In this assignment, you will write a 6-page essay based on McCallum and Perry’s Structures of Indifference. An
important reason for studying history is to gain a deeper understanding of contemporary
issues and events. In their 2018 book Structures of Indifference: An Indigenous Life and
Death in a Canadian City, Mary Jane Logan McCallum, and Adele Perry examine a
tragic event from a historical perspective. In September 2008, Brian Sinclair, a middle-
aged Anishinaabe man died of a treatable infection in the emergency room of
Winnipeg’s Health Science Centre after being left unattended for thirty-four hours.
McCallum and Perry reveal how Sinclair’s death was the product of a long history of
marginalization and racism faced by Indigenous people in Canadian cities. Sinclair’s
story intersects with several important themes in the history of Indigenous peoples since
1900 that our course covers.
Guidelines for your book review:
the final book review essay must be Chicago-style formatting for footnotes/endnotes and bibliographies.
The review or summary component of the assignment is important for two main
reasons: 1) you want to explain what the author is doing or attempting to do in the text
in a way that assumes no knowledge on the part of the reader (of your review), and 2)
you want to be as fair as possible in your presentation of what the author is doing,
before going on to assess it in some way. This means summarizing accurately, so as
not to put words or arguments or claims into the author’s mouth that they are not
actually making. In other words, a prerequisite to critiquing something is knowing what
the writer or speaker is actually saying first. Mischaracterizing an author’s or speaker’s
views, and then going on to criticize that mischaracterization is what they call a “Straw
Man” or “Straw Person” fallacy in the philosophy of logic.
A summary should always attempt to strike a balance between the “big picture”
assumptions, concepts, and arguments that an author is utilizing or making, and the
concrete details (historical figures, organizations, dates, events) of the history itself. In
other words, writing history is about striking a balance between “the forest” and “the
trees.” It is about striking a balance between the big picture concepts, ideas, and
arguments on the one hand, and the nitty-gritty details on the other. Your summary of
an author should provide your reader with both sides of this equation.
The “critique” component of the review does not mean you need to be negative.
Critique can mean a combination of both positive and negative assessments about
any number of things related to the article in question:
• Organization, rhetorical style, language, grammar, editing (or lack thereof), etc.
• Specific claims and arguments made by the author(s) – both insightful and innovative
ones, or perhaps outdated, poor, fallacious, or downright offensive ones.
• Use or misuse or misrepresentation of their own sources.
• Neglect or omission of other relevant evidence or sources.
A “balanced” review typically begins with what you think the author or speaker may
have done well, what you think was useful or informative, and so on –– before moving
on to more critical commentary. You are not required to be “balanced” in this sense of
the term. If you love the reading you may certainly write a glowing review. If you hate it
for any number of reasons, you may certainly write a more devastating review. Either
way, learning to accurately represent the viewpoints of those you are reviewing, and to
offer evidence for why you like or dislike or detest (or somewhere in between) their
material, is an integral part of the History profession.
As with all aspects of writing, specificity matters. This means that if you’re going to
criticize an author, be specific. Vague and overly-general claims about someone else’s
work are not particularly persuasive. Quote the author and cite the specific page
number, so that your reader has concrete examples of the thing you’re criticizing.
Overall, the guideline above, along with the posted rubric for written assignments, and
the specific feedback from your earlier article reviews, ought to give you more than
sufficient direction for how to approach the final book review. Do not exceed the 6-page
maximum. Concision (the quality of being concise or focused and efficient with one’s
words) is a virtue and a skill in its own right.
