Abstract: This article investigates the evolving conceptions of national identity in Canada and Australia through an analysis of officially sanctioned history textbooks in Ontario, Canada and Victoria, Australia. From the 1930s until the 1950s, Britain and the British Empire served a pivotal role in history textbooks and curricula in both territories. Textbooks generally held that British and imperial history were crucial to the Canadian and Australian national identity. Following the Second World War, textbooks in both Ontario and Victoria began to recognize Britain’s loss of power, and how this changed Australian and Canadian participation in the British Empire/Commonwealth. But rather than advocate for a complete withdrawal from engagement with Britain, authors emphasized the continuing importance of the example of the British Empire and Commonwealth to world affairs. In fact, participation in the Commonwealth was often described as of even more importance as the Dominions could take a more prominent place in imperial affairs. By the 1960s, however, textbook authors in Ontario and Victoria began to change their narratives, de-emphasizing the importance of the British Empire to the Canadian and Australian identity. Crucially, by the late 1960s the new narratives Ontarians and Victorians constructed claimed that the British Empire and national identity were no longer significantly linked. An investigation into these narratives of history will provide a unique window into officially acceptable views on imperialism before and during the era of decolonization.



Bridget Brennan, ‘New map records massacres of Aboriginal people in Frontier Wars‘, abc.net.au, 05/07/17.

Check the map.





Access the book here.




Excerpt: […] But what I want to dwell on here is what I learned from him in the process of our collaboration, in terms of the analysis that his work had suggested and which, in the final pages of Traces of History, he offers to us in the hope that it might be useful to the forging of solidarity and resistance. Though he demurred when I intimated as much to him as I initially invited him to participate in a panel at ASA in 2013, the notion that the traces of settler colonial logics can be tracked in neoliberal modes of appropriation and rule is a tribute to the contribution that his work had already made through the scattered essays that eventually came together in Traces of History. His analysis of the mobile and differentially articulated apprehension of race as a profoundly historical and transforming set of regimes is invaluable (and not just useful) for understanding our present conjuncture. Race, as he puts it, “is a process, not an ontology; its varying modalities so many dialectical symptoms of the ever-shifting hegemonic balance between those with a will to colonise and those with a will to be free, severally racialized in relation to each other.” The resultant structures, despite the all too often reductively cited aphorism that settler colonialism “is a structure, not an event,” are never inert.

These structures that Patrick terms “regimes of race” transform under the pressure of the unremitting resistance and survival of dispossessed, displaced, and exploited populations.