twenty thousand copies. In the first week of April 1998, it entered Maclean's magazine's list of best selling non fiction at number seven, reaching number two in July. It received positive reviews from the press, yet received generally negative reviews from professional historians. Its publication resulted in an outburst of debate among historians and educators regarding history education in Canada, many responses being written in journals like the Canadian Historical Review. Though some of Granatstein's colleagues reacted positively to the book, including Desmond Morton, David Bercuson and Robert Bothwell, social historians were strident in their criticisms.

In a 1999 piece for the Canadian Historical Review, social historian A. B. McKillop summarizes most critiques of the book, writing that it presents only a partial understanding of what defines the Canadian identity. He continues that Canadian historians have not established a new Canadian history since to do so would necessitate a fundamental rethinking of the meaning and shape of the very idea of nation at a time when nations and their identities are in flux. Not all historians have agreed with McKillop's assessment, such as Timothy Stanley, who criticizes both Granatstein and McKillop for assuming that all Canadians have a 'shared past'. He writes that Canadians are divided by racism, with some privileged and others oppressed by it. Social historian Adele Perry writes that Granatstein's attacks on social history made the blander argument that social historians' work failed to serve the nation well.

Leon Fink, Veronica Strong Boag and Graham Carr are critical of the book's writing style, describing it as poorly written and unfocused, veering into diatribes. Deborah Gorham describes it as uneven in its studies of Canadian historiography, suggesting that historian Carl Berger provides a more balanced take on the subject. Though many historians agree with Granatstein's original premise that Canadians are generally ignorant of their country's history, they dispute the reasons why. Fink, Strong Boag and historians Brian Gobbett and Alan Gordon write political correctness and multiculturalism are relatively recent phenomena when compared to Canada's lack of a national identity. Robert Wright suggests that Canadian's lack of interest in history is more fundamental than the poor teaching standards Granatstein mentions, with history largely irrelevant to the lives of ordinary Canadians.

Critiques of Historical Interpretation and Omission

Several historians took issue with Granatstein's specific interpretations of Canadian history and the figures he chose to celebrate or dismiss. In her study of Louis Riel historiography, historian Jennifer Reid agrees with the book's sentiment that Canadians regret their lack of cultural heroes, but questions why Granatstein opposes the celebration of Riel. Granatstein describes Riel as a crazed religious fanatic and argues that not all Canadians could agree on whether his actions were heroic. According to historian George Goulet, by Granatstein's standard no historical figure could ever be fit to be a Canadian hero. Reid is further critical of the book's position that Canadian historians overemphasize the country's history of violence and that it is benign when compared to other countries.

She writes that Granatstein's perspective of a benign history is due to his removing the stories of those who have experienced violence from the country's historical narrative, especially its Indigenous population. In his study of Jacques Cartier historiography, Gordon writes that the 20th century shift from embracing historical heroes to the trivial and empty idols of Hollywood and hockey is not due to political correctness and multiculturalism in Canada. He argues it is instead part of a larger worldwide shift in the historical method and meaning of history. Historians, he writes, need to understand the inherently political nature of their field, and to reassess their discipline's limited role in shaping the common sense knowledge. Gordon concludes that attempts to rebuild a lost national identity by celebrating historical figures like John A. Macdonald will ultimately prove fruitless.

Immediate Impact and Legacy

Despite the academic criticism, the book had a tangible impact on public discourse and certain educational policies. Stephen Azzi notes that it improved the general public's knowledge of Canadian history. In direct response to the concerns it raised, the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba implemented new and expanded history curricula with greater Canadian content. Alberta introduced more elementary school material on pre and post Confederation history and created high school courses covering Canadian military history. Manitoba made Canadian history a major focus for students in grades four through seven. However, Granatstein lamented in the 2007 revised edition that most other provinces did nothing to change their curricula in response to his arguments.

One of the most significant institutional legacies of the book was its role in inspiring the creation of Historica Canada. Lynton Wilson, then a chair at BCE Inc., was motivated by Granatstein's arguments to promote Canadian history. Along with fellow executive Charles Bronfman, he made large contributions to establish the organization, whose stated goal is increasing awareness of Canadian history. In 1998, Granatstein was appointed director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum, serving from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000. In 2000, the Canadian government provided $134 million for the building of a new museum building, Granatstein playing a major role in its creation.

The 2007 revised and updated edition of the book received little attention compared to the original, suggesting its moment as a flashpoint in the history wars had passed. Historian Gregory Kealey reflects that the book's jeremiad for a lost, mythical world of manly men in politics and war, ended in an easy victory for social and cultural history. Christopher Dummitt agrees, writing that the inclusivists have won out over the nationalists, mostly due to retirements among the latter. Despite this victory, he writes that the inclusivists have still failed to reach a popular audience. He finds the homogeneity in thought among contemporary historians regrettable for the field due to the resulting lack of historical debate.

The Book in the Context of National History Promotion

The publication and reception of Who Killed Canadian History? occurred alongside and influenced a broader ecosystem of organizations and projects dedicated to Canadian history. The Canada's History Society, founded in 1994 to popularize Canadian history, represents another pillar of this effort. The 'Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History' project, co directed by historian Peter Gossage, exemplifies the kind of engaging, research based public history that continued to develop. National historic designations by Parks Canada, which require an event to have occurred at least 40 years prior, provide an official framework for commemorating defining actions and experiences.

These designations range from early events like the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1726 to 20th century occurrences like the 1931 Estevan Strike, the Klippert Case of 1967, and the arrival of Displaced Persons between 1945 and 1951. The ongoing work of designating and interpreting these events represents a formal, government led process of historical narrative building that exists in tension with the kind of critiques Granatstein levelled. The book's legacy is thus part of a continuous conversation about how Canadians select, teach and remember their past. This conversation involves academics, governments, charitable organizations and the public, and it continues to evolve.

Questions about Who Killed Canadian History?

Who is J. L. Granatstein?

J. L. Granatstein is a Canadian historian and former professor. He served in the Canadian Army and received his PhD from Duke University in 1966. He taught at York University until his retirement in 1995. Stephen Azzi of Carleton University describes him as the most prolific Canadian historian of his generation. His early work focused on the Canadian government during the Second World War before he shifted to military history. He is also known for his neoconservative critiques of Canadian universities.

How was the book received by historians and the public?

The book was a national bestseller, selling around twenty thousand copies and reaching number two on Maclean's non fiction list in July 1998. It received positive reviews from the general press but generally negative reviews from professional historians. Its publication sparked major debates in journals like the Canadian Historical Review. While some colleagues agreed with its concerns about historical ignorance, most disputed its blaming of social historians and multiculturalism, and many criticized its writing style.

What impact did the book have on Canadian education?

Following the book's publication, the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba implemented new history curricula with expanded Canadian content. Alberta added more material on pre and post Confederation history and created high school courses on Canadian military history. Manitoba made Canadian history a major focus for grades four through seven. Granatstein noted in 2007 that most other provinces did not make similar changes. The book also inspired the creation of Historica Canada.

What is the main argument of Who Killed Canadian History?

The book argues that Canadians lack national unity because of their failure to teach their country's history. Granatstein contends that multiculturalism, social historians and weak history teaching standards are responsible for Canada's lack of a historical narrative. He advocates for a greater emphasis on the study of Canadian history in schools and universities, especially political and military history. The book concludes that preventing the decimation of history and resurrecting the past are key to improving Canadian unity.

What were the 'history wars' mentioned in relation to the book?

The 'history wars' were disputes between Canadian historians in the 1980s and 1990s. Historian Christopher Dummitt classifies the two groups as an older generation of 'nationalists' who focused on studying historical leaders, and a younger generation of 'inclusivists' who studied marginalized groups. Granatstein occupied the nationalist camp. Historian Adam Chipnick describes Who Killed Canadian History? as the pinnacle of these disputes.

What solutions did Granatstein propose to fix Canadian history?

Granatstein proposed several measures to increase historical awareness and combat the concerns he raised. His key solutions included implementing national history teaching standards and instituting a Canadian History Day. He also advocated for creating five national history chairs in Canadian universities and establishing a Centre for Canadian History. He suggested providing federally funded scholarships for history students and expanding resources for libraries and history teachers.

Sources and further reading

• Who Killed Canadian History? (Wikipedia)
• Significant Events in Canadian History (thecanadianencyclopedia.ca)
• Canada's History, Canada's History (canadashistory.ca)
• National historic events, Parks Canada (parks.canada.ca)

Checked by the Nosy Mag desk. Last updated 2026-11-02.