AC10.1 · learner packet

A history
from below.

A Winnipeg General Strike archive gateway and five records for reconstructing history with provenance, uncertainty, absence, and disagreement visible.

No verdict is assigned.

Workers, opponents, officials, photographers, residents, and later witnesses all made records from positions with limits. Your task is to make evidence and interpretation traceable—not to declare one source neutral or adopt a required political conclusion.

Learner
Group code or independent route
Start date

Final portfolio

Archive map and source dossiers Actor-and-absence map Sourced timeline and uncertainty ledger Two conflicting interpretations Final reconstruction and revision record

Prepared case · 1919 Winnipeg General Strike

Open the record, not just the story

This gateway identifies creator, record type, position, date, repository, and a useful starting question. Follow each link to the described item and preserve its record-level citation.

A · Curatorial gateway

Unbreakable

University of Manitoba Libraries and partner archives · 2019 digital exhibit.

Open Who, When, and Where ↗Use to orient and locate records. Do not cite the interface as if it were a 1919 record.

B · Archive map

Primary-source resources

Multi-institution index to fonds, newspapers, photographs, oral histories, trials, and inquiry records.

Open resource gateway ↗Ask whose records survive, where, under whose description, and with what access.

C · Organized opponent

Citizens’ Committee account

Citizens’ Committee of One Thousand · 1920 retrospective publication · 43 scans.

Open digitized item ↗Read for its claims and for evidence about the committee’s own organization, audience, and strategy.

D · Labour defence

General Sympathetic Strike

Winnipeg General Strike Defense Committee · 1919 partisan publication.

Open digitized item ↗Compare a shared event with Source C; preserve agreement separately from conflicting cause or legitimacy.

E · Government inquiry

Robson Commission report

Manitoba Royal Commission · H. A. Robson · 1919 · 64 scans.

Open digitized item ↗Separate mandate, procedure, evidence reference, causal account, judgment, and institutional authority.

F · Image as court exhibit

L. B. Foote photographs

Photographs made June 21, 1919; later entered as trial exhibits; fronts and backs held by Archives of Manitoba.

Open six photograph records ↗Record frame, sequence, creator, caption, exhibit stamp, later use, and what remains outside the image.

Language and representation

Records may contain racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, gendered, class-hostile, or violent language. Use exact wording only when it is indispensable to the claim. Never infer identity, motive, consent, or representativeness from a name, face, job, crowd position, or archival label.

Narrow research question: actor + action or mechanism + time/placeWhy primary records can answer this questionTime, geography, terms, and excluded claimsMinimum diversity of creators and record typesPeople or actions likely to be under-recordedCondition that would force the question to change

Tool 01 · Weeks 1–2 · print one per record

Source dossier and provenance chain

A source is not “biased” and finished. Identify what it can show directly, what it claims, how it survived, and what another record must test.

Creator / creating bodyRecord title or supplied descriptionCreation date / publication datePlace / scaleFormat / record typeRepository / collection / fondsItem, file, exhibit, page, or image numberStable URL / access date

01 · CreatedPurpose, activity, or event

02 · UsedAudience, circulation, or institutional function

03 · KeptWho retained it and why?

04 · TransferredCustody, collection, or trial path

05 · DescribedTitle, caption, category, or finding aid

06 · DigitizedSelection, scan, transcript, crop, or interface

Directly observableWhat is materially present in this record?Creator’s claimWhat does the creator assert or present?Supported inferenceWhat may be inferred, with what reasoning?Not establishedWhat can this record not show?

Language, framing, audience, purpose, or power shaping the recordSilence, damage, selection, absence, or representativeness limitExact claim requiring corroborationCreator or record type needed—and what would weaken the claim

Confidence in the narrow use Low Medium HighReason

Tool 02 · Weeks 1–5

Actor, action, and archival-absence map

Replace passive history with supported relationships. Being absent from the selected archive does not mean being absent from the event.

Actor / group / institutionAction and targetResource / constraintResponse / consequenceRecord and visibility

Self-authored or institution-authored

Appears through an opponent or authority

Work, care, dissent, or difference compressed

Search attempted; voice still difficult to locate

Passive sentence to repairRevised actor-action sentence with citation and limitScale warning: individual, organization, crowd, city, government, or later memoryNo-invention note: what remains unknown rather than supplied

Tool 03 · Week 3

Sourced timeline and uncertainty ledger

Use exact dates only when a record supports them. Keep simultaneous events, contradictions, gaps, and revisions visible.

Date / precisionActorAction / placeRecord citationConfidenceLink / contradiction

Uncertainty: date / actor / motive / scale / sequence / cause / effectRecords in tensionCurrent treatmentEvidence needed

Causal sequence A and mechanismRival sequence B and mechanismTimeline revision and new evidenceFalse precision removed or gap preserved

Tool 04 · Week 4

Paired interpretation matrix

Both interpretations must answer the same narrow question and address the same six-record evidence floor.

Shared evidence floor

Record 1Record 2Record 3Record 4Record 5Record 6

Interpretation AThesisCentral actors and periodizationCausal mechanism and scaleStrongest three records and exact supportStrongest counterevidenceSilence or limitRevision trigger

Interpretation BThesisCentral actors and periodizationCausal mechanism and scaleStrongest three records and exact supportStrongest counterevidenceSilence or limitRevision trigger

Theoretical lens used only as a questionCase evidence it highlightsCase evidence it sidelines or distortsDetail that refuses the general theory

Why disagreement persists despite shared evidenceWhy the evidence does not support every possible account equally

Tool 05 · Week 5

Claim, citation, and revision audit

A reader should be able to open the record, find the cited feature, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and see why the wording is warranted.

Claim + typeRecord-level citationExact supportRisk / counteraccountRevision

Archive handoff

Complete bibliography and stable linksSearch terms, filters, repositories, and paths triedRecords excluded and whyNext-record request and unresolved question

Substantive change to chronology, cause, actor emphasis, thesis, or certaintyEvidence or feedback that required the change

Final review

Every central factual claim reaches a record-level citation. Inference and interpretation are signposted. Ordinary actors do things rather than merely appear as background. Contradiction, silence, and uncertainty remain visible. Both interpretations address shared evidence and counterevidence. Harmful language is contextualized without unnecessary repetition.

A historyfrom below.