Posts com a Tag ‘GLASSFORD Larry A (Res)’
Canada Revisited 8: Confederation, The Development of Western Canada, A Changing Society – ARNOLD et al (CSS)
ARNOLD, Phyllis A.; CLARK, Penney; WESTERLUND, Ken. Canada Revisited 8: Confederation, The Development of Western Canada, A Changing Society. Arnold Publishing: Edmonton, 2000. 392p. DEIR, Elspeth; FIELDING, John; ADAMS, George; BRUNE, Nick; GRANT, Brune; GRANT, Peter; ABRAM, Stephanie Smith; WHITE, Carol. Canada: The Story of a Developing Nation. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2000. 376p. Resenha de: GLASSFORD, Larry A.. Canadian Social Studies, v.38, n.2, p., 2004.
What is the purpose of a history textbook in 2003? Is it yesterday’s learning tool, the pedagogical equivalent of spats and buggy whips – hopelessly out of fashion, and no longer very useful? Has the computer, with its CDs, DVDs and program software, plus the Internet with its virtually limitless websites and e-mail possibilities, rendered book learning obsolete? Only if teachers and students lack flexibility and imagination. Having access to an attractive, informative and challenging print resource does not exclude any of the electronic learning possibilities. The two are compatible, even complementary. If the roles were reversed, computers were the traditional technology, and books had just been invented, imagine the excitement. For that matter, imagine the advertising: So durable, so compact, so interactive, so cost-effective, so easy to use. Put one of these new lightweight ‘books’ in your child’s hands, and watch the learning curve rise. Beg, borrow or buy one NOW. Use books every day! Little more than a decade ago, history textbooks aimed at the senior elementary/junior high school market were still largely dependent upon traditional print communication – black-ink words on a white page – to convey a mass of factual information to students. Accompanying illustrations, be they photographs, diagrams, charts or cartoons, were usually black and white, too. Authors considered themselves lucky to be allotted one accent colour – blue, say, or red – to add a bit of variety, and serve as a means to emphasize key points. Such books were essentially narrative texts, with periodic breaks for the usual questions of recall or comprehension, perhaps supplemented by a few suggested learning activities of a higher order.
Nowadays, history textbooks for this age bracket have a dramatically different look. Bigger, bolder, and brighter, they are awash in colour. Marginal notations, boxed vignettes, captioned illustrations and full-colour charts augment, perhaps even interrupt, the flow of the central narrative, which is purposely kept short with frequent headings and sub-headings. It is as though the original designers of USA Today have been at work, creating a new kind of textbook for students who do not particularly like to read. The end result is a visually appealing book, though, and one that invites pupil browsing.
The two textbooks covered in this review are similar in many ways. While Arnold Publishing was a pioneer in Canada of the more visually oriented textbook, the Ontario publishers such as McGraw-Hill Ryerson soon caught on, and there is now little to distinguish the two on this score. Both of these books are clearly aimed at the Ontario Grade 8 history course, which covers Canadian history from the 1860s to the 1910s. To be absolutely clear to potential buyers, the Arnold book deliberately lists the three prescribed topics from the Ontario guidelines in its sub-title, namely Confederation, The Development of Western Canada, and A Changing Society. The McGraw-Hill Ryerson book, by contrast, is content to make those three topics the basis of the three main units prominently listed in its Table of Contents. Both books have received approval from the Ontario Ministry for this grade and course.
Following the lead of the Ontario curriculum document, the two books focus on comprehension of material over rote recall, and provide frequent suggestions for learning activities by which the students will demonstrate their mastery of the content. For the topic of Confederation, the McGraw-Hill Ryerson text suggests that students design a poster either supporting or opposing Confederation (p. 97). Under the same topic, the Arnold text invites students to create a series of diary entries that might have been written by John A. Macdonald (p. 115). In each case, the learning task would require students to take information provided by the textbook and communicate it in a new way.
Similarly, the two textbooks overtly provide opportunities for students to practise and acquire key skills in the areas of inquiry research, critical thinking and communication. For example, as part of a chapter on the National Policy, 1878-1896, the Arnold book presents a series of questions by which students can critically analyse a political cartoon (pp. 244-5). In the McGraw-Hill Ryerson book, a pioneer’s account of settling in Manitoba in the 1870s is presented, with suggestions for ways to test its authenticity by examining other available evidence (p. 187). Each publisher offers further support materials and activity ideas for teachers in an auxiliary resource package (sold separately).
The Ontario history curriculum shies away from overt expectations in the values domain. However, it is clear that both author teams have understood the need for equity in terms of both gender balance and attention to visible minorities. While males outnumber females in the Indexes of both books by a sizeable margin, a clear effort has nevertheless been made to depict women as well as men in the numerous illustrations. The extension of full legal and political rights to women is highlighted in both books as part of the changing society at the turn of the twentieth century. Attention to various aspects of social and cultural history also provides valid opportunities to focus on the contributions of female Canadians. Aboriginal Canadians warrant significant coverage in both texts, as well, particularly in the chapters devoted to the development of Western Canada. Other visible minorities – Asian Canadians and African Canadians – are periodically mentioned, along with supporting photographs. Furthermore each of the books invites students to imagine situations from more than one perspective, thus encouraging both empathy and tolerance.
It is easier to describe how the two books are similar than to point out how they differ, although there are some minor contrasts in how a chapter is laid out. In each case, the authors provide a highly visual opener, previewing what the student will encounter in the pages to follow, along with a listing of key phrases. A combination of short narrative bursts, punctuated by colour headings and frequent illustrations – photos, cartoons, maps, charts, historic posters – constitute the body of each chapter. Boxed items provide supplementary information, such as a thumbnail biography of a related historical personality, invariably accompanied by a photograph or other visual material. In the Arnold book, the periodic questions of comprehension spaced throughout the chapter are grouped under the heading, For Your Notebook, whereas in the McGraw-Hill Ryerson text, the corresponding heading is The Story So Far. The kinds of questions provided appear to be similar, however, as do the more substantive tasks offered at the end of each chapter. The McGraw-Hill Ryerson book does provide a one-paragraph summary at chapter’s end; the Arnold text moves right into its series of learning activities.
Here are a few general differences to guide a curriculum committee’s choice between these two fine print resources. The Arnold book leans a little more to bright colours in its presentation, though the ratio of print to visual is close to 60:40 in both cases. The McGraw-Hill Ryerson book seems to follow the suggested content of the Ontario curriculum a little closer, although an alert teacher would have no trouble matching chapters to expectations using either resource. The references to related Internet websites are more frequent in the McGraw-Hill Ryerson text, and more likely to be used by students. An appendix on learning skills in the Arnold book is more comprehensive than the scattered items entitled Research Is Happening Here in the McGraw-Hill Ryerson book. The ongoing visual timelines in the latter book are very helpful; the frequent appearance of colour maps in the former serve a similar purpose in illustrating changes over time. At the risk of gross simplification, it seems that the Arnold book might work better with students who have not yet developed any real liking for history. The McGraw-Hill Ryerson book, by contrast, might be a better fit for students already turned on to the subject, and ready for a little more challenge.
Has the trend to a more student-friendly textbook, replete with colourful visual content, and broken up into the print equivalent of short sound bites, been a positive one? One well-known critic of progressive educators does not believe so. J.L. Granatstein, in Who Killed Canadian History?, has bemoaned the fact that a certain textbook familiar to him had been noticeably glitzed up in appearance but watered down in language and detail between its first and third editions (p. 39). Granatstein is determinedly old school, in that he continues to insist that factual content is important, and chronology is vital. Not for him a present-minded issues approach that begins and ends with the present. Nevertheless, the two books featured in this review have managed to retain a fair amount of factual information, have not abandoned their chronological integrity, and yet have managed to integrate a skills-based approach that trains students in how to do history, all the while presenting the course material in a lively and challenging fashion. This is no small achievement, and both author teams deserve credit for blending the traditional and progressive approaches to history so skilfully.
Assuming the curriculum guidelines stay the same, what should the authors and publishers be doing for the next edition of these books? For starters, they should continue to look for ways to dovetail the print-oriented textbook with burgeoning Internet resources. Specific website references that are integrated into the flow of the textbook will promote meaningful investigation, and discourage aimless fishing trips on the web. Secondly, the skills components can be more overtly and systematically woven through the content of the textbooks, possibly arranged in such a way that simple skills from previous years can be practised again, then developed into more complex ones as the students move through the book. Thirdly, more thought can be given to the values potential of history, in particular the opportunities for values clarification and values analysis exercises. Admittedly, the Ontario curriculum guidelines for this grade are largely silent on values, so the authors have had to tread carefully here. Finally, new discoveries and interpretations from academic historians must continually be woven into the fabric of the text, so that the students, and their teachers, are exposed to the best and most recent syntheses of our country’s history. Otherwise, a text can easily become outdated.
That there will be a need for new editions of these textbooks, I have no doubt. Just as print newspapers have survived the arrival of the radio, then television, and now the Internet, so print textbooks will continue to play a useful, albeit modified, role in the schools of the future. These two books under review represent the current state of the art in textbook technology, and properly updated, should continue to inform, stimulate and challenge Canadian students, well into the future.
References
Granatstein, J.L. (1998). Who Killed Canadian History? Toronto: HarperCollins.
Larry A. Glassford – Faculty of Education. University of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
[IF]
Alien Invasion: How the Harris Tories Mismanaged Ontario – COHEN (CSS)
COHEN, Ruth. Ed. Alien Invasion: How the Harris Tories Mismanaged Ontario. Toronto: Insomniac Press, 2001. 240p. Resenha de: GLASSFORD, Larry A. Canadian Social Studies, v.39, n.1, p., 2004.
When the Ontario PCs captured the provincial election of 1995, their platform was encapsulated in the suggestive slogan The Common Sense Revolution. A combination of anti-bureaucratic populism and economic neo-conservatism, it had been cobbled together in the early Nineties by a klatch of aggressive young backroom boys (and one girl) connected to the Tory leader, Mike Harris. To the surprise of some, and chagrin of many, the newly elected Conservative government proceeded to implement its revolution of program cutbacks, tax reductions and intra-governmental restructuring. Both the breakneck speed of implementation and a ham-handed insensitivity toward democratic process accounted for some of the widespread public opposition to the Harris government’s reforms. More to the point, however, was the accumulating impact of the legislated changes themselves.
Taken together the new policies were beginning to alter the fundamental nature of the Ontario political economy. Ruth Cohen’s edited collection of articles and speeches is entitled Alien Invasion because in her opinion, and that of many other Ontarians, the stridently neo-conservative tone of the Common Sense Revolution put it outside the boundaries of the province’s traditional political culture. Regardless of their political stripe and Ontario had experienced governments of NDP, Liberal and PC affiliation in the 15 years leading up to 1995 all Ontario administrations had subscribed to the view that the state could and would play a positive role in the lives of its citizens. As part of this vision, a mixed economy combining both private and public enterprise was widely seen as the Ontario norm. Political change, when it came, would be evolutionary and incremental, and preceded by meaningful consultation with all major interest groups. Not for nothing was the party which had ruled Ontario for most of the 20th century, and continuously from 1942-1985, named Progressive Conservative. The dialectic dialogue implicit in that apparent oxymoron of a title told the observer all one needed to know about Ontario’s political traditions.
Opponents of the Harris government drew comfort from the fact that Bob Rae’s New Democrats, and David Petersons’s Liberals, had both been turfed out by the voters after five years in office. To their shock and dismay, the Ontario PCs rose from the ashes of controversy, and won a new majority in 1999. Masters of media spin, and rolling in donated dough, the Harris team waged a clever campaign that exploited the divisions in the opposition ranks to turn 40 percent of the popular vote into 60 percent of the seats. Now they had four more years to entrench themselves and their ideas. Thoroughly alarmed, the forces opposed to the Common Sense Revolution feared for the very survival of their kinder, gentler vision of Ontario. This book is one result of that renewed resolve to drive the alien invaders out of the province, once and for all.
The editor of this collection is a retired teacher and activist in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. The OSSTF was among the most prominent of a wide range of organized interest groups arrayed against the Harris PCs. For two weeks in the fall of 1997, they and the other teacher unions shut down the province’s elementary and secondary schools in an historic walkout protesting against Bill 160, a law that drastically revamped public education in Ontario. Characteristically, the PC government stood firm and talked tough till it got its way, but the victory may have been pyrrhic. Subsequent polling revealed that the tide of public opinion began to turn against the Harris regime partway through the strike and, notwithstanding the miraculous but temporary PC comeback during the 1999 election campaign, they were never as strong with the public again.
Some of the items in this edited collection are real gems. The detailed transcript of the rookie Education Minister, John Snobelen, spouting his convoluted and sophomoric ideas of transformational change, is alone worth the price of this book. He seriously counselled the creation of an invented crisis in the field of education, all the better to guarantee the success of his radical restructuring plans. Another prize is the transcript of a speech by Ian Angell, a British academic, delivered sometime in the Nineties to the Association of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada. Angell painted a vivid picture of the Brave New World of global capitalism with more than the usual candor. Those lucky enough to be in work will have to work harder, for more hours each week, for less pay, in less secure jobs, he declared. And they had damn well better be grateful. In contrast to lowly labour, the Alphas would be in global seventh heaven. We are free to exploit workers, he continued. Management can finally get its revenge and kill off those damn trade unions (p. 174).
Not all of the thirty-plus items achieve this level of interest. There are newspaper articles, pundit columns, investigative features, even internet items, all loosely united by their connection either to the aims and record of the Harris government, or to the broader theory of global capitalism. Unfortunately, the editing is sloppy in places, both in terms of undetected typos, and by the fact that many articles are both undated and unsourced. These are quibbles, however, for anyone eager to find the materials from which to build a coherent critique of the neo-con mantras of free enterprise, free markets, and no free lunch. Susan George’s A Short History of Neo-Liberalism (pp.184-193), and David C. Korten’s The Global Economy: Can It Be Fixed? (206-216) are particularly insightful. For those eager to translate words into actions, Jane Kelsey’s Tips On How to Oppose Corporate Rule (pp.217-221) provides a plethora of practical pointers for potential opponents of the New Right.
Although the title of this volume fingers the Harris PC government in Ontario as the villain, the articles in the second half of the book make it clear that the real adversary is a connected set of neo-liberal ideas articulated by a global network of influential and affluent disciples. It will not be stopped by a mere election defeat.
Larry A. Glassford – University of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
[IF]
Raising Reds: The Young Pioneers, Radical Summer Camps, and Communist Political Culture in the United States – MISHLER (CSS)
MISHLER, Paul C. Raising Reds: The Young Pioneers, Radical Summer Camps, and Communist Political Culture in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 172p. Resenha de: GLASSFORD, Larry A. Canadian Social Studies, v.35, n.2, 2001.
The author of this intriguing, though sloppily edited, little book is a self-proclaimed radical parent, himself raised by parents who were intellectuals and radicals. His personal philosophy, he confides, is that the world is out there to be changed (x). His sympathy for the goals, if not always the means, of the American Communist activists described in this book is readily apparent.
Mishler’s analysis concentrates on the period from the early 1920s to the mid-1950s. This chronological era sandwiches a fifteen-year period of semi-respectability for the Communists in America, 1930 to 1945, between two decades of virulent Red Scare. His book provides a timely reminder that, during the depths of the Great Depression, and continuing through the anti-Fascist war years, the Communist Party was able to connect with significant aspects of mainstream American society and culture. During this time, Communists led labour unions, wrote leading articles for the popular press, and taught openly in universities. A combination of the Cold War, McCarthyism and working-class prosperity terminated this rapprochement between Marx and the Mayflower, though Mishler argues that much of their radical critique of capitalism resurfaced in the New Left protests of the Sixties and Seventies.
The central focus for Mishler, as it was for Communist parents in the first half of the 20th century, is the problem of how to educate children so that they would grow up to be radicals (25). The issue of which community institutions – the family, the school, the state, various voluntary organizations – are to be charged with the responsibility of socializing the next generation is an ongoing dilemma. At that time, most Communists were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. They understood the pressure on their own offspring to conform to the norms of the mainstream culture in this ‘New World’ society. Yet they rejected much of that society’s founding myths on ideological grounds. What to do? The answer was sought in after-school programs and summer camps built around the Marxist values of the parents, though these ideas were framed to be as compatible as possible with the more radical aspect of American liberalism.
Through the 1920s, the largest number of American Communists derived from the immigrant Jewish and Finnish communities. Parents and party organizers frequently clashed over the relative weight to be given to working-class solidarity, as opposed to ethnic heritage, in the curriculum of the out-of-school educational programs. By the 1930s, party thinking had relaxed somewhat, so that ethnicity was nurtured rather than shunned, even as the youth programs moved to adopt more of the trappings of the host culture, notably organized sports.
During the more strident period of party educational activity in the 1920s, parents had often been deliberately excluded from participation in the leadership of the main youth organization, the Young Pioneers. In fact, the children were sometimes taught to undermine the authority of their own parents, particularly authoritarian fathers, as a metaphor for and precursor to the coming revolutionary victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie. Mere analysis of the injustices in society was deemed insufficient. The young students were inspired by their adult leaders to take direct political action in support of their causes. This included skipping regular school attendance to take part in public rallies, demonstrations and strikes.
In the end, the institutionalized extra-school education of young Communists in America collapsed. The threats and enticements of mainstream society prevailed over a determined but tiny minority. Here and there, however, a few residual survivors – sometimes dubbed Red Diaper Babies – surface to remind Americans of an overlooked element of their past. This book and its author provide one such example.
Larry A. Glassford – University of Windsor.
[IF]Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada’s Leaders – HILMER (CSS)
HILLMER, J. L. Granatstein Norman. Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada’s Leaders. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1999. 234p. COUCILL, Irma. Canada’s Prime Ministers, Governors General and Fathers of Confederation. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers, 1999. 180p. Resenha de: GLASSFORD, Larry A. Canadian Social Studies, v.36, n.1, 2001.
What makes a great prime minister of Canada? What makes a poor one? What are the key factors that determine success or failure? For that matter, what do we assess, or measure: – length of time in office? – deeds accomplished? – disasters avoided? – popularity with the public? – accolades from political peers? – respect from subsequent historians?
The premise of the book by J.L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer, two eminent Canadian historians noted for their contributions in the fields of national political, military and diplomatic history, is that the collective judgment of academic scholars is a sound means of determining the success of our country’s prime ministers. In 1997, they conducted a survey of 26 Canadian scholars – political historians mostly, with a couple of narrative political scientists thrown in – to determine a comparative ranking of the 20 individuals who have served as Canada’s prime minister. The respondents were asked to rate the PMs on the familiar scale of 0 (for total failure) to 10 (for enduring greatness). The results of their survey were published as a leading article in the April 21, 1997 issue of Maclean’s magazine. Granatstein and Hillmer then expanded that article into this 200-plus-page book, with individual chapters for each prime minister except the four immediate successors to John A. Macdonald, whose combined service from 1891-1896 is disposed of in one chapter.
Although actual point totals are not produced in either the original Maclean’s piece or this followup book, the authors tell us that the consensus of their panel of experts (which included themselves) pointed to William Lyon Mackenzie King as the top-ranked Canadian prime minister. Apparently 14 respondents placed King either first, or tied for first. The other two leaders earning their Great rating (an A-plus surely) were John A. Macdonald (2nd) and Wilfrid Laurier (3rd). A fourth PM, Louis St. Laurent, was awarded a near-Great grade, perhaps the equivalent of an A-minus. The High-Average (B?) leaders were Pierre Trudeau (5th), Lester Pearson (6th) and Robert Borden (7th) respectively, followed by the average (C?) prime ministers: Brian Mulroney (8th), Jean Chretien (9th), John Thompson (10th), Alexander Mackenzie (11th), R.B. Bennett (12th) and John Diefenbaker (13th). Two prime ministers, Arthur Meighen (14th) and Joe Clark (15th) scraped through with a Low-Average (D?) Rating. Those PMs adjudged to be failures (F for sure) were Charles Tupper, John Abbott, John Turner, Mackenzie Bowell and Kim Campbell.
How did this panel of professorial pundits arrive at their collective judgment? According to the Maclean’s article, they were not given precise criteria, but were asked to consider electoral success, national unity, success in achieving domestic or foreign policy goals, and leadership in cabinet, party and country. (p.35). These ratings, the authors report at the beginning of their book, were then averaged to form a ranked list. In addition to the numerical scores, each scholar was asked to write a commentary, justifying his or her rating (both p. 9). The comments of the academics were utilized throughout the five-page Maclean’s spread to buttress the authors’ own remarks. The book, while adhering to the prime-ministerial ranking of the earlier article, is more clearly the authors’ own creation, although an occasional panelist’s quote finds its way into the chapter-length biographies.
How did the experts do? The absence of actual point-totals tells us that this is not meant to be a scientific survey meeting rigid statistical criteria. Furthermore, upon what basis was the so-called panel of experts chosen? The authors are silent on the point, other than to note that five are relatively younger scholars, and that together, the panelists represent the several geographic regions of the country. An actual list of 25 names was appended to the Maclean’s article, indicating the presence of five female scholars amongst such luminaries as Michael Bliss, Craig Brown, Desmond Morton, Blair Neatby and Peter Waite. Seeing these names, we might ask where are the Greg Kealeys and Veronica Strong-Boags? Were representatives of the new Canadian historical establishment not polled in significant numbers or did they refuse to answer? We are not told. The lesson is clear. This is not rigorous social science analysis. It has been written as much for enjoyment as for enlightenment – and why not? Who said history should be so stuffy anyways? The joy of the reading is augmented by the inclusion of 27 political cartoons – some famous, some not – distributed throughout the book.
Surprisingly, a number of the better chapters are devoted to lesser PMs. Joe Clark and John Turner, frequently savaged in the popular press, merit full-length chapters that are evenhanded, leaning to sympathetic. Pierre Trudeau, still alive at the time of publication, and Jean Chretien, not yet a three-time election winner when the book went to press, receive the back of the authors’ hands, by comparison. Lester Pearson is praised; John Diefenbaker is, if not defamed, certainly panned. The chapter on R.B. Bennett is remarkably positive, given the panel’s low rating, but Robert Borden is, at best, damned with faint praise. Clearly, too, the authors expect Brian Mulroney’s eventual rehabilitation. The panel was harsh on Kim Campbell, but the authors less so – pointing out that the novelty of her gender first helped, then hindered her national political career. The one really bizarre rating by the expert panel was to place John Thompson tenth. He served scarcely more than 2 years in office, and never won an election as leader. Even the co-authors seem dumbfounded. In the Maclean’s article, they attribute his surprising showing to the recent appearance of a fine, modern full-length biography. (P,35). That professional historians could be so easily swayed casts more than a little doubt on the validity of the whole exercise.
One prominent aspect of the ranking must be challenged. William Lyon Mackenzie King was not our greatest prime minister, contrary to the panelists and co-authors. That honour must be reserved for John A. Macdonald. Both had flawed personal characters – King with his seances, ouija boards and crystal balls, Macdonald with his weakness for the bottle. Neither might even have made it to the office of prime minister in the current era of fishbowl journalism. Both built a great political party; Macdonald, however, also built a country – one which King admittedly helped to preserve. It is quite possible, though, to picture Macdonald managing the political crises faced by King. One cannot imagine King managing to pull off Confederation. He lacked the vision, and the personal charisma. King is deservedly among the top three leaders, on a par with his idol, Wilfrid Laurier. But one has only to consider the remarkable accomplishments of King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, during his first half dozen years in office, to grasp the what- might-have-beens of Mackenzie King’s lengthy time in office. In describing St. Laurent, the authors note his one deficiency – an absence of deviousness. This quality King held in spades. King’s other specialty, as he mentioned once to an apprenticing Lester Pearson, was to focus on avoiding bad actions – no small achievement, but not the full measure of a truly great prime minister. The existence of the Canadian federation itself is John A. Macdonald’s legacy to us. He is still Number One.
The other book under review here, authored by Irma Coucill, is not in the same league as that by Granatstein and Hillmer, judged on the basis of the written content. The author presents one-page thumbnail sketches of Canada’s 20 prime ministers, 25 governors-general since 1867 (excluding Adrienne Clarkson, who had not yet been appointed), and 36 Fathers of Confederation, defined as those colonial politicians from British North America who attended at least one of the formative conferences in Charlottetown, Quebec or London. The first edition of this work appeared in the lead-up to Centennial year, which explains something about the boosterish tone of the mini-biographies. Unfortunately, the pages added for subsequent editions are sometimes marred by inaccuracies. Nunavut is mis-spelled on page 46, for example. However, the great strength of this book is not its print, but its visuals – that is to say, the marvellous full-page, black and white portraits of each leader, all drawn by the author, herself.
Read the first book for the challenge of critiquing Granatstein, Hillmer and friends’ assessments of our prime ministers. Browse the second one for the pleasure of Irma Coucill’s portraits.
Larry A. Glassford – Faculty of Education. University of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
[IF]