1) In 200-300 words wrestle with the issue of Canadian history and identity.  To what extent do you think that we should we focus on the big picture (i.e., the “meta-narrative” or “nationalist” school) of Canadian history? In other words, are there some things in our history that were important in creating the nation that Canada is today? Are there problems with that approach? Or, on the other hand, should our history focus more on diversity, on smaller groups of Canadians, who might have been left out in the old “meta-narrative” of nationalist history? This approach is sometimes called “alternative identities” or “identity politics.” Are there any potential problems from looking at “diversity” and “identity politics” more than at the larger, national picture? Given the range of topics discussed in this chapter, I will point you to pages 966-968; 997-1000; 1003-1005   as central to understanding the issues involved in this discussion. Be sure to read those sections carefully before beginning your response to this question. 

2. What question(s) came to your mind as your read about the topic