Prohibition

Usha's comments in Blue  **Assessment of the Treatment of Prohibition in //Canadian History 1900-2000//**

**David Smith** **990795537** //Canadian History 1900-2000// discusses prohibition in two sections; the first focusing on the origins of the prohibition of alcohol in Canada, the second dealing with the repeal of prohibition in Canada and rum-running into the US. Both of these entries are in recurring sections titled “More to the Story” which are intended to act more as colour to the chapter topics than a focus of study. The first passage, “National Prohibition Achieved” (p. 87), is discussed within the context of World War I (subsection: The War at Home), while the second, “Prohibition and Rum-running” (p. 120) is discussed within the context of the 1920s (subsection: “The Good Times of the 1920s”). As such, neither passage goes into great depth or detail. The role of individual provinces is glossed over and the dissent of Quebec and rapid repeal of prohibition in that province is not discussed at all. The second passage relates an anecdote of a man using a baby to smuggle alcohol across the border, which serves the goal of adding colour rather than offering depth of information. The topic of prohibition, while extremely interesting, is of historical importance to Canada because of the dominant ethic of temperance which characterized the era more so than the actual effects of the legislation on the country. Thus, though this textbook fails to go into depth on the topic and does not offer varied perspectives or interpretations, I feel that the limited scope of the treatment in this book is acceptable when weighed against the needs of teacher and student to cover the larger contexts at greater length. Thanks, David, for this summary. It is interesting that you note the purpose of the textbook's coverage seems to be to "add colour" and that you feel that they missed boat in terms of having students grapple with the concept of historical significance. You are right about the pressure on teachers and students to cover a great deal of content. Maybe we can find a way to use this topic as a vehicle for students to consider historical significance. Thanks again!

**__Sources__** Dempsey, Hugh A. “The day Alberta went dry.” //Alberta History// 58.2 (2010): 10+. //General// //OneFile.// Web. 18 Sept. 2010. Hundley, Ian M. and Michael L. Magarrey. //Canadian History 1900-2000//. Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 2000.

Course: **CHC2D** (Canadian History Since WWI; Academic) Unit: 1914-1929 Time: 1 period (75 mins)

** Topic: ** Prohibition

** Key Learnings: ** Students will understand the reasons for the establishment and repeal of prohibition in Canada, and can evaluate the validity and strength of arguments on both sides of the issue, using **historical perspective-taking**.

** Critical Question(s): ** What were the arguments for and against prohibition, who made them, and considering the era in which they were made, which were strongest?

** Expectations: **

**Overall Expectations** • explain how local, national, and global influences have helped shape Canadian identity • analyse the contributions of various social and political movements in Canada since 1914 • analyse how changing economic and social conditions have affected Canadians since 1914 • analyse the changing responses of the federal and provincial governments to social and economic pressures since 1914 • formulate questions on topics and issues in the history of Canada since 1914, and use appropriate methods of historical research to locate, gather, evaluate, and organize relevant information from a variety of sources • interpret and analyse information gathered through research, employing concepts and approaches appropriate to historical inquiry • communicate the results of historical inquiries, using appropriate terms and concepts and a variety of forms of communication

** Specific Expectations ** – analyse the impact of the women’s movement in Canada since 1914 – explain how pacifist groups, human rights organizations, and the civil rights movement have influenced Canadian society – assess the contributions made by Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian-owned corporations to the development of the Canadian economy – explain how and why the Canadian government restricted certain rights and freedoms in wartime, and describe the impact, both short- and long-term, of these restrictions on the general population and on various groups within Canada – formulate different types of questions when researching historical topics, issues, and events – distinguish between primary and secondary sources of information and use both in historical research – evaluate the credibility of sources and information – organize and record information gathered through research – analyse information, employing concepts and theories appropriate to historical inquiry – distinguish between fact, opinion, and inference in texts and visuals found in primary and secondary sources – identify different viewpoints and explicit biases when interpreting information for research or when participating in a discussion – draw conclusions and make reasoned generalizations or appropriate predictions on the basis of relevant and sufficient supporting evidence

=
** Overview: ** This lesson introduces students to historical perspective-taking and judgment of arguments by having them identify and evaluate arguments for and against prohibition. Students will identify arguments in the textbook and then, in groups, from primary sources. Students will judge which arguments are strongest based on the criteria of an argument 1) having factual foundation, 2) being logical, and 3) being convincing. Students will judge these in group discussion, and their judgment will be based on general consensus more so than historical investigation. The goal is to familiarize students with these criteria for sound arguments, thus they will only have to verify factual foundation as far as the textbook and their own background knowledge allows. Finally, students will write a letter to their MPP either in favour or against prohibition from the perspective of someone from that time. ======

=
** Resources and Preparation Required: ** - Primary sources: “Wholesome Alcohol!”; “Government Control is People’s Control”; “Canada to Have Prohibition Soon”; “Women Present Case”; “Royal-Macdonald Correspondence” (each x6) ======

Detailed Plan:
1) Discussion of prohibited items 2) Identifying perspectives and arguments 3) Perspectives and arguments for and against prohibition 4) Assign HW ||   ||
 * **Purpose and Timing** || **Instructional Strategy: What will students do?** || **Resources Required** ||
 * Before class || **Agenda on board:**
 * 5 mins || Attendance and make groups of five by assigning group numbers || Attendance folder ||
 * **1. Mental Set: Prohibited Items**

//Purpose: Consider why items are prohibited, introduction to perspectives and arguments; developing empathy, critical mindedness, and inclusiveness//

//25 mins// || On the board: “PROHIBIT” //Popcorn response (write all responses on board)//: What does this word mean? What are some items that you are prohibited from having in the school? //(Team race: groups have one minute to write out as many as they can think of, then they report and I record on board)// Who has a say in what items are and are not prohibited? (introduce **perspective/empathy**) -students (S) -teachers (T) -administration (A) -parents (P) //Model T-chart to identify **argument** and perspective: **Weapons** (Popcorn response; 3 mins)// **For:** -freedom of religion (S/P) -freedom of expression (S/P) -protection (S/P) -popularity (S) -entertainment (S) -use as a tool (S/T) etc. **Against:** -safety risk (S/T/A/P) -climate of fear (S/T/A/P) -wrong message about conflict resolution (S/T/A/P) -distraction from learning (S/T) -cost (S) etc. Assign each group one prohibited item (**not alcohol**) -cigarettes -drugs -street clothes -cellphones -playing cards & dice -peanut products (or others students may think of) On a T-chart in one group member’s notebook, groups will write as many arguments for and against the item as they can and identify who that argument might come from. Write down all arguments, no matter how strong or weak they may seem (develops **inclusiveness** and ensures there will be some weak arguments to make ranking more effective) (5 mins; I circulate and prompt where needed) Students will then **judge** which arguments are strongest and rank them in order. What makes an argument “strong?” (//popcorn response to establish **criteria**:// factual, logical, convincing – develops **critical mindedness**) (3 mins) Explain what exactly these terms mean. **Factual**: Not made up **Logical:** A reasonable conclusion can be drawn from evidence or argument (premises) On board: P: All men are mortal P: Socrates is a man C: Socrates is mortal **Convincing:** Most people would agree Apply these criteria to model (5 mins): **Strong:** Freedom of religion: guaranteed in Charter of Rights and Freedoms Safety risk: common sense, many examples as evidence **Weak:** Use as a tool: teacher or maintenance staff have any tool you might need Distraction from learning: weapons are easily concealed and forgotten Rank your arguments based on these criteria (5 mins; I circulate to make sure they’re understanding) ||  || //Purpose:// //To focus the lesson & ensure students bear it in mind when reading prim. & 2nd sources// //1 min// || On board: What were the arguments for and against prohibition, who made them, and considering the era in which they were made, which were strongest? ||  ||
 * **2. Sharing Objectives**
 * **3. Identifying Perspectives & Arguments**

//Purpose: Understanding causes for establishment and repeal of prohibition; historical perspective-taking, judging arguments//

//35-40 mins// || Write a T-chart on board (for/against) Who might have argued for or against prohibition? (//popcorn response, write on board)//

Read through textbook passage on prohibition. Students read aloud, in turn. At the end of each paragraph, identify any perspectives and arguments mentioned in text. (15 mins) -WCTU -bar owners -alcohol-producing companies -drinkers -politicians -soldiers etc. Distribute HOs to students. Each student will take one primary source and identify any arguments for/against prohibition within. They will write the arguments on their own T-charts, and then share their findings with the group. All members in the group will write every argument and identify perspectives. At this point, they should only be identifying and not ranking. (10-15 mins) Instruct students to rank argument based on strength, **considering the context of the time**. Why might saying “Alcohol production harms the troops” be more convincing than “Alcohol production harms Lenny, the local drunk”? (10 mins) || Handouts (prim. Sources) ||
 * **4. Closure**

//Purpose: Assessment of learning//

//5 mins// || **Homework Assignment:** (On board) Referring to your T-chart you made in class, write an **open** **letter** **to Hon. William Howard Hearst**, Premier of Ontario, dated **1915** (one year before prohibition in Ontario) **persuading him** either **to establish prohibition or to prevent its establishment**. This letter would be **published in a newspaper**. Your letter should: 1) **Be written from the perspective of one of the stake-holders in prohibition discussed in class** (WCTU member, bar owner, etc.) 2) State three convincing arguments to support your case 3) State three arguments your opponent might mention and why they are not valid 4) Be between ½ pg. and 1 pg. in length 5) Mention a few details to identify who you are and the time (1915) in which you’re writing ||  ||

** Sources: **

Dempsey, Hugh A. “The day Alberta went dry.” //Alberta History// 58.2 (2010): 10+. //General// //OneFile.// Web. 18 Sept. 2010. = Hallowell, Gerald. “Prohibition.” //The Canadian Encyclopedia//, Internet – [], October 23, 2010. = = “ Prohibition's Hangover – Ontario's Black Market in Alcohol.” //The Mackenzie Institute//. Internet – [], October 23, 2010. =

Also see attached primary sources.