Abstract
Rohit T. Aggarwala has written an interesting piece on Brebner that in part examines both Brebner's nationalism and his relationship with [Donald Creighton]. Aggarwala credits Brebner's view of Canadian history as a " 'mature' nationalism," which did not subscribe to either the North American school or the British Empire school of Canadian historiography and nationalism. This placed him at odds with Creighton, who was wedded to the British Empire nationalism. Aggarwala accuses Creighton of "cast[ing] Brebner as a simplistic continentalist," blind to the "differences between" the two states and to the American "threat" to Canada.(16) Aggarwala's comments about Brebner are not seen in the same negative light by this author, nor is Aggarwala's charge that Creighton sought to discredit Brebner in the Canadian historical community. Aggarwala argues that Creighton's label of Brebner as "a man of his times"(17) was not a compliment, nor even a benign comment, but rather a calculated move to marginalize, if not outright discredit Brebner, and to cast North Atlantic Triangle "as a relic." Aggarwala sees Creighton's introduction to the Carleton Series of Triangle as no less than an ambush on Brebner's legacy, written in a "patronising tone" echoed by later reviewers who were less acquainted with Brebner. Aggarwala insists Creighton's introduction was a "damnation of Brebner, only lightly veiled as faint praise."(18) But the introduction was not "faint praise" and Creighton was not betraying Brebner's memory. Creighton did not say that Brebner was merely "a man of his times," and when read in its entirety, the tone of the introduction is not one of condescension. There is also no merit to [Rawlyk]'s claim that by leaving Canada for the United States Brebner "abandoned the University of Toronto for Columbia"--he was forced out, or that he ever "lost faith in Canada." Nor, for that matter, is it true that his departure "justified...[Canadians] losing faith in him."(67) Scholarship for Canada and academic and professional honors, both in Canada and the United States, disprove this contention. And one needs to guard against drawing conclusions when the label "Canadian" is used with Brebner. Brebner, both before and after his American citizenship, was called a "Canadian."(68) Sometimes it was in reference to Brebner's nationality of birth. Sometimes the author was referring to Brebner's citizenship. Sometimes it was his research interests, and there are times that it is more ambiguous.(69) Brebner was Canadian by birth, an historian of Canadian topics, and a man who lived most of his life in the United States. Writing at the time of his death in 1957, he was called both "the leading authority [in] Canadian-American intellectual relations" and "the great historian of Anglo-American relations." As Creighton affirms, Brebner "became what might appropriately be described as a citizen of the English-speaking academic world." The reality is that many continued to refer to Brebner as a Canadian even after his American citizenship. This was not out of ignorance but rather, as Vincent Massey noted in 1953, the fact that Brebner was "[a] well-known American historian who is still to all Canadians a Canadian." Proud to be a Canadian and an American citizen, dedicated to Columbia University and its community of intellectual compatriots, and driven to help Britons and Americans better understand and more fully appreciate Canada, Brebner was, as [Stacey] affirmed, "one of the finest of Canadian scholars."(70) (12) Letter to editor of the Daily News, 10 October 1952, as quoted in [Paul T. Phillips], Britain's Past, 89; 181, n. 49; E.J. Brebner, phone conversation with author, March 2001; "As We Don't See Them," The Columbia Spectator (18 December 1930): 3. Brebner was a liberal who liked the New York Liberal Party and was probably registered as a Liberal. He was not one to subscribe to partisan politics and party labels. He backed Republicans Jacob Javits and Fiorello La Guardia, and Democrat Arthur Goldberg. [E.J. Brebner, interview with author, 19 October 2001.] As Brebner himself said, "Temperamentally I've been unable to accept...probably any kind of absolutism since I was about 15." [J.B. Brebner to E.J. Brebner, 25 January 1957. Letter in author's possession.] See also Phillips, who notes the "irony" in accusing Brebner of being sympathetic to communism. [Phillips, Britain's Past, 90.] Brebner, himself, quipped that with North Atlantic Triangle, "the Russians damned it as the origin of NATO!" J.B. Brebner to N.V. Donaldson, Yale University Press, 6 December 1956. Letter in author's possession.