![]() ![]() Muise, Colin Howell and Suzanne Morton (to name just a few historians of the 20thcenturyregion) we find a continuous strategic emphasis whereby, against the enemy of the regional stereotype, one constructs the region as "normal" in its industrialization, social reform movements, social structure and levels of gender and class consciousness. ![]() This discourse speaks both in the injudiciously explicit (but for contemporaries also useful) words of Frank Underhill’s famous aphorism, "As for the Maritimes." 1 and also in the less-polished, perhaps more important, notion of "the region that went wrong", the region that complains too much, or that merely has the function and capacity to mirror, in a warped and defective way, the "national developments" of a truly "national history" in which it has played little if no part.Ģ To this language of disparagement, regional scholarship has responded very effectively with the evidence of the region’s "normality", "progressivism" and "development": from E. It is a struggle against a powerful conventional discourse on regionality - Atlantic Canada as the "backwater", "excess", "supplement" or even "policy error" - that, as many times as it has been defeated on the pages of Acadiensis, returns as a structuring common-sense in the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Financial Post. 1 TO BE A SCHOLAR OF ATLANTIC CANADA is to wrestle, often at the very outset of one’s inquiries, with a subtle, pervasive and durable language of disparagement and marginalization.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |