Letter: We would be wise to use Rome’s example as an object lesson if we hope to avoid its fate

By Letter to the Editor on March 19, 2021.

Dear editor,

One of the terms with which most of us have become familiar over the last few years is “alternative facts.” This type of information, or at best a version of it labelled “selective history,” informs Richard Dietrich’s March 13 letter to the editor.

Conveniently in his version, the three causes of Rome’s fall most historians advance match his perception of current Canadian problems. We would be wise, therefore, to use Rome’s example as an object lesson if we hope to avoid Rome’s fate.

All of this might be well and good, except that most historians don’t isolate the factors which Mr. Dietrich mentions as the three causes. Historians who have analyzed that time period include a much more varied and complex list of reasons. A quick internet search will reveal this to anyone who cares to look.

This raises a question. Mr. Dietrich and many others would like the Alberta curriculum to be changed. Are they interested in adding content like Roman history so students gain a broader understanding of the past – or is their interest to add historical content, Roman or otherwise, which will direct students to see the world as they do?

Mr. Dietrich’s letter also provides a specific related question to contemplate. Is it better to be informed only of Mr. Dietrich’s version or is it better to become aware of what the gamut of historians have said?

This is a type of question, by the way, which can be applied to everything from whether Medicine Hat should sell its power plant, to whether the government should allow the strip mining of coal, to whether we should be informed about SNC Lavalin, the WE charity, or what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan did or didn’t know about General Vance.

My casual observation is that our governments, at all levels, prefer the Dietrich approach.