Loyalty waning among historians when it comes to studying pre-twentieth century?

Are Canadian historians too focused on the twentieth century? Have they abandoned the study of earlier, more traditional subjects such as the Loyalists? And is that impacting our understanding of this crucial period of Canada’s past?

These are tough questions, and they were top-of-mind during a wide-ranging discussion on the “New History of Loyalism in the British Atlantic World” during the Canadian Historical Association’s annual conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Jerry Bannister, a historian at Dalhousie University in Halifax, laments the collective shift of focus away from traditional, older histories of Canada toward more modern events. Not that these twentieth-century stories aren’t important, but rather, that it means fewer historians are doing the research to further flesh out our understanding of Canada and its histories during the eighteenth century.

“There is a relentless shift in myopia, a shrinking in our field of vision and we are becoming increasing captivated by twentieth-century history,” Bannister said following his research presentation. “The problem is: even if that is the way we want to go — let’s re-orient our university curriculum even our school curriculum and study the twentieth century — even if, you can’t do that without an understanding of the nineteenth century. Twentieth-century Canada doesn’t make sense without nineteenth century Canada. And 1867 (the date of Confederation) doesn’t make sense without 1776 (the launch of the American Revolution)."

Bannister’s research paper was titled, "Revolution in the Loyalist Era: The Remaking of British America (1745-1800)." He isn’t sure why the study of loyalism has fallen out of vogue. In the United States, he said, Americans remain fascinated by that period of their history. To them, it’s the story of forging a nation in the crucible of war, of standing up against British oppression and fighting for liberty and justice. You see continued interest today in the likes of the modern “Tea Party” movement, where right-wing Americans are banding together to repudiate what they see is a shift to the left in their country. This is not the case in Canada, where many Canadians would be hard pressed to remember the details of the Loyalist influx into Canada following the American Revolution.

New Brunswick, the site of the CHA annual meeting, is likely the exception to this rule. Saint John, New Brunswick, for instance, is known as the Loyalist City, and in fact, a giant caricature of a staunch, smiling Loyalist, greets visitors to that city.

Among the key questions academics are pondering when it comes to loyalists is, exactly what is a loyalist? The traditional definition has been a group of elite British citizens living in the thirteen colonies who refused to join the American Revolution.

However, this definition excludes the first nations who fought on the British side during the Revolutionary War, as well as the black slaves who fought against the fledging United States forces in an attempt to win their freedom. Bannister says he hopes academics and others re-engage with the study of loyalism, and accept the challenge of making it their focus of research.

“What I would advocate is both a vigorous scholarly and pubic debate about Loyalists and loyalism,” he said. “What I feel passionately about is that it needs to be discussed and debated. I would rather have a debate and have people say the wrong things, than have no debate at all.”