The Squat Pyramid: Canadian Studies in the United States–Problems and Prospects by Richard A. Preston (review)

REVIEWS 87 TheSquat Pyramid: Canadian Studies intheUnited States-Problems andProspects. RICI•ARr• A.•m•.sTo•.Durham,•c, Duke University, Centrefor International Studies, •98o.Pp.ix, 7o.$8.oo. Professor Preston's pyramidrepresents the studyof Canadain the United States. It issquatbecause that studyoccurs chieflyin the 'lower'regionsof Americanacademia - 'in predominately undergraduate institutions thatdo nothave national status, donotengage inmuchresearch, ordonottrainfaculty forotheruniversities andcolleges.' Therearefew,orno,usscholars ofCanada whocanclaimreputationsequalto thoseof the mostdistinguished native Canadianists. Putdifferently,wherearetheUlamsorReischauers ofCanadian Studies in the United States? Professor Preston isdissatisfied withthepyramid's shape. He fails,however, tomakeacase for thedevelopment bytheusof top-drawer Canadianists. To besure,hecallsit imperative for Canada thatCanadian Studies in theusbe expanded.(Eayrsandothershave,asProfessor Preston recognizes, disputed this.) But why shouldAmerican efforts be so directed?ProfessorPreston argues:'Canada's different form of democratic government, its different federalstructure,and itsdifferent experience with internalculturaldistinctionsprovidevaluable contrasts andcomparisons thatcanthrowlightonthe Americanexperienceand make for a better understanding of American society anddevelopment.' Thisisquiteconvincing. But it ismorean argumentfor theinclusion of CanadianStudiesin us undergraduate liberalartscurriculathan for the incorporation of Canadainto advanced researchand graduateprograms. Professor Prestonhasleft two questions untouched:To bettermanageits relationship withCanada,doestheusneeda poolof Americanspecialists on Canadian affairs? Whatisit aboutCanada(aside fromsome utilityincomparativestudy )thatshouldattractusscholars? Satisfactorily positive answers tothese questions havenot,forthemostpart, beenfoundat the 'top.'Effortsat establishing CanadianStudieshavebeen undertakenat fiveprestigious institutions: Columbia,Duke,Harvard,Johns Hopkins, andYale.Of these five,threehaveyettogetofftheground,andone other almost died. Further 'down'the pyramid, the growthof CanadianStudieshasbeen steady, if notspectacular. AsProfessor Preston chronicles, in •969-7 o •84 us institutions offeredcourses on Canada.A decadelaterthisfigureroseto a82. (Roughly•oooinstitutions offerednone.)usinstitutions withsomeform of Canadian Studies 'program'roseinnumberfromninetoseventeen (including the five mentioned above). 'Canadian Studies busting outallovertheus,'The Financial Post reportedin •979. This, as TheSquatPyramidshows,is somewhat of an exaggeration. Nonetheless, a solidpyramid, albeit a smalland squatone, has formed. Professor Preston's finalchapters offersage tactical advice tothose whowishto 88 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW furthersolidify thestructure. Whether,however, thepyramid canbebuiltup atthetopremains questionable - asevenProfessor Preston seems, finally,to concede. J.T.JOCKEL St.Lawrence University, Canton, NY Ottawa: theCapitalof Canada.SHIRLEY E. WOODS, JR.Toronto, Doubleday Canada, •98o,illus.Pp.x, 35o.$x9.95. Only a bold historianwould dare to reviewthisbook.Erik Spicer,once commissioned towritethebookfor Doubleday's Romance of CanadianCities Series, laudsthis'long-needed, flowingnarrativehistory of Ottawa'(vii)and hands outthegratuitous observation that'Onecanbeaccurate withoutbeing academic. Oneismorelikelyto be readable withoutacademic pretensions' (viii).Afterthefinewritingof Canadian historians inthepast decade orso,it surprised meto encounterthisunwarranted observation. Yet it istrue that Shirley Woodsavoids beinganacademic. The bookhasnofootnotes, noteven whenquotingsources for a full page.John Taylor and PeterGillis,two splendid academic historians workingonOttawaandlivingin Ottawa,arenot consulted. EvenHarryJ.Walker's Carleton Saga isunacknowledged. Naturally, inthese circumstances, theprofessional historian needs topraise theworkas muchaspossible. The workiscomparatively freeoftypographical errors,the factual detailisreliable, andthelayoutanddesign arequiteattractive. Butthis isnotthe'definitive history' thepublishers claimit tobe. Shirley Woods writesfirmlyin thebooster tradition. Theonlynegative note relates totheShinerWars,before•85o,buteventhisisseen aslayingthebase for harmonious racerelations to the present.Fromthatpointon, the city becomes ever more successful. The authorhasnotconfronted histaskwitha strong sense of purpose, or witha specific audience in mind. The storyreadslike a scrapbook. Each particular story(clipping) runsfroma paragraph toacouple of pages andis placedin roughchronological order.No effort ismadeto establish bridges betweenthe stories. Many itemsshouldhavebeenleft out of thisbook.The chapter onPhilemon Wrightistoolong,andthereisnoevident justification for achapter onHull (x48-5•) or onOttawa's Jews (•8•-5), forexample. Many otherthings should havebeenadded.It issurprising tosee achapter onOttawa andtheGreatWarlimititselftoabriefearlyhistory ofthe•'•'CLI, adescription of the parliamentary fire, and an incomplete storyof the flu epidemic (•8-39). The suggestion thatparliamentarians couldbedismissed astransients (ix) isnot followedby a broad-based social history.The authorisnot interested inmunicipal politics, except, possibly, hiseloquent pleatomove the exhibition grounds tosuburbia. Appendix•,lists some fiftymayors of Ottawa, onlyfourofwhomarediscussed inthetextotherthanasapassing reference. In fact,onlyseventeen are mentionedat all. ...