Who was Louis Riel? It depends on who you are asking...
Historica, our one and only producer of the Heritage Minutes we love so much has dedicated some of their bandwidth to Canadians to submit their own Louis Riel minutes. Here is the clip for the original "official" Louis Riel minute in English and in French
The reason that I have made a point to include both is that for Louis Riel's representation, language can be an important factor. A unilingual Canadian studying Riel will only get one side of the representation because they just cannot make sense of the French or English information. The French and the English in Canada have typically had very different feelings toward Riel and so have presented very different depictions, stories, and memories of him.
The linguistic differences are very apparent if you look at old newspaper clippings. Manitobia has an extensive collection and easily searchable index if you are interested in this topic. This seems to be the best laid out website of this sort---however it has its limitations. Being based in Manitoba, it has a very limited scope of newspapers to select from. As the home of Louis, we are certainly assured of excellent coverage of local and perhaps federal sentiments, we do not get much information about how the rest of Canada feels. There is always Early Canadiana Online, The Globe and Mail, and even The Times(London) that are all searchable from the MacOdrum Library website.
It is important to keep in mind when using newspapers as reference material that there is an inherent bias in the information. The "same story" can be published in five different papers and have five different spins on it. Question where the paper, story, or writer is from. Some articles may have been American or British in origin. Was the story even published for Canadians? or was it "news" for abroad? If it is domestic news, does the paper have an agenda? Sometimes it is easy to notice this with a paper such as The Canada Christian Advocate or The Protestant but when a paper is entitled The Saint John Star or The Gazette it is not readily apparent. Some papers are owned by specific industries, religious factions, or just particular individuals in order to push certain causes be it Monarchy or Métis rights. Louis was named a murderer and a saint and everything in between by the press---and this was not done without rhyme or reason.
This is a short video by Josh Martin and Riley Osterlund from youTube. It was a social studies project that they had done. Their attempt was to be as non-bias as possible. Were they successful?
Here is another "more official history" of Louis and the Métis from the 1970's. Notice the language. Do you find there to be a strong bias? What do you make of Riel ??
And then of course there are always the CBC Archives--a neat place to poke around if you are interested in virtually anything Canadiana. They are funded by the Canadian government but managed at arm's length. They are often criticized for their bias. They have a phenomenal amount of radio and video footage on countless topics. Unfortunately, they do not allow embedding like youtube but they have a fine list of sources on Riel spanning several decades. It is interesting to examine how one media source's portrayal of a topic can change so much over time.
And if you are really keen, you can even test your knowledge in a crossword puzzle. Is there a bias in the questions?
Louis Riel is not limited to archives either. Chester Brown, has written a popular graphic novel on him. Ironically--or maybe not---the first review of the book on Chapters claims there to be a strong bias in the work. If you are interested in this book it is available at Chapters and most local bookstores.
Whether you think Louis is a hero or a villain, make sure to check your local calendar because Canada has a few Louis Riel days, that vary depending on whether you are in Manitoba or Ontario, so you can go out and celebrate or shake your fist at Riel!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the informative post guys.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you read Chester Brown's footnotes? What does this tell you about this use of history and, at the same time, his use of the conventions of history to strengthen the authenticity of his work? I think some of the bias might have originated, in part, with the muddled, drunken MacDonald which conflicts with some older mainstream biographies.
I haven't been able to see his footnotes, or much of his text for that matter (it is perpetually out at the Library)
ReplyDeleteFrom the few bits that I have looked at it seems that this is merely Chester's attempt to fill in the gaps.
I may be attributing this to this comic where it is not due but...one section I looked at was called "Louis Approached for Help" Here these men clearly state that they are dissatisfied and upset with the CDN govt. Rarely have I ever heard it voiced in mainstream history that people living within Canada's borders did not want to become part of Canada. Also, that Riel was convinced to come back to Canada. He was not seeking trouble, instead he was asked by his Canadian friends to help them.
These little bits of history have been swept under the rug and are only slowly coming out of the woodwork.
Personally I really like the comic/graphic novel format. I think that for Canadian history, which has typically been deemed uninteresting, this is an excellent medium to get kids (and adults) interested in our history. It also enables kids, who I am sure still get the sanitized version in schools, to learn beyond that. Even if Chester is biased...so is what they get in schools (and elsewhere) so at least they can get the bias from all ends of the spectrum.
Fair.
ReplyDeleteThe graphic novel/comic format has been used in the past, though not always as a historical tool. Is the medium still effective when it bends historical fact for dramatic flair? (A question just as pointed for movies and television shows, I'm thinking particularly of Deadwood at this point in time, mostly for the parallel 'western' theme).
'Bias' has become a dirty word, but the meaning is clear. Every work is in someway slanted if only based on the selection of sources and the mode the historian works with. How can we make our work interesting and accessible and still be faithful to the lives and actions of our predecessors?
Good question. I have never seen Deadwood but I am thinking of the Tudors. CBC has an interview with Michael Hirst who is the writer of the show.
ReplyDeleteHere is the most relevant question from that interview : What challenges did you face in creating a historic series with a contemporary tone?
It wasn’t a challenge so much as an opportunity. I have always believed that history is a living thing, and the past is not a museum–or another planet inhabited by creatures we don’t recognize or connect with. History is made by people with the same range of feelings as ourselves. For example, to take the obvious point, to have as your central character a man who is torn between loyalties to his older wife and passion for his younger mistress! Well, how incomprehensible, or even old-fashioned, is that?
http://www.cbc.ca/wordsatlarge/blog/2008/09/as_season_two_of_the_tudors_be.html
I think that the medium is very effective and crucial for getting messages across. Be it Micheal Hirst of Chester Brown, in order to get the message across, you need to be able to capture the attention of your audience. There needs to be a balance between entertainment and fact. Overall, I have to agree with Hirst in that it is alright to bent historical fact, but really only because if you are trying to interest people in something then you need to make it palatable for them. Even if the Tudors is not completely factual, most people learn something about the age by watching it. If you sacrifice drama for pure fact, then you are creating documentaries which is unappealing to many.
I suppose what is important is that the author is clear about the level of truth in their work. I have never read the DaVinci Code nor seen the movie but I know that surrounding its release there was a lot of backlash because it was not "true" This could have been avoided if it was made more clear to audiences that they were viewing (historical) fiction rather than fact.
I really wish I have been able to read Chester Brown's Riel book because I really cannot comment on how faithful to reality his work is.
Bias certainly is a dirty word. Perhaps we can find a new word that does not have so much baggage. I think what is important is just being able to understand that everyone has bias. If we understand that then we understand we need to take everything we hear with a grain of salt.