Changes+for+Immigrants+–+1920s

Main lesson plan document: [|History Lesson Plan - Immigration in the 20s - Rose lipton.doc]

Appendix A and B: [|History Lesson Plan - Immigration Appendix 1 - Rose Lipton.doc]

Appendix C (Scan from txtbook) [|Rose_Lipton_-_Appendix_-_Txtbook_Scan.jpg][|Rose_Lipton_-_Appendix_-_Txtbook_Scan.jpg]

Usha's comments in Blue.

Your name: Rose Lipton

**Initial Reading and Assessment of Textbook Treatment of the Topic**

Name of Gr. 10 Textbook examined: //Making History: The Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century//

Name of more "scholarly" source examined: Kelley, Ninnette and M. J. Trebilcock. //The making of the mosaic: a history of Canadian immigration policy//. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998) Chapter 5: "The War and the Recovery: 1914-1929, The Dominance of Economic Interests" pp. 164-216.

__Your Initial Thoughts:__

After examining the treatment of this topic in both texts I was actually taken aback by the similarities as opposed to the differences in the scholarship. Both texts had a tendency to focus on immigration in direct connection with Canadian economic interests - opening up and becoming more restricted based on the country's relative prosperity. However, both texts also addressed the social implications of these fluctuations. The student textbook emphasizes the selective nature of immigration policy and the restrictions that were designed on the basis of race, as well as the hardships faced by new immigrants facing low wages and social marginalization. The scholarly text also addresses these issues as well as other social concerns such as disenfranchisement and a lack of social mobility among visible minority groups (most notably in this period Asian-Canadians). Even the titles of the texts themselves seem markedly similar to me, with an emphasis on Canada as a historical //construction//, the idea that our country was //made//, and I would argue this constructivist perspective is reflected in the way both texts address immigration not as a natural social phenomenon, but as something that was highly regulated and controlled.

I would say that the area where the two texts diverge the most is linguistic as opposed to content-based. The textbook uses language that elicits a more emotional response from students eg. "Many [immigrants] found themselves in company towns or city slums, where they were forced to work in //terrible// conditions for //pitiable// wages" (my italics). This in contrast to the more fact-based presentation of this same information in the academic article: "Industries responded to new market conditions with lay-offs and wage cuts, and often resorted to force when confronted with striking workers." We see in these two examples, how the same basic information (poor working conditions for new immigrants) is phrased in two very different ways, even as they address the same social concerns for the workers' well-being.

Thanks for your assessment, Rose. It's very heartening to hear that your were pleasantly surprised with the approach the student text takes to the history (i.e. seeing it as a construction). The difference between the choice of words - i.e. the student text making the judgement for the students but the other text presenting evidence rather than argument - is interesting.

**Critical thinking Question:**

Canadian immigration policies during the 1920s made distinctions between Canadians on the basis of race in order to determine social "desirability." The task: Construct an argument that could convince a Canadian government immigration officer from the 1920s that restricting immigration on the basis of race will not benefit Canada in the long run. Well done. I like the restrictions you place on the argument below - clearly gets at trying to have students understand historical context and perspective. Nicely done.

The challenge for this task: Remember, the civil rights movement did not begin in Canada until the 1960s so arguments focused around the ideas of //racism, inequality, unfairness// or //discrimination// would NOT have been convincing in this period. Try to construct an argument **without** the use of these terms.

Write question on the board: how would you convince a Canadian government immigration officer from the 1920s that restricting immigration on the basis of race will not benefit Canada in the long run?

IDEA for a "hook":

Show the clip from //Pretty Woman// in which Julia Roberts goes shopping and is turned away from an expensive store because she does not appear wealthy enough to shop there. In small groups of 4-5, take 3 minutes to brainstorm 3 arguments for why the store should have accepted her business. Key: Your arguments **cannot** include words like //unfair//, //mean// or //wrong//. Instead, think like a fellow business owner who must explain to their friend - the owner of this dress shop - why it would have been a better decision to accept that client's business.

Conclude exersize by showing the rest of the clip, where Julia Roberts goes back and asks "Do you work on commission?"..."Big mistake. Huge."

This is still a work in progress, but it is a short task that engages students in the kind of critical thinking skills that they will need in the subsequent challenge.

My overall goal of these tasks is two-fold: - to encourage students to think critically by constructing an argument using historical perspective (essentially a design to specs challenge b/c they must avoid certain words and ideas, but layered with historical perspective and the skill of constructing an argument) - to encourage a deeper appreciation for values such as tolerance and equity by delving deeper into why these concepts are beneficial for a democratic, capitalist society. Not only are they //fair// and //right// but they are //useful// and //rational//. This will also help set students up for understanding and being open to future discussions that deal more explicitly with civil rights issues.

 Neat idea, Rose. Good use of popular culture (I wonder if 15 year olds will be familiar with Pretty Woman! But the clip probably stands on its own). I think you will really push their thinking by requiring them to think about justifications that are unrelated to equity issues. It might be worthwhile at some point in the lesson to examine whether there was anyone examining the issue from the standpoint of fairness, though. We don't want students walking away that before the 1960s, people were only concerned with the bottom line and humanitarian issues did not come into play. It would be interesting to have students juxtapose the language used by suffragettes around equity issues during this time period and consider whether the same concepts could have been applied to immigration. Just a thought. Very interesting ideas emerging here.