Alberta’s eugenics history
(Edmonton) Agata Derda grew up in Poland, but, intrigued with studying cultural differences, lived in Ireland as a young undergraduate arts student.
Along the way, she discovered something that inspires her work: “People are similar to each other, no matter where they were raised or where they live.”
Now, as a master’s student in the University of Alberta Faculty of Arts, Derda’s explorations in printmaking contemplate the great human chain, and are included in The Collective Memory Project, an art show that opens Oct. 23 at the U of A’s Faculty of Extension Gallery at Enterprise Square. An opening reception has been planned for 2 to 4 p.m. that day, with everyone welcome to attend.
Featuring a range of contemporary art such as paintings, digital printmaking, sculptural mixed media and archival photographs, The Collective Memory Project caps off Alberta Eugenics Awareness Week, Oct. 15–23, and contemplates both the legacy and contemporary attitudes about eugenic ideas in Alberta.
“There’s a danger of forgetting Alberta’s history with eugenics and that sort of forgetting is not an idle happenstance; I would argue that eugenics—while being a dark, traumatic event in history that begs remembrance for ethical reasons—hasn’t ended,” said Anne Pasek, curator for the exhibit, and a recent U of A Faculty of Arts graduate.
Between 1929 and 1972, more than 2,800 people who were deemed unfit by the government to raise families of their own underwent reproductive sterilization in Alberta. Other dark examples of Canadian eugenics policies include a head tax levied on Chinese immigrants and a residential school system that saw Aboriginal children seized from their families and their cultures.
But while those past actions have since been acknowledged by governments as unjust, some contemporary policies are also troubling, Pasek said.
“There are many aspects of public policy and collective ethics that are still profoundly influenced by eugenic ideas,” including selective immigration policies that screen out people with disabilities, and future ethical quandaries such as the question of “designer” babies, Pasek said.
The Collective Memory Project investigates how the concept of “personhood” “is unequally distributed in society,” she added.
The show features 20 works submitted by artists from across Canada, including an incarcerated woman, a man with a learning disability and, from an East Coast artist, an ambitious piece of performance art from a walk through an Edmonton park named for Louise McKinney. McKinney, who became Alberta’s first female MLA in 1917 and was a pioneer of women’s rights, was also a supporter of eugenics policies.
Students from the University of Alberta also contributed to the Collective Memory Project, Derda among them. Her three black and white digital photo compositions in the show pay tribute human individuality, and at the same time, explore a common human bond.
“We are all elements, puzzles, pieces of a much bigger construction, which we all create and influence. By excluding some of the puzzles we make that image incomplete,” said Derda. “Believing naively that our own experience is the most important and unique, we tend to overlook the fact that there is a world around us and we are all part of it.”
The show aims to widen the public’s understanding of eugenics and make it a “contemporary concern, so hopefully when people view the art, they’ll get a sense of how they can act on some of these problems,” Pasek said.
The show will also feature a community board where people are encouraged to write their reflections on sticky notes that will be posted for a collective remembrance in keeping with the exhibit theme.
The Collective Memory Project runs at the Faculty of Extension Gallery in Enterprise Square, 10230-Jasper Avenue, until Nov. 23 and can be viewed from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday to Friday and 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekends.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
What’s Your Epistemology?
by Cynthia Wallace-Casey
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
In surveying the research about teaching historical literacy, it becomes evident that an educator’s own epistemological stance (their philosophical worldview) about history will have a direct impact on how and what students learn about the past. It seems inevitable that our own biases will be present – no matter how objective we may try to be - in the choices we make about what constitutes an appropriate source, good question, or valid response about the past. Of course, curriculum documents guide us in making many of our choices… but in between the lines of outcomes and assessments, lays the fuzzy area of interpretation; and interpretation is always open to individualised meaning.
Through the digestion of experiences, Jörn Rüsen theorizes that individuals construct their own narratives, and their own temporal understandings of how the past is relevant to the present and future. In this way, he argues, history learning can best be described as a process of meaning construction that is actuated through (to borrow an analogy from Denis Shemilt) a kaleidoscope of experiences. This is because, as Jörn Rüsen points out, “those who do this construction and negotiate it in their social context are constructed themselves. They have been shaped by the same past which they are historically dealing with.”
Rüsen’s point is particularly significant, because cognitive research on the teaching of history has drawn notable parallels between student beliefs and teacher epistemologies. As Linda Levstik has noted in her study of a sixth-grade classroom, “the data clearly indicate” that students’ interest as well as their responses to the past are directly influenced by their teacher’s “manipulation of the classroom context.” Also, if as Mike Huggins has found, teaching practise makes a difference in what key ideas students inherit from formal schooling, then if a teacher is unclear about their own epistemology in the history domain, their students will be unclear as well.
Both Peter Lee and Rosalyn Ashby have strongly cautioned that students’ ideas about the past do not simply evolve of their own accord. Teaching greatly influences students’ ideas. They have also warned that while progression models for identifying development in historical literacy can be useful in understanding prior conceptual knowledge and mapping subsequent changes over time, they must not be used in a way that might structure or restrict students’ ideas about the past. Such algorithmic approaches to teaching history are likely, Lee and Ashby warn, when teachers “do not themselves have a good grasp of the ideas they are attempting to teach.” What is most significant in this statement, I believe, is that to “have a good grasp of the ideas” does not mean knowing the what of history; nor does it mean being able to follow the procedures of historical inquiry; or adopt conceptual benchmarks that are unique to the discipline. To “have a good grasp of the ideas” that are being taught requires an ability to orient all three of these components within one’s own epistemological stance, and to do so with a self-awareness that there are alternatives that rest outside each individual’s worldview. This is what Rüsen refers to as the individual process of “digesting the experiences of time into narrative competencies.” For students, such a process can be intellectually empowering because it centers the historical narrative within the individual, while at the same time contextualising the past within the scope of immeasurable possibilities.
Like Rüsen, Denis Shemilt has called for the adoption of a framework in history education that links “past with past and past with present,” so that students will be able to view the past (with all its complexities) through the lens of a kaleidoscope:
In order to be admitting of alternative narratives, however, we must be ever cognisant of how our own worldview may be limiting our kaleidoscopic lens – as well as the lens of others.
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
![]() |
| To Prince Edward Island, by Alex Colville (Collection of Library and Archives Canada) |
Through the digestion of experiences, Jörn Rüsen theorizes that individuals construct their own narratives, and their own temporal understandings of how the past is relevant to the present and future. In this way, he argues, history learning can best be described as a process of meaning construction that is actuated through (to borrow an analogy from Denis Shemilt) a kaleidoscope of experiences. This is because, as Jörn Rüsen points out, “those who do this construction and negotiate it in their social context are constructed themselves. They have been shaped by the same past which they are historically dealing with.”
Rüsen’s point is particularly significant, because cognitive research on the teaching of history has drawn notable parallels between student beliefs and teacher epistemologies. As Linda Levstik has noted in her study of a sixth-grade classroom, “the data clearly indicate” that students’ interest as well as their responses to the past are directly influenced by their teacher’s “manipulation of the classroom context.” Also, if as Mike Huggins has found, teaching practise makes a difference in what key ideas students inherit from formal schooling, then if a teacher is unclear about their own epistemology in the history domain, their students will be unclear as well.
Both Peter Lee and Rosalyn Ashby have strongly cautioned that students’ ideas about the past do not simply evolve of their own accord. Teaching greatly influences students’ ideas. They have also warned that while progression models for identifying development in historical literacy can be useful in understanding prior conceptual knowledge and mapping subsequent changes over time, they must not be used in a way that might structure or restrict students’ ideas about the past. Such algorithmic approaches to teaching history are likely, Lee and Ashby warn, when teachers “do not themselves have a good grasp of the ideas they are attempting to teach.” What is most significant in this statement, I believe, is that to “have a good grasp of the ideas” does not mean knowing the what of history; nor does it mean being able to follow the procedures of historical inquiry; or adopt conceptual benchmarks that are unique to the discipline. To “have a good grasp of the ideas” that are being taught requires an ability to orient all three of these components within one’s own epistemological stance, and to do so with a self-awareness that there are alternatives that rest outside each individual’s worldview. This is what Rüsen refers to as the individual process of “digesting the experiences of time into narrative competencies.” For students, such a process can be intellectually empowering because it centers the historical narrative within the individual, while at the same time contextualising the past within the scope of immeasurable possibilities.
Like Rüsen, Denis Shemilt has called for the adoption of a framework in history education that links “past with past and past with present,” so that students will be able to view the past (with all its complexities) through the lens of a kaleidoscope:
To be truly useful, the frameworks employed by pupils must not just be ordered and coherent, complex and multidimensional; they must be polythetic and admit of alternative narratives.
In order to be admitting of alternative narratives, however, we must be ever cognisant of how our own worldview may be limiting our kaleidoscopic lens – as well as the lens of others.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Museum of Me App
Intel® The Museum of Me
museumofme.intel.com
The Museum of Me is an application that displays information from your Facebook account as viewable "exhibits" in a virtual museum of your very own...
museumofme.intel.com
The Museum of Me is an application that displays information from your Facebook account as viewable "exhibits" in a virtual museum of your very own...
Monday, October 17, 2011
Education for the 21st Century – Making Thinking Visible

October 13, 2011 - Moncton
Cynthia Wallace-Casey
Making Thinking Visible in Museums
Saturday, October 8, 2011
(Re)Imagining Literacies of History Classrooms
UNCC Writing Project Book and Podcast Study:
Book: (Re)Imagining Content-Area Literacy Instruction Edited by Roni Drape
Podcast: "Disciplinary Literacy" by Elizabeth Moje
Source: Harding University High School Literacy Wiki
Book: (Re)Imagining Content-Area Literacy Instruction Edited by Roni Drape
Podcast: "Disciplinary Literacy" by Elizabeth Moje
Source: Harding University High School Literacy Wiki
Saturday, September 24, 2011
10 (+1) Reasons Why Heritage Fairs are Good for You!
by Cynthia Wallace-Casey
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
Now that all have returned to school, those of us in New Brunswick’s heritage community are looking forward and planning with eager anticipation for Heritage Fairs! So with this blog entry… in honour of project-based learning and disciplinary inquiry, I am taking on my motherly persona today to dish out some words of advice as to why Heritage Fairs are good for you. :)
Feel free to add your own comments and build upon my list:
1. You do not have to listen to your teacher talk…
• (facilitates independent study and helps to establish a classroom culture of thinking)
2. Let’s you ask Big Questions – like why is this topic significant? And whose voice is left out of this narrative?
• (promotes critical historical literacy)
3. Hones your research skills…
• (recognizes history as a discipline with its own unique modes of inquiry)
4. Let’s you make your thinking visible…
• (requires students to document their thinking visually)
5. Let’s you be creative…
• (supports differentiated learning and provides students with their own entry points into the past)
6. Gives you a soapbox for discussion…
• (strengthens language skills and allows students to express themselves verbally in a meaningful way)
7. Let’s you get to know people who work in your archives and museums...
• (requires students to examine the residua of the past first-hand by seeking out primary sources)
8. Makes you realize that you cannot believe everything that you read or see in communication media…
• (promotes critical thinking)
9. Let’s you make friends with old people in your community…
• (promotes transmission of knowledge and experience between generations)
10. You will come to see that history is complex and there are no easy answers…
• (recognizes complexity and diversity within the past)
And (one more)...
11. Makes you smarter!...
• (National History Day researchers in the United States have found that student participants perform better on standardized tests, are better writers, and are more confident and capable researchers.)
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
Now that all have returned to school, those of us in New Brunswick’s heritage community are looking forward and planning with eager anticipation for Heritage Fairs! So with this blog entry… in honour of project-based learning and disciplinary inquiry, I am taking on my motherly persona today to dish out some words of advice as to why Heritage Fairs are good for you. :)
Feel free to add your own comments and build upon my list:
1. You do not have to listen to your teacher talk…
• (facilitates independent study and helps to establish a classroom culture of thinking)
2. Let’s you ask Big Questions – like why is this topic significant? And whose voice is left out of this narrative?
• (promotes critical historical literacy)
3. Hones your research skills…
• (recognizes history as a discipline with its own unique modes of inquiry)
4. Let’s you make your thinking visible…
• (requires students to document their thinking visually)
5. Let’s you be creative…
• (supports differentiated learning and provides students with their own entry points into the past)
6. Gives you a soapbox for discussion…
• (strengthens language skills and allows students to express themselves verbally in a meaningful way)
7. Let’s you get to know people who work in your archives and museums...
• (requires students to examine the residua of the past first-hand by seeking out primary sources)
8. Makes you realize that you cannot believe everything that you read or see in communication media…
• (promotes critical thinking)
9. Let’s you make friends with old people in your community…
• (promotes transmission of knowledge and experience between generations)
10. You will come to see that history is complex and there are no easy answers…
• (recognizes complexity and diversity within the past)
And (one more)...
11. Makes you smarter!...
• (National History Day researchers in the United States have found that student participants perform better on standardized tests, are better writers, and are more confident and capable researchers.)
Monday, July 18, 2011
Threatened Identity: What do We Lose When We Lose the Sense of Place? - Congress 2011 Big Thinking Lecture Delivered by David Adams Richards
by Cynthia Wallace-Casey
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
As a writer of historical fiction, David Adams Richards is best known for his ability to explore elements of humanity within characters who "come from the fabric and the soil of the Miramichi." During Congress 2011, he spoke about this sense of place and what it means to those who identify with New Brunswick’s past.
Drawing upon the historical experience of mechanisation in the forest industry, Adams Richards explained how such concepts of modernisation are not new to Atlantic Canada. Here, he said, generations of people have weathered the sense of inevitable progress that is associated with global change. Often, such progress carries with it what Adams Richards describes as a "great anonymity" that threatens individual identity. It undermines a shared sense of belonging that comes from being part of a particular place and a particular way of life.
Within the abyss of anonymity, a sense of place is often regarded as a label of misfortune or unknowing ( "that people who live where we live would not know about what more successful people know about the world."); and so, to have a sense of place is thus to be restricted from being part of another more cosmopolitan place.
Yet, a sense of place can also be empowering. It carries with it a unilateral freedom that is grounded in a temporal sense of shared humanity. In the authors’ words:
So, what does this have to do with history education? (You may be asking yourself right now). I see this Big Thinking lecture as very relevant to our discussions on the teaching of history for two reasons. Firstly, Adams Richards touches upon the imaginative element of history. His highly descriptive style of writing makes it possible for the reader to empathise with people in the past. This emotional layer adds a vibrant richness to the past that cannot be found in empirical evidence alone. But is it history? Indeed, in my humble opinion, the best historians are those who are able to fill in the spaces between the lines of evidence and contextualise the past in vivid, rich, detail.
A second reason why I feel this lecture is very relevant to discussions on the teaching of history, is that Adams Richards describes a particular sociological phenomenon whereby history intersects with collective memory. Indeed, through his writing, the author presents a darker side of life in Atlantic Canada: "a world of hurt and alarm ... a world that has faced globalisation for years and years.” Such a world is not unique to Atlantic Canada; yet it has become deeply embedded in our collective memory. Even so, it need not cage us in, because memory can be fluid and ever-changing.
The role of history education should be to enable each of us to look critically upon the narratives that shape – or threaten – our individual identities. As David Adams Richards has pointed out, how we respond depends upon us alone.
Listen to David Adams Richards’ entire lecture here:
PhD Student, University of New Brunswick
As a writer of historical fiction, David Adams Richards is best known for his ability to explore elements of humanity within characters who "come from the fabric and the soil of the Miramichi." During Congress 2011, he spoke about this sense of place and what it means to those who identify with New Brunswick’s past.
Drawing upon the historical experience of mechanisation in the forest industry, Adams Richards explained how such concepts of modernisation are not new to Atlantic Canada. Here, he said, generations of people have weathered the sense of inevitable progress that is associated with global change. Often, such progress carries with it what Adams Richards describes as a "great anonymity" that threatens individual identity. It undermines a shared sense of belonging that comes from being part of a particular place and a particular way of life.
Within the abyss of anonymity, a sense of place is often regarded as a label of misfortune or unknowing ( "that people who live where we live would not know about what more successful people know about the world."); and so, to have a sense of place is thus to be restricted from being part of another more cosmopolitan place.
Yet, a sense of place can also be empowering. It carries with it a unilateral freedom that is grounded in a temporal sense of shared humanity. In the authors’ words:
Even on a patch of frozen soil, a solitary man is his own true nation, and free as he chooses to be. No moment or comfort is ever secure, no matter where we live; or future certain for any of us, no matter where we live. How we respond to this is up to us alone. Each one of us can choose to be free.
So, what does this have to do with history education? (You may be asking yourself right now). I see this Big Thinking lecture as very relevant to our discussions on the teaching of history for two reasons. Firstly, Adams Richards touches upon the imaginative element of history. His highly descriptive style of writing makes it possible for the reader to empathise with people in the past. This emotional layer adds a vibrant richness to the past that cannot be found in empirical evidence alone. But is it history? Indeed, in my humble opinion, the best historians are those who are able to fill in the spaces between the lines of evidence and contextualise the past in vivid, rich, detail.
A second reason why I feel this lecture is very relevant to discussions on the teaching of history, is that Adams Richards describes a particular sociological phenomenon whereby history intersects with collective memory. Indeed, through his writing, the author presents a darker side of life in Atlantic Canada: "a world of hurt and alarm ... a world that has faced globalisation for years and years.” Such a world is not unique to Atlantic Canada; yet it has become deeply embedded in our collective memory. Even so, it need not cage us in, because memory can be fluid and ever-changing.
The role of history education should be to enable each of us to look critically upon the narratives that shape – or threaten – our individual identities. As David Adams Richards has pointed out, how we respond depends upon us alone.
Listen to David Adams Richards’ entire lecture here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






