Comments on: Related: WHOSE PERSPECTIVE WOULD YOU USE?

By: Tim Morin

Tim Morin — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:31:20 +0000

The person telling the story should be an expert. Someone objective, who can give analysis from all aspects of whatever event they are describing. I do not want politically motivated or biased interpretations. I want to hear something that is balanced and clear.

By: Quinn

Quinn — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:06:32 +0000

Canada’s history should be told by the people who shaped, and made this country, and continue to do so. These are Canadians themselves, whether we be First Nations, Metis, Inuit, Polish, German, Ukrainian, or British or any other host of people who were born here, came here, raised families here or not, and continue to do so today.

By: bet

bet — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:58:31 +0000

History is written by men. There is no objectivity. Include women in all aspects of planning as well as project creation.
Do the count, How many women are included in your version of history? What were their stories, accomplishments, their voices? Women are invisible in most versions of history.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:32:04 +0000

Canada’s history should be told in much the same way as this website allows. There should be more active and egalitarian participation in the development of exhibits for the museum.

By: TCC

TCC — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:44:38 +0000

It would be very interesting to see the story of Canada told by different aboriginal groups from all over north, east, west and central Canada. This side of our history is not told enough. A eurocentric telling of our history is extremely overdone. This land was inhabited by the Aboriginals way before Europeans and should therefore be the main speakers of our history.

By: Meriza

Meriza — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:13:12 +0000

Canada’s history should be told from the beginning, from the perspectives of indigenous communities who were established on this land long before it was taken over by European settlers. Indigenous people should be owning this story, as primary narrators, before we hear from other perspectives.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:05:31 +0000

Our understanding of the past is compelling when we see that we must judge between competing narratives. Instead of serving up an “objective” version of the past “as it really happened,” (beware of such claims) the curator shows artefacts & helps the visitor understand that different people at different times have told this story differently. Museums must engage visitors in the critical thinking that citizens need: look for evidence, identify bias & analyse different interpretations.

By: Jill Courtemanche

Jill Courtemanche — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:56:13 +0000

It is hard to avoid telling one’s history coloured by the lens of current mores and thought. Hence the difficulty in judging the views of Charlotte Whitton, (local example) now viewed as anti-semetic by today’s standards. That’s why we should let the artifacts, documents and quotes speak for themselves. This would be a far cry from the outlandish propaganda displayed in the recent re-telling of the war of 1812 vignettes. Otherwise we will never learn from our past to move forward.

By: susan prior

susan prior — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:56:40 +0000

It isn’t a story 9Fiction) it is history and should be told with facts from the past. Whatever happened to using materials and quotes and documents from the archives. I don’t want a spin I want to see the data/ maps/ artifacts and be taught how to interpret them myself form my point of view. I don’t need to have the current French/English/ native/immigrant slant. Show me what was said by all those groups and let me judge the outcome on those merits.

By: Kimberly Demers

Kimberly Demers — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:54:55 +0000

Objectivity is a myth. Perspective and experience always shape our views. We can acknowledge difference and promote them equally. In consensus and discussion.