Historicizing Canadian Anthropology

Joan A. Lovisek, Ph.D., is a consulting anthropologist and
ethnohistorian in British Columbia.

Is there such as thing as a Canadian School of Anthropology? Over the
course of 21 chapters, this volume’s contributors investigate various
aspects of that question (to which the general response appears to be
“no”). Although some attention is paid to Barbeau, Jenness, Sapir,
and Dawson, as well as to less-known ethnographers like Horatio Hale,
the overriding emphasis is on the continuing legacy of the salvage
school of anthropology lead by Franz Boas, and on the longstanding
significance of Aboriginal issues simply referred to as the “Indian
problem.” Surprisingly, there are few references to ethnohistory and
little consideration of how historical scholars have interpreted the
findings of the early anthropologists.

Although there is some attempt to represent a regional perspective, it
is not a focus of the contributions. Before “historicizing”
anthropology, it might have been useful to have included a chapter about
the history of Canadian anthropology written by a historian or
ethnohistorian. Some of this work has already been done. The lament of
Noel Dyck that there should be a place for expressing criticism of
groups and institutions in “an open, independent and critical
scholarship” is long overdue. This ignored, if thorny, subject needs
further airing. Perhaps like the “Indian problem,” there is a simply
a Canadian “anthropology problem” that views anthropology in terms
of self-preservation.

This well-written book should inspire further critical contributions on
the subject of Canadian anthropology.