What Is the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada?
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) may receive and consider recommendations respecting the marking or commemoration of historic places, the establishment of historic museums and the administration, preservation and maintenance of historic places and historic museums, and shall advise the Minister in carrying out his powers. In practice, the Board advises the Minister of the Environment on the commemoration of those places, persons and events that represent nationally significant aspects of Canadian history and indicates the form of commemoration.
http://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=HSM&type-typ=&lang=eng
http://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=HSM&type-typ=&lang=eng
National Historic Sites of Canada in British Columbia and the North
Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada
Highlights the historic Klondike gold rush
The mass movement of people into the North trying to survive the Canadian Wilderness
Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site of Canada
Fisgard Lighthouse NHS commemorates the national significance of the first lighthouse on Canada's west coast. Fisgard has been an important symbol of sovereignty-British, Colonial and Canadian-since 1860.
Gulf of Georgia Cannery National Historic Site of Canada
One of BC's few historically intact canneries, the Gulf of Georgia Cannery commemorates the history of Canada's West Coast fishing industry from the 1870's to the present.
For a complete list visit: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/index_E.asp
Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada
Highlights the historic Klondike gold rush
The mass movement of people into the North trying to survive the Canadian Wilderness
Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site of Canada
Fisgard Lighthouse NHS commemorates the national significance of the first lighthouse on Canada's west coast. Fisgard has been an important symbol of sovereignty-British, Colonial and Canadian-since 1860.
Gulf of Georgia Cannery National Historic Site of Canada
One of BC's few historically intact canneries, the Gulf of Georgia Cannery commemorates the history of Canada's West Coast fishing industry from the 1870's to the present.
For a complete list visit: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/index_E.asp
Journal Article Summary with the Focus on The View From the West
Rickettes, Shannon. “Cultural Selection and National Identity: Establishing Historic Sites in a National Framework, 1920-1939,” The Public Historian 18, no. 3 (1996): 23-41.
The interwar period in Canada marked an increase in commemorative activity. A rise in specialization and professionalization were changing a remembrance movement that had previously reflected the conscious of the educated elite. However despite this growing diversity of historical commemorative efforts the ‘Canadian nation-building experience’ was focused around accentuating the British initiatives that had focused on assimilating the population.
The National Historic Sites had the goal of marking events and places significant to this nationalist endeavor. However, according to Shannon, the French-speaking Canadians and First Nations groups along with any other community not of British descent may have felt excluded. And it wasn’t until the 1980s that imperialist assumptions underlying the development of historical sites would be questions.
British Columbia in 1925 passed an early preservation act due to threats to petroglyphs and totem poles, which were being removed, from Aboriginal Villages by foreign collectors. Preserved sites have largely been from the viewpoint of the white immigrant, ignoring the attitudes of First Nations peoples regarding the use and conservation of their own cultural artifacts. The British Columbian Aboriginal communities were seen to have ceased with their legitimate history with the arrival of the White Settlers.
Shannon concludes by reiterating earlier observations as to the assumed assimilation of Native peoples into the British cultural origins and with the Francophone culture on the periphery of the Nationalistic Image being created. It wasn’t until the 80s when community involvement became more active in identifying historical sites representing the multicultural history we are familiar with today.
Rickettes, Shannon. “Cultural Selection and National Identity: Establishing Historic Sites in a National Framework, 1920-1939,” The Public Historian 18, no. 3 (1996): 23-41.
The interwar period in Canada marked an increase in commemorative activity. A rise in specialization and professionalization were changing a remembrance movement that had previously reflected the conscious of the educated elite. However despite this growing diversity of historical commemorative efforts the ‘Canadian nation-building experience’ was focused around accentuating the British initiatives that had focused on assimilating the population.
The National Historic Sites had the goal of marking events and places significant to this nationalist endeavor. However, according to Shannon, the French-speaking Canadians and First Nations groups along with any other community not of British descent may have felt excluded. And it wasn’t until the 1980s that imperialist assumptions underlying the development of historical sites would be questions.
British Columbia in 1925 passed an early preservation act due to threats to petroglyphs and totem poles, which were being removed, from Aboriginal Villages by foreign collectors. Preserved sites have largely been from the viewpoint of the white immigrant, ignoring the attitudes of First Nations peoples regarding the use and conservation of their own cultural artifacts. The British Columbian Aboriginal communities were seen to have ceased with their legitimate history with the arrival of the White Settlers.
Shannon concludes by reiterating earlier observations as to the assumed assimilation of Native peoples into the British cultural origins and with the Francophone culture on the periphery of the Nationalistic Image being created. It wasn’t until the 80s when community involvement became more active in identifying historical sites representing the multicultural history we are familiar with today.
Article Summary: Yves Yvon J. Pelletier, “The Politics of Selection: The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the Imperial Commemoration of Canadian History 1919 - 1950”
Looks at the selection process undertaken by members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC). Throughout the article, the author makes reference to the undermined importance of the HSMBC when choosing historical monuments; in the process, re-shaping the Canadian identity. The idea was, and always has been, to choose historical sites that have been viewed to serve as both a regional and a national heritage site. When first established, the members of the committee used the organization as a tool for Anglo-conformity; gathering a select group of privileged white males to take part in the decision making. Throughout several points in the article the author makes fine point to highlight two important biases that existed within the HSMBC. First, being the influence of the Loyalist movements that still existed in Canada during the late 20th century, resulting in an overwhelming recommendation of land-marking past historical sites of the Commonwealth; this would eventually lead to a clash of differences with French Canada, conforming to their own views of nationalism. The second, was seen as an overlook of the ideals of the Canadian proletariat in the decision making process, narrowing the acceptance into the HSMBC to members of the social elite. In almost all cases, the Canadian people went along with the decisions of the Board members in a process referred to by Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci as the “common sense appraoch” where the lower classes simply go along with the decisions without any real conscious knowledge (pg. 127). As history has shown however, this elitist privilege that came with the HMSBC Board began to die out shortly after WWII, when activation of membership was based around scholarly merit. In the end, the author reiterates his final position that during the early 20th century the Canadian governments opinion on historical sites rested heavily in the hands of the Canadian Upper class who still remained immersed in an ongoing Loyalist sentiment.
BC Heritage Sites: Throughout the period of 1919 – 1950, the HSMBC mainly focused on sites originating in and around the Maritime provinces. However, that is not to say that BC didn’t receive any during this period.
1. Fort Langley National Historic Site of Canada. Langley, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1923
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1924
2. Fort St. James National Historic Site of Canada. Fort St. James, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1948
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1952
3. Fort Hope National Historic Site of Canada. Hope, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1925
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1927
The ties that BC has to its historical fortification sites are really no different from any other province. Used as either trade posts or security zones, these forts were designated to secure the economic stability of the province and in turn, the whole country. The forts in particular served as posts for the Hudson’s Bay Company during the mid and late 19th century. In the process of strengthening our own economy, we were also securing the Commonwealth’s who were so heavily invested in the developments within the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Of course, this appraoch to the view of 19th century forts in BC are symbolized in a two-prone approach. Fort Rodd Hill, located in Colwood, British Columbia, commemorates “the national significance of Victoria’s coast artillery fortress in the defense of Victoria and the naval base at Esquimalt harbour, as part of the larger defense strategy of the British Empire and Canada, 1878 to 1956. As well, it symbolizes the shift from British to Canadian responsibility for our national defence, and the evolution over time of the V-E Fortress in response to changing threats to Canada's sovereignty.”*
* http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/bc/fortroddhill/index_e.asp
Looks at the selection process undertaken by members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC). Throughout the article, the author makes reference to the undermined importance of the HSMBC when choosing historical monuments; in the process, re-shaping the Canadian identity. The idea was, and always has been, to choose historical sites that have been viewed to serve as both a regional and a national heritage site. When first established, the members of the committee used the organization as a tool for Anglo-conformity; gathering a select group of privileged white males to take part in the decision making. Throughout several points in the article the author makes fine point to highlight two important biases that existed within the HSMBC. First, being the influence of the Loyalist movements that still existed in Canada during the late 20th century, resulting in an overwhelming recommendation of land-marking past historical sites of the Commonwealth; this would eventually lead to a clash of differences with French Canada, conforming to their own views of nationalism. The second, was seen as an overlook of the ideals of the Canadian proletariat in the decision making process, narrowing the acceptance into the HSMBC to members of the social elite. In almost all cases, the Canadian people went along with the decisions of the Board members in a process referred to by Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci as the “common sense appraoch” where the lower classes simply go along with the decisions without any real conscious knowledge (pg. 127). As history has shown however, this elitist privilege that came with the HMSBC Board began to die out shortly after WWII, when activation of membership was based around scholarly merit. In the end, the author reiterates his final position that during the early 20th century the Canadian governments opinion on historical sites rested heavily in the hands of the Canadian Upper class who still remained immersed in an ongoing Loyalist sentiment.
BC Heritage Sites: Throughout the period of 1919 – 1950, the HSMBC mainly focused on sites originating in and around the Maritime provinces. However, that is not to say that BC didn’t receive any during this period.
1. Fort Langley National Historic Site of Canada. Langley, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1923
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1924
2. Fort St. James National Historic Site of Canada. Fort St. James, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1948
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1952
3. Fort Hope National Historic Site of Canada. Hope, British Columbia
Date Designated: 1925
Plaque status: Plaqued in 1927
The ties that BC has to its historical fortification sites are really no different from any other province. Used as either trade posts or security zones, these forts were designated to secure the economic stability of the province and in turn, the whole country. The forts in particular served as posts for the Hudson’s Bay Company during the mid and late 19th century. In the process of strengthening our own economy, we were also securing the Commonwealth’s who were so heavily invested in the developments within the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Of course, this appraoch to the view of 19th century forts in BC are symbolized in a two-prone approach. Fort Rodd Hill, located in Colwood, British Columbia, commemorates “the national significance of Victoria’s coast artillery fortress in the defense of Victoria and the naval base at Esquimalt harbour, as part of the larger defense strategy of the British Empire and Canada, 1878 to 1956. As well, it symbolizes the shift from British to Canadian responsibility for our national defence, and the evolution over time of the V-E Fortress in response to changing threats to Canada's sovereignty.”*
* http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/bc/fortroddhill/index_e.asp
Article Summary: Paul Litt, “Pliant Clio and Immutable Texts: The Historiography of a Historical Marking Program,” The Public Historian 19, 4 (Fall 1997): 7-28.
The author of the piece was in charge of replacing an old commemorative plaque with a new one and while doing so, he was approached by a man who was upset because in his eyes, the community’s history was being changed in the process. In a way, he was right. The inscription on the new plaque was different as a result of the changing interpretation of history. “I had been caught in the act of revising history,” says the author.
Plaques are the most difficult media to update out of all the types of public history because of their material make-up and so historical priorities of the past are often forced into the present. Therefore, the question is posed: what should be done in regards to the revision of plaques, since new interpretations and attitudes cause history itself to change?
Due to legal issues and an overwhelming amount of requests from the public the Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario established the plaque program. An unveiling of the plaque took place, and was supposed to be met by an “appreciative audience” and through media attention gain the awareness of the public.
A large amount of things were commemorated throughout Ontario and their plaques can be divided into the category of “men,” “communities” and “old buildings.” Most plaques celebrate the beginning of British settlement, from the 1780s to the 1880s. “The history commemorated by Ontario’s plaques is one dominated by the origins and early days of white society.” Minority groups are rarely acknowledged and if they are, they are likely to belong to a First Nations Group and the things that are being commemorated, such a missionaries and residential schools, promote assimilation and a Eurocentric viewpoint.
Past is simplified through the use of plaques and they emit an aura of “timeless authority.”
3 phases of the plaque program and who each phase was driven by:
1956-1974: communities- local cultural, business or political elite, genesis complex
1975-1984: although women, workers and minorities were becoming more recognized in historiography and society, this was not demonstrated in the plaques
1985-1996: 42 years of Conservative Government ended, Liberals and NDP were now in power leading to a significant change in the nature of plaques. The Ontario Heritage Board vowed to promote the heritage of “all of Ontario’s social groups, especially Aboriginal peoples, Franco-Ontarians, members of non-white or non-Anglo-Celtic ethnic groups, working people, farmers and women.”
Example from B.C. Gitwangak Battle Hill National Historic Site of Canada
This is a historical site based on a story that Native elders tell of a warrior chief who used this hill for his raids against neighbouring tribes.
But, the majority of plaques in existence are still from the program’s first thirty years
This brings to light the question: who creates Canadian history?
- The way we interpret the past is a result of our present day situation, so in this way, history is always changing.
- While the public does play a large role in shaping the identity of their own regions and perhaps even the larger idea of Canadian nationalism, it is the Canadian Government who is ultimately responsible for establishing and maintaining Historical Sites and Monuments.
- Through the historical sites that the Government has chosen for British Columbia, the province's wilderness theme is largely exhibited.
British Columbia Heritage Webpage
http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/heritage/
