Be a Historian: Did Canada Come of Age, 1914–1929?

1. Formulate questions, 2) gather and organize evidence, 3) interpret and analyse, 4) evaluate and draw conclusions, 5) communicate (and cite).

It answers the question directly, takes a clear and arguable position (often "to what extent"), and names the main reasons or evidence to come.

It shows you have considered other evidence and perspectives, makes your argument more convincing, and helps you set the limits of your claim.

Origin, Purpose, Content, Corroboration.

Any two: separate signature on the Treaty of Versailles (1919), Chanak response (1922), Halibut Treaty (1923), Balfour Report (1926), legation in Washington (1927).

Any two: conscription crisis, Regulation 17, Winnipeg General Strike, harsher Indian Act policy (1920, 1927), Chinese Immigration Act (1923), internment of "enemy aliens", the Klan in Saskatchewan.

Any three: archivist, museum curator, journalist, lawyer, policy analyst, teacher, genealogist, heritage planner, librarian, researcher.

Presenting someone else's words or ideas as your own without credit.

Primary: it was written in 1926 by the Imperial Conference.

Checking whether other independent sources agree.

Combining evidence from many sources into one overall conclusion.

"To what extent".

Example: "Between 1914 and 1929, Canada changed from a British dominion with no control over war and peace into an autonomous nation that signed its own treaties, but the same years deepened divisions between French and English Canadians and tightened discriminatory policies." It is specific, arguable and previews evidence.

Because "coming of age" may look very different to someone excluded by the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act. Including this perspective tests whether national progress was shared by all, which makes the conclusion more accurate.

With great caution: it has no clear origin, its claim is exaggerated, and it cites no evidence. Corroborate with reliable sources (Veterans Affairs Canada, the Canadian War Museum, historians), which show Vimy was significant but did not "win the war".

Example: in a workplace or community meeting, understanding why different people hold their views helps you communicate, solve problems and find solutions that work for more people, just as historians understand different groups' perspectives.

Example: a news story on a First Nation's land claim connects to the Allied Tribes and the 1927 ban on funding claims; a story about a strike connects to Winnipeg 1919; a debate on immigration levels connects to the 1919 and 1923 laws. Any reasonable connection explained clearly.

Example: "In 1914, Canada went to war because Britain did; by 1929, it signed its own treaties and was recognized as equal in status to Britain. The First World War and the decade that followed gave Canada a new voice in the world and a growing sense of national identity. Yet the same years brought conscription riots, the internment of thousands of newcomers, harsher controls on First Nations and the exclusion of Chinese immigrants. Canada largely came of age as an autonomous nation in this period, but not as a united or inclusive one."

Historical perspective: asking how different groups experienced 1914–1929 shows that "coming of age" meant pride for many English Canadians but exclusion or harm for others. Continuity and change: comparing 1914 and 1929 shows big change in autonomy and women's political rights, but continuity in the Indian Act, racist immigration policy and economic inequality. Together they push the answer toward "partly" rather than "completely".

Statistics give precise, comparable evidence (e.g., the Unionists won only 3 of Quebec's seats in 1917; immigration in 1928 was about 42% of 1913) that makes claims concrete. Risk: numbers do not explain why, and they can hide whose experience is not counted; they need context and other sources.