Assessing Simon Fraser's Legacy

SAMPLE UNIT

In this sample unit, students undertake activities involving selected primary and Assessing Simon Fraser’s legacy secondary sources to support six critical thinking tasks—one The tasks in this unit focus on Simon Fraser’s exploration of the Fraser River in 1808. for each of the six For demonstration purposes, we have designed the activities as though the lessons foundational concepts are taught in the order in which they are presented. When using these lessons with of historical thinking. a class, you may want to select from among them or re-order them. However, when adapting these lessons, ensure that students have the tools they need to address the tasks presented to them.

Historical Concept Critical Challenge

Historical significance What was the most significant event in Fraser’s journey?

Evidence and interpretation Based on the additional sources, propose at least five revisions to the account of Fraser’s journey to reflect your conclusion about the expedition.

Continuity and change To what extent did Fraser change as a result of his experiences? To what extent did Indigenous reactions to Europeans change as a result of their experiences with Fraser?

Historical perspective Why did various Indigenous peoples respond to Fraser as they did in the three identified incidents?

Cause and consequence Based on their experiences with Fraser, how might Chief Whattlekainum and his people react to further visits from these “sky-people”?

Ethical judgment How should Simon Fraser be remembered—as a gifted negotiator or a lucky bully?

Launch the unit inquiry

Introduce the Tell students that Simon Fraser was a famous Canadian explorer. Among other forms overarching of recognition, a major river and a university have been named after him. Display unit task the C. W. Jefferys drawing, Simon Fraser descending the Fraser River, 1808 (Student Activity Sheet #1) on a projector and use Map of the Fraser River (Student Activity Sheet #2) to trace Fraser’s route. Indicate that in 1808 Fraser travelled by water and over land for approximately 800 kilometres on his round trip from Fort George (now Prince George, British Columbia) to what is now Point Grey in Vancouver. The ultimate point of the activities is to determine the contemporary reputation or legacy Simon Fraser deserves. How should Simon Fraser be remembered—as a gifted negotiator or a lucky bully? After a brief discussion of students’ preliminary impressions, explain that answering this question requires students to learn the facts of his journey and think though a number of critical tasks.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Critical Task 1: Historical significance

Introduce the Invite students to imagine they have been asked to select a single scene for use in first critical creating a Heritage Minute capturing a significant incident during Fraser’s journey challenge in 1808. Explain that their critical thinking task is to decide the following question: What was the most significant event in Fraser’s journey?

Explain or review the following (or other) criteria for determining historical significance:

• the event was prominent at the time (Was it a noticeable event then?);

• it had notable consequences (Did it affect the rest of the trip and beyond the trip?);

• it influenced thesubsequent profile of the event (Is it emblematic? Does it reveal something crucial about Fraser or the journey?).

Name : St udent Activity Sheet #3 Comparing signiﬁ cance

EventE Prominence at the time vent Name: Event If students have not worked with these Immediate recognition:W as it noticed at the Introduce time as ha ving importance? Assessment Sheet #4

Duration: Ho criteria for criteria, invite them to identify several Assessing the rankingsw long did it exist or operate? Well-developed Identifies relevant Competen Identifi es a few ke t evidence y pieces Identifi es ob Underdeveloped of relevant e Consequencvious pieces of evidence significant events in their own lives and vidence for each for each cr es Identifi es very little evidence for iter significance criterion. ion, but overlooks each cr Magnitude of impact: Ho iterion. Explanation: some important considerations. w deeply felt or profound was its impact?

explain if and how each criterion applies. Scope of impact: How widespr ead w impact? as its

Lasting natur e of impact: How long-lasting You may want to use the chart Comparing were its e ects? Subsequent profile Remember ed: Has it been memorialized?

significance (Student Activity Sheet #3) Revealing: Does it infor m our under histor standing of a ical issue? (Is it emblematic of a condition or to structure this task. Ask students to list period?)

Justifies r ankings Justifi cation for each ranking Justifi shows thoughtful consideration of cation for each ranking No plausible justifi cation is the most impor touches upon some key f given the events in order of significance and tant factors. actors. for any of the assigned rankings. Explanation: RankingE 1st vent Explanation to explain their ranking. The assessment 2nd rubric found in Assessing the rankings 3rd (Assessment Sheet #4) may be used to Teaching Historical Thinking

provide feedback to students. The Critical Thinking Consortium

Teaching Historical Thinking

The Critical Thinking Consortium

Name :

Brieﬁ ng Sheet #5

Fraser’s journey1

In the early morning of May 28, tw 1808 Simon Fraser with enty-three men in four Besides this, steps which canoes left Fort George are formed like a ladder . . . fur instructions from his . His convenient passage to the Nativ nish a safe and superiors at the North W es; but we, who had not the ad were to fi nd a est Company of their education vantage route from the interior of and experience, were often the Pacifi British Columbia to ob in imminent danger when c Ocean along the river liged to follow their example which Fraser imagined to . [extract from Fraser’s Jour the Columbia River. Day be nal] after day they encountered At Name: they paddled do obstacles as Spuzzum, Fraser was much wn the river. The river w impressed by a number of Distribute Fraser’s journey (Briefing of rapids as a continuous series poles, each fi fteen feet totem and the carrying places high and “carved in a Student weAcretivi extremely dangerous manner, yet curious but rude very long. The places wher ty Sheet #6 or pretty well proportioned.” e they had to carry their large Friendly Indians living in get around the rapids canoes to frame houses presented them were so rough that a pair with roast salmon. Near wher worn to of moccasins was the town of Hope now stands, the e shreds in one day. Fraser decided y were entertained at a large we the Indians he had met village where ther Sheet #5). As students work in small Looking for signifi re correct in saying that the e was a huge community canc river was not passab planks. Some Indians house built of cedar On June 10,e the le for canoes. warned that the nati Describe six e y built a sca old to store their ves of the coast vents and explain their signifi the equipment canoes and buried “wicked” and would attack were cance in light of the follo they could not carry them, but Fraser would wing fmenactor s: with them. Fraser and his plan. When these not alter his set out on foot, carrying Indians refused to lend him packs weighing eighty one by a canoe Fraser took • Was prominent at the time (W each. In his diary, Fraser pounds force. For a short while canoes groups to read the briefing sheet, ask as it a noticeab wrote that they experienced them, from the village followed le event then?) deal of fatigue “a good their occupants waving and disagreeable walking” weapons and shouting • Had notab contin but he and his men but Fraser and his war songs, le consequences (Did it a ect the r ued on their journey. men ignored them. Soon after est of the trip and be came at them , another group yond the trip?) “howling like wolves” and • Determined subsequent profi Soon they but the swinging war clubs, le (Is it memorab met Indians who told them y did not attack Fraser’s gr le or revealing about Fraser?)bring ten more days would oup. Fraser ordered his men them to circle or underline any events them to the sea. One villager paddle farther along to a second to said that he had been to village, but the behaviour sea and had seen “great canoes” the Indians forced them of the and white men. When to turn back. On July 2, his party proceeded, Fraser and (what is no near Musqueam many of the locales w w south Vancouver), Fraser Summary of incident days later alked with them. Two decided to return up the , at a large village (near river in order to secure pro Possi present day Lillooet), Indians visions before attempting to resume toldble them signifi that ca thenc riever his descent to the ocean. that may be significant about Simon was navigable from their village This was the farthest distance sea, whereupon Fraser to the the explorers. reached by bargained for two canoes. Fraser’s reception by the nati village (now At another his retur ves he encountered on Lytton) the people were n up the river was far fr called so friendly that Fraser was om friendly—one group seized upon to shake hands with a canoe and began to pillage twelve hundred of them. the baggage. Fraser forced return he and his men In from them and left a canoe were well fed and were ab a blanket in return. For Fraser’s journey. When finished this additional canoes. le to get two Indians foll several days hostile owed them. They fi nally reached were guided friendly villages and Despite over rough bridges and swaying ladder what the Indians had said who “went s by natives na about the river being up and down these wild places vigable, the explorers soon as sailor with the same agility found their way blocked s do on board a ship.” numerous rapids. Two canoes by task, students are to summarize six were lost. More canoes obtained were Fraser from the natives. During this fi nally arrived back over the r time, the explorers toiled at Fort George on August oughest country they had e Although Fraser had not accomplished 6. ver seen: his purpose of explor the Columbia River, his ing We had to pass voyage did clear up the the over huge rocks assisted by between the Fraser confusion the road the Indians . . . As for River and Columbia incidents on the chart, Looking for sig- by land, we could scarcely make among Eur River that existed our ropean fur trader guns. I way with even only our s. have been for a long period among the Rocky Mountains, have never seen any but 1. Adapted thing like this country. from M. G. Parks. Undated. It is so wild that I cannot “The descent of the fi nd words to describe our and Explorers in Canada—1763–1911 ( Fraser River” in Discoverers situation at times. We Portfolio II #4), illustrated human had to pass where no and published by Imperial Oil Ltd. by Charles W. Je erys being should venture; yet in nificance (Student Activity Sheet #6) those places there is a regular footpath impressed, or rather indented upon the very rocks by frequent travelling. and explain each event’s significance, Teaching Historical Thinking

referring to the appropriate criteria. The Critical Thinking Consortium For example, in the first paragraph, the briefing sheet states: Fraser Teaching Historical Thinking

decided the Indigenous people he The Critical Thinking Consortium

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium had met were correct in saying that the river was not passable for canoes. On June 10, they built a scaffold to store their canoes and buried the equipment they could not carry with them. Fraser and his men set out on foot, carrying packs weighing 80 pounds (36 kilograms) each.

This statement might be recorded as follows:

Summary of incident Possible significance

Fraser decides to leave • Very little prominence at the time, although he may his canoes and equipment have agonized over the decision; behind and to proceed on • Notable consequences: for the rest of his journey, foot. Fraser would be dependent on Indigenous peoples for any more canoes he needed. • Revealing: shows Fraser’s willingness to heed the advice of Indigenous peoples.

Select the Once students have identified six incidents, each group is to select one or two that most appear more significant than the rest and prepare a brief justification. Discuss each significant group’s recommendations and try to reach consensus as a class on three candidates incident for the most significant event of Fraser’s journey. Individually, students are to assess and rank order each of the short-listed events. You may want to use the chart on Student Activity Sheet #3 to structure this task and the rubric on Assessment Sheet #4 to assess student responses. Ask students to write a paragraph explaining which event is most significant, considering its intended use in a Heritage Minute.

Critical Task 2: Evidence and interpretation

Discuss Explain to students that historians do more than present facts; they construct his- theories torical narratives that explain events. When historians use information to support about a historical conclusion, it becomes evidence. This means any particular piece of Fraser’s information about the past becomes evidence only in response to a historical theory journey or issue. Brainstorm possible overall conclusions that explain how Fraser was able to complete his exploration of the river. These may include:

• Simon Fraser was successful in his journey because he was able to depend on Indigenous peoples for food, directions, and support.

• Simon Fraser relied more on his diplomatic skills than force to earn the co-op- eration of Indigenous peoples.

• Simon Fraser’s arrogance, assertiveness and self-assuredness enabled him to descend the river that bears his name.

• It was a very dangerous mission, and Fraser was lucky to return home without injury to himself or others.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name :

Brieﬁ ng Sheet #7 Selections from Present the Draw students’ attention to the fact that they Fraser’s diary The following are a few of the entr ies in the diary that Fraser kept as he tr avelled the Fraser River.1

additional have derived their knowledge of Fraser’s trip May 28, 1808 Having made every necessar certain distance belo y preparation for a long w was impracticable, and we embarked at 5 voyage, our canoes advised us to leave o’clock A.M. in four canoes in their charge and proceed [probably the at Fraser’s River to on our journey by land Nechako River]. Our a great river that fl ows from men, crew consisted of nineteen the left into this comm sources exclusively from one secondary account (Brief- two Indians, Mr. Stuar The country they said unication. t, Mr. Quesnel and myself consisted of plains, and twenty-four. , in all be performed the journey could with horses in four or fi ve have smooth w days; thence we should ater all the way to the sea. But going to the sea an indirect way was not by May 30, 1808 the object of the undertaking. would not deviate I therefore ing Sheet #5). Discuss the problems of doing These Indians ha and continued our route ve heard of fi re-arms, but original intention. according to my any, and the had never seen y evinced [showed] a great and obtaining desire of seeing ours explanations as to their use fi red se . In compliance, we veral shots whose reports astonished June 3, 1808 them dr them so as to make this (for example, facts are limited, it is difficult op o their legs. Upon recove . . . Last night a 4th Indian, ring from their surpr who seemed to be w we made them examine ise, with the river, ell acquainted their e ect. They appeared promised to accompany on seeing the marks quite uneasy declined, us, but this morning on the trees and observed saying he was afraid of the that quarter that the Indians in pistol rapids; another brought us [local region] were good which Mr. Quesnel lost a ne and peaceable, and would yesterday while on horseback; ver make use of their arms was a piece of honesty this to tell whether the account is accurate, it may to annoy white people; yet we hardly expected, though, remarked that we ought they during the whole time I must say, that to be on our guard, and we were there, and although man great care when proceed with were let y things approaching villages, for, loose and scattered about the Nati should we surprise us in such a manner as to a ves, they might take us as all opportunity to the Nati ord enemies, and, through fear ves, nothing went astray . . . attack us with their arrows. , represent only one perspective). After a short Name : June 9, 1808 May 31, 1808 The Indians of this place d Briefi ng Sheet #8 rew a chart of the river belo The Chief and the Indians represented it to w which recommended to our us as a dreadful chain of appar yesterday and who attention di culties; ently insurmountable were encamped on a hill at the same time they discussion, distribute three additional sources: joined us to the left, soon blamed us for venturing so and presented us with dried with our canoesQuesne and for not far 1 of salmon and di erent kinds l’passings account by land, as advised of the trip roots; the last, we could not chief of a former occasion, by the old well relish [like the taste], asserting that this comm highly recommended Now I mthoughust tell y Fraser River], unication [the by them. After enquiring ou that I went bothexplor bying land this and summer by w with Mr the slave who repeatedly for be ater, would. Simonin some Fraser places and J had a knowledge of the know. We were accompaniedfound impracticab le to stranger ohn Stuar at country below, he was by 12 men in thr s, as we should have t, whom I believe y last introduced. To form the Columbia and descend mountains ee canoes. Went down theto ascend ou an estimate of his capacity but fi nding it very and precipices [cli s] river that up until now two oil cloths spread , I had ladders, &c soon unnavigable, we left by means of rope was thought to be out for the ground of a charappalling mountain . our canoes and continued I desired him t upon which that we could never ha our journey on foot in the • selected excerpts from Fraser’s diary (Brief- to sketch the country to ha ve crossed if the natives, most could wards the vingsea. .passed . . W eall these di c who received us well, had however plainly see in his ult spots, not without mu not helped us. After sketch a confi rnamationvigab ofle andwhat all embarkJune 13, 1808 ch trouble as you can imag had been told us of the di culties ed in wooden canoes and contin ine, we found the river once of the navigationthe and, ther This mor ued on our more the necessity of leaving river emptieseby, into the Pacifining, lost some time mending way more comfortably, as f our canoes, with as much of several c Ocean. We were well tr our shoes. We fi red ar as the place where as we could spar in excellentour baggage health shots to show the Natives eated by all the other Indians e, in order to continue our jour in our New Caledonia. the e ects of our guns, and on our return trip and ing Sheet #7) ney by land. out at fi ve accompanied The mouth set o all arrived the real Columbia. by all the Nati of the river is in Latitude morThis journey did ves with two horses; thr 49 , nearly three e horsemen soonnot joined meet ourthe parneeds of the ee degrees north of June 1, 1808 this river not being na ty. HavingCompan halted, oney and of thewill nev strangervigabs tookle, b utour w einter have nothing to r er be of any advantage to preter’s gun threproughoach cur ourselv them, Numbers of the Nati iosity, and,es with, while ha ving done what w Name: ves came to see us in the e set out to do. day and remained. course of the They assured us that 1. the navigation for From L. R. Masson, Le bourgeois a de la Campagnie du Nord-Ouest, • a primary account by Jules Quesnel, one et Cie, 1889), 157–221. Briefi ng SheetVol. I (Quebec: #9 A Cote Teaching Historical Thinking

A twentieth- 1 The Critical Thinking Consortium century account On May 22 Fraser and eight of Fraser’s lieutenants on this trip (Brief- men left Fort Fraser to ride hair and in his the Columbia to its mouth. portrait, Fraser’s hair does It was a voyage to curl At one point the appear somewhat curly. The a man’s river look so bad the y were rolled and bu etted y climbed the canyon w by vicious rapids. and crept along the track all on stone steps cut into the r at the top of the canyon. ock face by the Indians, reached the delta on J Able to return to the waterway ing Sheet #8) uly 2, worn and shaken at a point of relative calm, hostile Indians. by their experience, only to be chased for six miles acr they oss the water by Simon Fraser was dismayed and disgusted by was the Columbia. It was obviously too hot and dry for furs. Fraser useless for freight canoes had decided that the Columbia and the country an important discove was the worst river ry. He surveyed his position and found it w he’d ever seen, when he made ocean below the 47th parallel asn’t the Columbia at all. The Columbia enter • a secondary twentieth-century textbook and he was north of the 49th. ed the names Simon called he could think of. His fr his discovery the Bad Rive iend, David Thompson, later r, one of the nicer river he had discovered in honour of Thompson. named it the Fraser and Fraser account by Tony Cashman (Briefing responded by naming a Sheet #9).

1. From a letter by Jules Quesnel, one of Fraser’ Explain to students that the words “Indians” s two lieutenants on the tr ip. Teaching Historical Thinking

or “Natives” often appear in documents The Critical Thinking Consortium written at this time. While these terms appear in historical documents, these terms are generally viewed as inaccurate and 1. From T. Cashman, An Illustr ated History of Western Canada (Edmonton: Hur tig, 1971). Teaching Historical Thinking

disrespectful. The Critical Thinking Consortium

Introduce the Explain that the students’ next critical thinking task is as follows: next critical Based on the additional sources, propose at least five revisions to the account of challenge Fraser’s journey to reflect your conclusion about the expedition.

Explain that students will be expected to read the additional sources, reach a conclusion that is supported by the evidence, and then propose at least five changes to the initial account of the journey presented on Briefing Sheet #5.

Name : To support students in their analysis Briefi ng Sheet #10 Using multiple hi Analyze the storical sources The following are guidelines for arriving sources. at and defending a conclusion of the additional resources, review the Name : using multiple primary and secondary additional Student Activity Sheet #11 Type of source: Identify whether each is a primary or secondary source. Conclusion: Considering following guidelines found in Using all of the evidence, o conclusion er a Document analysis that clearly and specifi Summary of ideas: cally answers the question sources Paraphrase or list in point o ered for consideration. form what actually reported in each document. is Justifi cation: Suppor Author t your conclusion with multiple historical sources (Student ship: Consider who the sour evidence from authored or created ces and suggest why alter document and what each native hypotheses are is known about the per as plausible as the not might this a son of group. How conclusion you are putting

Document forw ect the information presented? applicable, explain ard. If why sources which may your conclusion ar seem to contradict Context: Tr y to e not really a concer Activity Sheet #10) and suggest that identify a purpose and intended n. for each document. audience Consider how this might a ect credibility. Inferences: Draw inferences from each question y source about the students use the chart in Document ou are trying to answer.

Corroboration: Check Source Source

if any of author the secondar or challenge the infer sources support or

ences drawn.

contex ship

analysis (Student Activity Sheet #11) (p

rima

and and

ry , ,

to record their ideas:

ssi ble rele ble

• Type of source: Identify whether vanc e

each is a primary or secondary Summar

poin

y of of y ts

source. ke y y

Teaching Historical Thinking th

Inferences abou Inferences e ques e consider

The Critical Thinking Consortium

tion under under tion

n atio t t

Teaching Historical Thinking

The Critical Thinking Consortium

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium • Summary of ideas: Paraphrase or list in point form what is actually reported in each document.

• Authorship: Consider who authored or created each document and what is known about the person or group. How might this affect the information presented?

• Context: Try to identify a purpose and an intended audience for each document. Consider how this might affect credibility.

• Inferences: Draw inferences from each source about the question you are trying to answer.

• Corroboration: Check whether any of the sources support or challenge the inferences drawn.

• Conclusion: Considering all of the evidence, offer a conclusion that clearly and specifically answers the question offered for consideration.

• Justification:Support your conclusion with evidence from the sources and suggest why alternative hypotheses are not as plausible as the conclusion you are putting forward. If applicable, explain why sources that may seem to contradict your conclusion are not really a problem.

Look for After students have completed a preliminary analysis of the three additional sources, corroborating encourage them to look for corroboration and inconsistencies between these and or the initial account. As an example, draw students’ attention to the discrepancies in contradictory the reported number of people on the trip: evidence • Quesnel states: Now I must tell you that I went exploring this summer with Mr. Simon Fraser and John Stuart, whom I believe you know. We were accompanied by 12 men in three canoes.

• Fraser’s diary for May 22, 1808, offers a different number: Having made every necessary preparation for a long voyage, we embarked at 5 o’clock A.M. in four canoes at Fraser’s River [probably the Nechako River]. Our crew consisted of nineteen men, two Indians, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Quesnel and myself, in all twenty-four.

• Cashman’s account is different yet again: On May 22 Fraser and eight men left Fort Fraser to ride the Columbia to its mouth.

Discuss how such confusion could occur over what seems Name :

Student Ac to be a straightforward piece of information. Which account tivity Sheet #12 Revising the account Proposed conclusion about Fraser’ s jour should be believed? Invite students to suggest which source ney: ______

Additions or changes to the accoun tE overall seems most credible and why. vidence to suppor t recommendations

Propose Direct students in groups to propose approximately six their recom- additions or changes to the account provided on Briefing mendations Sheet #5 that make the account more accurate and supports students’ conclusions about Fraser’s journey. You may want students to use the chart Revising the account (Student Activity Sheet #12) to identify their proposed changes in the left-hand column and record their evidence for these

Teaching Historical Thinking

recommendations in the right-hand column. Arrange for The Critical Thinking Consortium students to share their recommendations.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Critical Task 3: Continuity and change

Introduce Suggest to students that first encounters between peoples can set the pattern of the next relationships for many years to come. How Fraser dealt with the challenges pre- critical sented to him by his contact and dependency on the peoples he met was crucial challenge to the success of his journey. In this lesson students will consider two questions: To what extent did Fraser change as a result of his experiences?

To what extent did Indigenous reactions to Europeans change as a result of their experiences with Fraser?

Name :

Student Ac tivity Sheet #13

Before and after descriptions

Construct Divide students into groups to identify at least five traits Before the trip (start)S upporting evidence start-of-trip that describe Fraser at the beginning of his journey. description Students may use evidence from the opening Name: of Fraser descriptions of any of the sources and also Assessment Sheet #14 from subsequent comments that implied he Assessing the descriptions Exemplar Revealing det y Good ails of the Overall, the identifi Satisfactory descriptions ed The identifi ed details Remedial before and after details reveal A few relevant and some key aspects of the Almost all the identifi ed reveal key aspects of the accurate details are identifi ed features reveal actions and reactions was changed by certain occurrences. Distribute actions and reactions. identifi ed for the before some key aspects of the refl ect trivial or mistak and after descriptions. en actions and reactions but observations. a few impor After thetant trip aspects (end )S are ignor ed or incorrectly upporting evidence copies of the chart Before and after descriptions Explanation: identifi ed. (Student Activity Sheet #13) for students to

record the traits at the start of the trip and their Plausible explana tions All the explanations o for identified chang er Most explanations o es highly credib er Some of the explanations and c le, clear credible and clear r No credib onstants reasons wh easons o er cr le and clear y the identifi ed why the identifi edible reasons why reasons ar changes and constants ar ed changes the identifi e o ered why e and constants ar ed changes and the identifi plausib e plausible. constants ar ed changes evidence for attributing these traits to Fraser. le. e plausible. and constants ar Explanation: e plausible. Encourage students to provide more than one

Teaching Historical Thinking

piece of evidence for each trait. You may want The Critical Thinking Consortium

to use the rubric found in Assessing the de- Comments: scriptions (Assessment Sheet #14) to provide students with feedback on their responses.

Teaching Historical Thinking Invite groups to share and discuss their find- The Critical Thinking Consortium ings with the class.

Construct When students have shared their findings, and, if desired, revised their description end-of-trip of Fraser at the start of his journey, direct each group to develop an end-of-journey description profile. Encourage students to look for differences in Fraser, but also to note where of Fraser certain traits have remained constant throughout the journey. Direct students to use the bottom half of Student Activity Sheet #13 to record the traits and supporting evidence. Student Activity Sheet #14 may be used to assess these responses. Again provide an opportunity for students to share their findings with others in the class.

Summarize Ask students to discuss their conclusions to the following question: findings about Fraser To what extent did Fraser change as a result of his experiences?

Present the Explain to the students that their concluding task in this lesson is to address the second task following question: To what extent did Indigenous reactions to Europeans change as a result of their experiences with Fraser?

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name : Prepare Invite students to construct a start-of-trip description of Briefi ng Sheet #15 Son of the sun1 The * Indians seen this man coming descriptions Indigenous reactions to Fraser. Organize students into down in the canoe with and he said, his party and Chief that’s what my wife foretold Spindlum, he soon spotted … So he said to the * it, musn’t hurt him … That’ Indians , “You Indians* m s the man of the sun. He is the son of the sun. ust never touch him, you Spuzzum and they spread the ne ” So these Indians* came along and came to ws all around. Our grandmother w was a special woman, she as ten years old … She told us this stor of groups of five. Arrange for them to re-read all of the was a relation to our grandmother y. There , this She was asked to sing a special song when Simon Fraser w special woman was an enter tainer, she was a singer. he must be safe in his as leaving. They had sor voyage, drifting do t of a special prayer for him that wn the Fraser River … So when he w accounts of Fraser’s journey (Briefing Sheets #5, 7, 8 and as leaving … they sang this song and Simon Fraser … he felt so sad, he had tear Indigenous lady sings this song, “W e’ll meet y s in his ou again, when the leaves ar eyes … This to pray, we’ll pray for e turning red and yellow and when our chief asks us you when the sun rises, and pray for when the sun rises we’ll bo you. When our chief takes w our heads, and face the his pipe and smokes his pipe sun and we’ll will be sent with you his smoke will drift do 9) as well as An Indigenous account (Briefing Sheet #15). and will accompany you. wn the river and our praye reactions And when rs the green bows and with all the emerald winds will s all the trees sway along the beach, the green leaves and will be safe way around you and the silv when you go through ery circle, the eddy, the pool, y this channel. When we’re ou and our prayers will in the woods, in the forest, always remain with you. All we’ll always pray for you one day y our tribes from Spuzzum Distribute copies of the chart Before and after descrip- our fl ag will fl y over us.” will always pray for you to return and That’s how * the Indian people took him; he was the “son of the sun. white people came from the sun and the ” Well, you see the Indians* y revered the white people always thought the looked at it. In the beg . I don’t know why, b tions (Briefing Sheet #13) and invite students to record inning anyway [Annie laughts]. ut that’s just the way they the reactions of the various Indigenous peoples from the beginning of the journey until Fraser reaches the river’s delta and the Musqueam people.

When students have shared their descriptions, direct

1. Annie York, intervie wed by Imbert Orchard, 1965

* (Indians, Natives) histor each group to develop a return visit description of ically accurate terminology Teaching Historical Thinking

the reactions of the Indigenous peoples. Encourage The Critical Thinking Consortium students to note consistencies and changes among reactions towards Fraser (and Europeans) on his return trip to Fort George. Students should use the bottom half of Student Activity Sheet #13 to record their observations and supporting evidence. Assessment Sheet #14 may be used to assess these responses. Again provide an opportunity for students to share their findings with others in the class.

Name :

Student Ac tivity Sheet #16 Based on their comparative descriptions invite students to Justifying my conclusion Summarize I believe he had changed gr eatly changed quite a bit changed in a fe w respects hardly changed at all prepare a one-page response that includes a The main re asons in support of my c onclusion ar their findings Name : e • clear conclusion about the extent of change Assessment Sheet #17 • As sessing the justiﬁ cation • in Indigenous reactions (for example, they Well-devel oped Reasons for conclusion Competen Clearly describes several impor t tant Identiﬁ es some r Underdeveloped reasons for the chosen conclusion. • elevant reasons for Pro Explanation: the chosen conclusion. vides no relevant reasons for changed greatly, they hardly changed at all) the chosen conclusion. The best reasons why others might disagree with my c onclusion are and to explain with reference to specific evi- • •

dence why they have reached this conclusion • Reasons for alternative Clearly describes a few of the most conclusions Identiﬁ es some r important reasons to suppor elevant reasons to Identiﬁ t other• support other conclusions. es no relevant reasons to conclusions. suppor and not other conclusions. You may want Explanation: t other conclusions. I think my c onclusion is more reasonable because to use the chart Justifying my conclusion • • (Student Activity Sheet #16) to structure this •

Justifica tion for O ers a thoughtful justifi preferred conclusion cation O ers some justifi why the selected conclusion is mor• cation why O e the selected conclusion is mor ers no justifi cation why the activity and the rubric found in Assessing reasonable. e selected conclusion is mor reasonable. e reasonable. Explanation: the justification (Assessment Sheet #17) to Teaching Historical Thinking

The Critical Thinking Consortium assess student responses.

Teaching Historical Thinking

The Critical Thinking Consortium

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Critical Task 4: Historical perspective

Introduce Remind students that when studying historical events, we want to understand why the next people (as individuals and groups) acted as they did. To do this, we must learn about critical their motivations or intentions and also about the circumstances, cultural beliefs, challenge and societal values that would likely have influenced them. Select three events from any of the accounts of Fraser’s journey. These might include the following:

• twelve hundred members of an Indigenous community (at what is now Lytton) shook Fraser’s hand;

• Indigenous people (near what is now Hope) refused to lend him a canoe;

• Indigenous people in canoes shouted and swung their clubs but did not attack Fraser’s group.

Present students with the following question:

Why did various Indigenous peoples respond to Fraser as they did in these three incidents?

As a class or in groups, invite students to conjecture Name : Brainstorm Student Activity Sheet #18 possible actions for the behaviour of the Indigenous Explaining their ac possible tions Incident #1: explanations people in the three incidents (for example, perhaps ______Possible explanationE their motivation for shaking hands was friendship, po- vidence liteness, curiosity, or deference to strangers). Encour-

age students to be as specific as possible (for example, Incident #2: ______

Possible explanationE instead of saying simply that the Indigenous people vidence wanted to be friendly, explain what might evoke this desire). Direct students to look for broader economic,

Incident #3: ______

cultural, and religious factors to explain why they acted Possible explanationE vidence in these ways. Invite students to identify evidence that might support each proposed explanation. You may

Teaching Historical Thinking

want students to use the chart found in Explaining The Critical Thinking Consortium their actions (Student Activity Sheet #18) to structure this activity.

Consider an Draw students’ attention to the fact that many of the sources of information about Indigenous Fraser’s trip have been recorded by people of European ancestry. Assign students, account in pairs, to reread the view of Fraser’s trip found in An Indigenous account (Briefing Sheet #15).

Decide on After accumulating evidence to support each explanation, invite students to de- the most termine the major motivation or factor that explains why the Indigenous people plausible acted as they did in each of the three identified incidents. Remind students that explanation the major influence they propose must be supported by the historical evidence and must plausibly be seen to be more influential than other factors. Ask students to write a paragraph for each incident in which they justify their conclusion in light of these two criteria.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Critical Task 5: Cause and consequence

Introduce In a previous briefing sheet (Briefing Sheet #15), students read descriptions of Chief the critical Whattlekainum and his people’s perspectives on their interactions with Fraser and his challenge men. Using this a starting point, invite students to consider the following question: Based on their experiences with Fraser, how might Chief Whattlekainum and his people react to further visits from these “sky-people”?

Brainstorm As a class or in groups, invite students to conjecture possible effects of their initial possible encounter on Indigenous peoples’ attitudes to Europeans. Encourage students to be effects as specific as possible about likely consequences. Direct students to look at broader factors (for example, social, economic, and religious or spiritual factors) that explain why it might produce this effect. Invite students to identify supporting evidence for each predicted reaction to a subsequent visit by Europeans.

Decide on the After accumulating evidence to support each scenario, invite students to determine most likely the most likely response of Indigenous peoples to subsequent visits. Ask students consequence to write a paragraph justifying their anticipated scenario in light of two criteria: • It is consistent with the accepted facts.

• It is plausible, given what is known generally about the people and the time.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Critical Task 6: Ethical judgment

Introduce the Introduce the final critical thinking question: culminating How should Simon Fraser be remembered—as a gifted negotiator or a lucky bully? critical challenge Explain that this question invites students to use all of the information and insights accumulated in the previous activities to develop a position on how Fraser deserves to be remembered in history. Does he warrant the honours that have been bestowed upon him? Students’ overall judgment should take into account varying perspectives, including Simon Fraser’s, Indigenous perspectives, and our own perspective on his lasting accomplishments and shortcomings.

Introduce Discuss with students the criteria to consider when formulating their assessment criteria for of Fraser: judgment • core values we currently admire in leaders and heroes; • values that may have prevailed in the historical period.

To help students think about each of these criteria, briefly discuss the following questions: • As a person of his time, what kind of assessment would we offer?

• Exclusively considering current standards, how admirable do his actions appear today?

Introduce Announce to students that they will be expected to explain their position by Name: the task As sessment Sheet #19 Self-assessment of discussi participating in a U-shaped discussion. on Exemplary Background Good I am able to refer to man Satisfactory knowledge y I am able to r Deve relevant facts, always with efer to relevant I am ab loping ê accurate use of facts, most often with le to refer to relevant Remedial accuracy. facts, usually with accuracy I am able to refer to a This strategy offers an alternative to the relevant f accuracy I am ab acts . . limited n le to refer to fe umber of relevant w facts with little accuracy or no relevant and accurate traditional two-sided debate. Instead of . facts. The Critical Thinking Consortium Open-mindedness I always carefully consider ê I usually consider most open to all viewpoints pr consider esented. viewpoints pr I occasionally consider ing a I am al esented. I seldom consider other variety of vie ways willing to a variety of viewpoints I rar an adversarial either/or format, direct ws r I an usually willing to viewpoints. ely or never consider econsider my presented. ê willing position reconsider my other viewpoints. to re-think when evidence or position I am rar position based on I am sometimes willing ely willing to arguments wa when evidence or reconsider my I am always reluctant to new e rrant. to reconsider my position vidence or arguments warrant. position when e reconsider my position arguments when evidence or arguments vidence or arguments wa when evidence or arguments students to formulate a position along warrant. rrant. wa rrant.

a continuum from talented diplomat to Reasoned judgment My decisions are always ê uses evidence to based on availab My decisions are usually reach an infor le evidence. based on availab My decisions are sometimes med I always consider the range le evidence. based on availab My decisions are seldom decision I usually consider the le evidence. based on availab My decisions ar of criteria when ar le evidence e rarely based lucky bully. Allow time for students to ê consider riving at criter I sometimes consider cr . on available e s criteria a decision. ia when arriving at a iteria I seldom consider cr vidence. when making a when arriving at a decision. iteria decision. when ar I rarely or never consider decision riving at a decision. criteria when arriving at a develop a precise position on the repu- decision. tation that Fraser deserves. You may want

eaching Historical Thinking to invite students to use Self-assessment T of discussion (Assessment Sheet #19) to help them prepare for the discussion.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium 0

#2 Assessing a U-shaped discussion Use the follo wing scale to score student perfor mances: 4 = Exemplar y 3 = Good 2 = Satisf

sessment Sheet actor y 1 = Developing R = Remedial Arrange the class in a U-shape. Students with As Back ground knowledgeO Hold the pen-mindedness ê accurate use of rele Re vant facts ê asoned judgment Student name open to consider a variety of vie s ws ê uses evidence to r ê willing to re-think vie each an informed w and position decision The Critical Thinking Consortium polar views (either strongly endorsing Fraser or based on ne w evidence or arguments ê 4 3 2 1 considers criteria when making a decision U-shaped R 4 3 2 1 Comment: R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R Comment: very critical of Fraser) seat themselves at either 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R discussion Comment: 4 3 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R tip of the U; students with mixed opinions sit at 4 3 2 Comment: 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R appropriate spots along the rounded part. Begin 4 3 2 1 Comment: R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 by asking students at each tip of the U to state Comment: 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R their position and offer a few reasons only. If Comment: 4 3 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 there is an imbalance in strong support for one : 1 R Comment: 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 Comment: 2 1 R side or the other, locate yourself (temporarily) Name Comment:

eaching Historical Thinking

T in a polar position to get the discussion going. Alternate from side to side, as students from all parts of the U offer their views. Stress that students are not to try to convince others, but to explain why the position they are sitting in is the most defensible one for them. At several stages in the discussion, encourage students to physically move along the spectrum if they have heard reasons that cause them to shift their intellectual position on the issue. The goal of the U-shaped discussion is to encourage students to endorse positions provisionally and to listen to others in an attempt to figure out the most defensible personal stance along a continuum of possibilities. Invite students to use Assessment Sheet #19 to self-assess their performance, and you may want to use Assessing a U-shaped discussion (Assessment Sheet #20) to assess this activity.

Concluding OPTIONAL: If desired, direct students to prepare a short essay justifying their precise essay position on the issue. Encourage students to address possible counter-arguments that they may have encountered during the U-shaped discussion.

Extension Apply to other explorers Use some of the activities suggested here to guide students’ inquiries into other European explorers of Canada. Assign groups of students to research and assess the achievements of a particular explorer both from the explorer’s perspective and from the perspective of those who travelled with or encountered the explorer. Each group is to share its findings with the rest of the class, which then considers who was the most admirable Canadian explorer.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #1

Simon Fraser descending the Fraser River, 1808

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #2

Map of the Fraser River

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #3

Comparing significance

Event Event Event Prominence at the time Immediate recognition:Was it noticed at the time as having importance?

Duration: How long did it exist or operate?

Consequences Magnitude of impact: How deeply felt or profound was its impact?

Scope of impact: How widespread was its impact?

Lasting nature of impact: How long-lasting were its effects? Subsequent profile Remembered: Has it been memorialized?

Revealing: Does it inform our understanding of a historical issue? (Is it emblematic of a condition or period?)

Ranking Event Explanation 1st

2nd

3rd

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Assessment Sheet #4

Assessing the rankings

Well-developed Competent Underdeveloped Identifies relevant Identifies a few key pieces Identifies obvious pieces of evidence Identifies very little evidence for evidence of relevant evidence for each for each criterion, but overlooks each criterion. criterion. some important considerations. Explanation:

Justifies rankings Justification for each ranking Justification for each ranking No plausible justification is given shows thoughtful consideration of touches upon some key factors. for any of the assigned rankings. the most important factors. Explanation:

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #5

Fraser’s journey1

In the early morning of May 28, 1808 Simon Fraser with Besides this, steps which are formed like a ladder . . . furnish a safe and twenty-three men in four canoes left Fort George. His convenient passage to the Natives; but we, who had not the advantage instructions from his superiors at the North West Company of their education and experience, were often in imminent danger when were to find a route from the interior of British Columbia to obliged to follow their example. [extract from Fraser’s Journal] the Pacific Ocean along the river which Fraser imagined to be the Columbia River. Day after day they encountered obstacles as At Spuzzum, Fraser was much impressed by a number of totem they paddled down the river. The river was a continuous series poles, each fifteen feet high and “carved in a curious but rude of rapids and the carrying places were extremely dangerous or manner, yet pretty well proportioned.” Friendly Indians living in very long. The places where they had to carry their canoes to large frame houses presented them with roast salmon. Near where get around the rapids were so rough that a pair of moccasins was the town of Hope now stands, they were entertained at a large worn to shreds in one day. Fraser decided the Indians* he had met village where there was a huge community house built of cedar were correct in saying that the river was not passable for canoes. planks. Some Indians warned that the natives of the coast were On June 10, they built a scaffold to store their canoes and buried “wicked” and would attack them, but Fraser would not alter his the equipment they could not carry with them. Fraser and his plan. When these Indians refused to lend him a canoe Fraser took men set out on foot, carrying packs weighing eighty pounds one by force. For a short while canoes from the village followed each. In his diary, Fraser wrote that they experienced “a good them, their occupants waving weapons and shouting war songs, deal of fatigue and disagreeable walking” but he and his men but Fraser and his men ignored them. Soon after, another group continued on their journey. came at them “howling like wolves” and swinging war clubs, but they did not attack Fraser’s group. Fraser ordered his men to Soon they met Indians who told them ten more days would paddle farther along to a second village, but the behaviour of the bring them to the sea. One villager said that he had been to the Indians forced them to turn back. On July 2, near Musqueam sea and had seen “great canoes” and white men. When Fraser and (what is now south Vancouver), Fraser decided to return up the his party proceeded, many of the locales walked with them. Two river in order to secure provisions before attempting to resume days later, at a large village (near present day Lillooet), Indians his descent to the ocean. This was the farthest distance reached by told them that the river was navigable from their village to the the explorers. Fraser’s reception by the natives he encountered on sea, whereupon Fraser bargained for two canoes. At another his return up the river was far from friendly—one group seized village (now Lytton) the people were so friendly that Fraser was a canoe and began to pillage the baggage. Fraser forced a canoe called upon to shake hands with twelve hundred of them. In from them and left a blanket in return. For several days hostile return he and his men were well fed and were able to get two Indians followed them. They finally reached friendly villages and additional canoes. were guided over rough bridges and swaying ladders by natives who “went up and down these wild places with the same agility Despite what the Indians had said about the river being as sailors do on board a ship.” navigable, the explorers soon found their way blocked by numerous rapids. Two canoes were lost. More canoes were Fraser finally arrived back at Fort George on August 6. obtained from the natives*. During this time, the explorers toiled Although Fraser had not accomplished his purpose of exploring over the roughest country they had ever seen: the Columbia River, his voyage did clear up the the confusion between the Fraser River and Columbia River that existed We had to pass over huge rocks assisted by the Indians . . . As for among Eurropean fur traders. the road by land, we could scarcely make our way with even only our guns. I have been for a long period among the Rocky Mountains, but 1. Adapted from M. G. Parks. Undated. “The descent of the Fraser River” in Discoverers have never seen any thing like this country. It is so wild that I cannot and Explorers in Canada—1763–1911 (Portfolio II #4), illustrated by Charles W. Jefferys find words to describe our situation at times. We had to pass where no and published by Imperial Oil Ltd. human being should venture; yet in those places there is a regular footpath * Please note that the words “Indians” or “Natives” often appear in documents written impressed, or rather indented upon the very rocks by frequent travelling. at this time. While these terms appear in historical documents, these terms are generally viewed as inaccurate and disrespectful. Though these terms are still used in some Government of Canada government documents and legislation, it is now more accurate and respectful to use the name of the specific group of people or nation.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #6

Looking for significance

Describe six events and explain their significance in light of the following factors:

• Was prominent at the time (Was it a noticeable event then?)

• Had notable consequences (Did it affect the rest of the trip and beyond the trip?)

• Determined subsequent profile (Is it memorable or revealing about Fraser?)

Summary of incident Possible significance

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #7

Selections from Fraser’s diary

The following are a few of the entries in the diary that Fraser kept as he travelled the Fraser River.1

May 28, 1808 certain distance below was impracticable, and advised us to leave Having made every necessary preparation for a long voyage, our canoes in their charge and proceed on our journey by land we embarked at 5 o’clock A.M. in four canoes at Fraser’s River to a great river that flows from the left into this communication. [probably the Nechako River]. Our crew consisted of nineteen The country they said consisted of plains, and the journey could men, two Indians*, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Quesnel and myself, in all be performed with horses in four or five days; thence we should twenty-four. have smooth water all the way to the sea. But going to the sea by an indirect way was not the object of the undertaking. I therefore would not deviate and continued our route according to my May 30, 1808 original intention. These Indians have heard of fire-arms, but had never seen any, and they evinced [showed] a great desire of seeing ours and obtaining explanations as to their use. In compliance, we June 3, 1808 fired several shots whose reports astonished them so as to make . . . Last night a 4th Indian, who seemed to be well acquainted them drop off their legs. Upon recovering from their surprise, with the river, promised to accompany us, but this morning we made them examine their effect. They appeared quite uneasy declined, saying he was afraid of the rapids; another brought us a on seeing the marks on the trees and observed that the Indians in pistol which Mr. Quesnel lost yesterday while on horseback; this that quarter [local region] were good and peaceable, and would was a piece of honesty we hardly expected, though, I must say, that never make use of their arms to annoy white people; yet they during the whole time we were there, and although many things remarked that we ought to be on our guard, and proceed with were let loose and scattered about us in such a manner as to afford great care when approaching villages, for, should we surprise all opportunity to the Natives, nothing went astray . . . the Natives*, they might take us as enemies, and, through fear, attack us with their arrows. June 9, 1808 The Indians of this place drew a chart of the river below which May 31, 1808 represented it to us as a dreadful chain of apparently insurmountable The Chief and the Indians recommended to our attention difficulties; at the same time they blamed us for venturing so far yesterday and who were encamped on a hill to the left, soon with our canoes and for not passing by land, as advised by the old joined us and presented us with dried salmon and different kinds chief of a former occasion, asserting that this communication [the of roots; the last, we could not well relish [like the taste], though Fraser River], both by land and by water, would in some places highly recommended by them. After enquiring repeatedly for be found impracticable to strangers, as we should have to ascend the slave who had a knowledge of the country below, he was and descend mountains and precipices [cliffs] by means of rope at last introduced. To form an estimate of his capacity, I had ladders, &c. two oil cloths spread out for the ground of a chart upon which I desired him to sketch the country towards the sea. . . . We could however plainly see in his sketch a confirmation of what June 13, 1808 had been told us of the difficulties of the navigation and, thereby, This morning, lost some time mending our shoes. We fired the necessity of leaving our canoes, with as much of our baggage several shots to show the Natives the effects of our guns, and set as we could spare, in order to continue our journey by land. out at five accompanied by all the Natives with two horses; three more horsemen soon joined our party. Having halted, one of the strangers took our interpreter’s gun through curiosity, and, while June 1, 1808 Numbers of the Natives came to see us in the course of the 1. From L. R. Masson, Le bourgeois de la Campagnie du Nord-Ouest, Vol. I (Quebec: A Cote day and remained. They assured us that the navigation for a et Cie, 1889), 157–221.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #7 examining it, touched the trigger; one of our men having observed July 11, 1808 him in time, threw up the muzzle as the shot was going off and Started early accompanied by many Indians as usual. Previous thus saved the lives of some Natives who otherwise would have to our departure the Chief gave us forty salmons and sent young received the contents; such misfortune would have at once put men along with us to carry them saying: “The Indians above are an end to our journey and perhaps to our lives. When we came poor”; I returned the chief’s compliment to his satisfaction. We to the Forks (of the Lilloet and Fraser) the Chief men, dressed could not procure [obtain] canoes, the Indians said the rapids in their coats of mail, advanced to meet us in order to know our were too strong to make use of them to any advantage. Soon dispositions [character and intentions] before we could be admitted after we had left the camp, the Indian who had supplied us with into their camp. Our Chief harangued [gave a speech to] them in a canoe going down joined our party and offered his services his own language; they answered him in theirs, and we were obliged again in like manner, which we accepted and found useful for to employ three interpreters on the occasion to settle the affair. many purposes in course of the day. We passed the village where These ambassadors are of the Askettih nation; they looked manly the Indians were so poor according to the account of the chief, and had really the appearance of warriors. They seemed to speak yet they generously shared with us what little they had . . . with a fluency which attracted a kind of attention indicative of applause, and our Chief conveyed our sentiments and wishes with July 20, 1808 great animation. He assured the Askettih nation that we were good Early in the morning, we proceeded on our journey and people and had nothing to do with the quarrels of Indian nations. soon after joined Mr. Stuart, when we had the inexpressible Here we became acquainted with a man of the Chilkcotin tribe satisfaction of finding our canoes and our cache [hidden supplies] who had left his own country when a boy, . . . He observed that perfectly safe. For this good fortune we felt grateful to the he had been to the sea by this communication, where he had seen Indians who continually attended to their security during our men like us who lived in a wooden enclosure [fort] upon an island, absence ...... He gave us a good account of the navigation and consented to accompany us as pilot. Since the departure of our Tha-how-tin interpreter, this was the only man with whom we could converse July 22, 1808 to any advantage. Continued our course with a strong current for At 8 A.M., we arrived at the rapide couvert [covered rapids] about nine miles where the river expands into a lake. Here we saw which is more than a mile long and where we were obliged to seals and a large river coming from the left and a round mountain carry all our baggage over long and steep hills; here we found ahead which the Natives called Stremotch [Mount Baker]. After Indians among whom were the old Atnah chief and his brother sunset, we encamped upon the right side of the river. At this place, both so overjoyed to see us that they annoyed us with caresses the trees were remarkably large, cedars five fathoms [thirty feet] [hugs]. They assured us that they felt extremely anxious for our in circumference and proportionate height. Musquitoes were in safety during our absence, and that they had determined, if the clouds. We had nothing to eat; the Natives, who always gave us Indians of the sea destroyed us, to collect their friends and go plenty of provisions in their villages, were all as destitute [in great to revenge us . . . need] as ourselves. Though at a great distance from home, they carried no arms about them, from which we inferred that they * Please note that the words “Indians” or “Natives” often appear in documents written had full confidence either in our goodness or in their numbers. at this time. While these terms appear in historical documents, these terms are generally viewed as inaccurate and disrespectful. Though these terms are still used in some Government of Canada government documents and legislation, it is now more accurate and respectful to use the name of the specific group of people or nation. July 10, 1808 The Indians certainly deserve our grateful remembrance for their able assistance throughout these alarming situations. The descents were, if possible, still more difficult; in these places, we were under the necessity of trusting our things to the Indians, even our guns were handed from one to another, yet they thought nothing of it, they went up and down these wild places with the same agility as sailors do on board a ship. After escaping innumerable perils in the course of the day, we encamped about sunset; the Indians tried to fish but caught nothing; they however supplied us with plenty of dried fish.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #8

Quesnel’s account of the trip1

Now I must tell you that I went exploring this summer with Mr. Simon Fraser and John Stuart, whom I believe you know. We were accompanied by 12 men in three canoes. Went down the river that up until now was thought to be the Columbia but finding it very soon unnavigable, we left our canoes and continued our journey on foot in the most appalling mountain that we could never have crossed if the natives*, who received us well, had not helped us. After having passed all these difficult spots, not without much trouble as you can imagine, we found the river once more navigable and all embarked in wooden canoes and continued on our way more comfortably, as far as the place where the river empties into the Pacific Ocean. We were well treated by all the other Indians* on our return trip and all arrived in excellent health in our New Caledonia. The mouth of the river is in Latitude 49o, nearly three degrees north of the real Columbia. This journey did not meet the needs of the Company and will never be of any advantage to them, this river not being navigable, but we have nothing to reproach ourselves with, having done what we set out to do.

1. From a letter by Jules Quesnel, one of Fraser’s two lieutenants on the trip.

* Please note that the words “Indians” or “Natives” often appear in documents written at this time. While these terms appear in historical documents, these terms are generally viewed as inaccurate and disrespectful. Though these terms are still used in some Government of Canada government documents and legislation, it is now more accurate and respectful to use the name of the specific group of people or nation.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #9

A twentieth-century account1

On May 22 Fraser and eight men left Fort Fraser to ride the Columbia to its mouth. It was a voyage to curl a man’s hair and in his portrait, Fraser’s hair does appear somewhat curly. They were rolled and buffetted by vicious rapids. At one point the river look so bad they climbed the canyon wall on stone steps cut into the rock face by the Indians*, and crept along the track at the top of the canyon. Able to return to the waterway at a point of relative calm, they reached the delta on July 2, worn and shaken by their experience, only to be chased for six miles across the water by hostile Indians.

Simon Fraser was dismayed and disgusted by the Columbia. It was obviously useless for freight canoes and the country was too hot and dry for furs. Fraser had decided that the Columbia was the worst river he’d ever seen, when he made an important discovery. He surveyed his position and found it wasn’t the Columbia at all. The Columbia entered the ocean below the 47th parallel and he was north of the 49th. Simon called his discovery the Bad River, one of the nicer names he could think of. His friend, David Thompson, later named it the Fraser and Fraser responded by naming a river he had discovered in honour of Thompson.

1. From T. Cashman, An Illustrated History of Western Canada (Edmonton: Hurtig, 1971).

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #10

Using multiple historical sources

The following are guidelines for arriving at and defending a conclusion using multiple primary and secondary sources.

Type of source: Identify whether each is a primary or Conclusion: Considering all of the evidence, offer a secondary source. conclusion that clearly and specifically answers the question offered for consideration. Summary of ideas: Paraphrase or list in point form what is actually reported in each document. Justification: Support your conclusion with evidence from the sources and suggest why alternative hypotheses are not Authorship: Consider who authored or created each as plausible as the conclusion you are putting forward. If document and what is known about the person of group. How applicable, explain why sources which may seem to contradict might this affect the information presented? your conclusion are not really a concern. Context: Try to identify a purpose and intended audience for each document. Consider how this might affect credibility.

Inferences: Draw inferences from each source about the question you are trying to answer.

Corroboration: Check if any of the sources support or challenge the inferences drawn.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #11

Document analysis Document Source (primary (primary Source authorship and and authorship or secondary), secondary), or context Possible relevance Summary of key of Summary points the question under under question the Inferences about about Inferences consideration

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #12

Revising the account

Proposed conclusion about Fraser’s journey: ______

Additions or changes to the account Evidence to support recommendations

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #13

Before and after descriptions

Before the trip (start) Supporting evidence

After the trip (end) Supporting evidence

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Assessment Sheet #14

Assessing the descriptions

Exemplary Good Satisfactory Remedial Revealing details of the Overall, the identified The identified details reveal A few relevant and Almost all the identified descriptions before and after details some key aspects of the accurate details are actions and reactions reveal key aspects of the identified features reveal identified for the before reflect trivial or mistaken actions and reactions. some key aspects of the and after descriptions. observations. actions and reactions but a few important aspects are ignored or incorrectly identified. Explanation:

Plausible explanations All the explanations offer Most explanations offer Some of the explanations No credible and clear for identified changes highly credible, clear credible and clear reasons offer credible reasons why reasons are offered why and constants reasons why the identified why the identified changes the identified changes and the identified changes changes and constants are and constants are plausible. constants are plausible. and constants are plausible. plausible. Explanation:

Comments:

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Briefing Sheet #15

Son of the sun1

The Indians* seen this man coming down in the canoe with his party and Chief Spindlum, he soon spotted it, and he said, that’s what my wife foretold … So he said to the Indians, “You Indians must never touch him, you musn’t hurt him … That’s the man of the sun. He is the son of the sun.” So these Indians came along and came to Spuzzum and they spread the news all around. Our grandmother was ten years old … She told us this story. There was a special woman, she was a relation to our grandmother, this special woman was an entertainer, she was a singer. She was asked to sing a special song when Simon Fraser was leaving. They had sort of a special prayer for him that he must be safe in his voyage, drifting down the Fraser River …

So when he was leaving … they sang this song and Simon Fraser … he felt so sad, he had tears in his eyes … This lady sings this song, “We’ll meet you again, when the leaves are turning red and yellow and when our chief asks us to pray, we’ll pray for you when the sun rises, and when the sun rises we’ll bow our heads, and face the sun and we’ll pray for you. When our chief takes his pipe and smokes his pipe his smoke will drift down the river and our prayers will be sent with you and will accompany you. And when all the trees sway along the beach, the green leaves and the green bows and with all the emerald winds will sway around you and the silvery circle, the eddy, the pool, you will be safe when you go through this channel. When we’re in the woods, in the forest, we’ll always pray for you and our prayers will always remain with you. All our tribes from Spuzzum will always pray for you to return and one day your flag will fly over us.”

That’s how the Indian people took him; he was the “son of the sun.” Well, you see the Indians always thought the white people came from the sun and they revered the white people. I don’t know why, but that’s just the way they looked at it. In the beginning anyway [Annie laughts].

1. Annie York, interviewed by Imbert Orchard, 1965. Transcript from audio recording used with permission from The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #16

Justifying my conclusion

I believe he had q changed greatly q changed quite a bit q changed in a few respects q hardly changed at all

The main reasons in support of my conclusion are

•

The best reasons why others might disagree with my conclusion are

•

I think my conclusion is more reasonable because

•

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Assessment Sheet #17

Assessing the justification

Well-developed Competent Underdeveloped Reasons for conclusion Clearly describes several important Identifies some relevant reasons for Provides no relevant reasons for reasons for the chosen conclusion. the chosen conclusion. the chosen conclusion. Explanation:

Reasons for alternative Clearly describes a few of the most Identifies some relevant reasons to Identifies no relevant reasons to conclusions important reasons to support other support other conclusions. support other conclusions. conclusions. Explanation:

Justification for Offers a thoughtful justification Offers some justification why Offers no justification why the preferred conclusion why the selected conclusion is more the selected conclusion is more selected conclusion is more reasonable. reasonable. reasonable.

Explanation:

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Student Activity Sheet #18

Explaining their actions

Incident #1: ______

Possible explanation Evidence

Incident #2: ______

Possible explanation Evidence

Incident #3: ______

Possible explanation Evidence

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium Name: Assessment Sheet #19

Self-assessment of discussion

Exemplary Good Satisfactory Developing Remedial I am able to refer to few Background I am able to refer to many I am able to refer to relevant I am able to refer to relevant I am able to refer to a facts, most often with facts, usually with accuracy. limited number of relevant or no relevant and accurate knowledge relevant facts, always with The Critical Thinking Consortium accuracy. accuracy. facts with little accuracy. facts. êê accurate use of relevant facts

I rarely or never consider I occasionally consider I seldom consider other I always carefully consider I usually consider most other viewpoints. Open-mindedness a variety of viewpoints viewpoints. all viewpoints presented. viewpoints presented. I am always reluctant to êê open to presented. I am rarely willing to I am always willing to I an usually willing to reconsider my position considering a I am sometimes willing reconsider my position reconsider my position reconsider my position when evidence or arguments variety of views to reconsider my position when evidence or when evidence or when evidence or warrant. êê willing to re-think when evidence or arguments arguments warrant. arguments warrant. arguments warrant. position based on warrant. new evidence or arguments

My decisions are sometimes My decisions are seldom My decisions are rarely based My decisions are always My decisions are usually Reasoned judgment based on available evidence. based on available evidence. on available evidence. based on available evidence. based on available evidence. êê uses evidence to I rarely or never consider I usually consider the I sometimes consider criteria I seldom consider criteria reach an informed I always consider the range criteria when arriving at a criteria when arriving at a when arriving at a decision. when arriving at a decision. decision of criteria when arriving at decision. a decision. decision. êê considers criteria when making a decision Teaching Historical Thinking Teaching Name: Assessment Sheet #20 Use the following scale to score student performances: Student names ê Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: ê accurate use of relevant facts 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R Background knowledge Assessing a U-shaped discussion a U-shaped Assessing 4 = Exemplary ê ê Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: ê ê based on new evidence or arguments willing to re-think view and position of viewsopen to consider a variety 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 3 = Good Open-mindedness 2 = Satisfactory 1 = Developing ê ê Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: ê ê considers criteria when making a decision criteria considers decision uses evidence to reach an informed 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R 4 3 2 1 R Reasoned judgment R = Remedial

Teaching Historical Thinking The Critical Thinking Consortium