Scott W. See. The History of Canada. Second Edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

grasshoppers although we poisoned most of them there were hardly

any left by fall. I cant hardly sleep for worrying about it.

My husband doesn’t know I am writing this letter but I just don’t

know what to do for money the children come to me about everything

it’s the women & children who suffer in these terrible times, men

don’t notice things. I suppose you think I am maybe making things

out worse than they are but I am not. Please help me by lending me

some money and I will send you my engagement ring & wedding ring

as security. . . .If you would just lend me $50.00 even I would be the

happiest woman in Alberta and you would be the best Premier of

Canada because you would have been the means of saving a whole

family guess I had better go to bed. My two rings cost over a $100.00

15 years ago but what good are they when the flour is nearly all done

and there isn ’ t much to eat in the house in the city I could pawn them

but away out here. I haven’t been off the farm this winter. Will expect

to hear from you hope to anyway I am sure you will never be sorry

any way if you do help us.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. R. Paddy

Letters from the Heartland 347

The CCF Platform

The Depression gave rise to a number of new political parties that

promised to tackle the economic crisis more effectively than the

Liberals or Conservatives, and some offered controversial plans to

alter Canada’s reliance on capitalism. The most important of those

upstart parties was the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The

following document states the party’s agenda in unambiguous

language; it comes from the CCF’s Programme that was adopted at

the First National Convention, Regina, Saskatchewan, 1 July 1933.

The C.C.F. is a federation of organizations whose purpose is the

establishment in Canada of a Co-operative Commonwealth in which

the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be

the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits.

We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent

injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the

domination and exploitation of one class by another will be

eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated

private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic

self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible. The

present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and

opportunity, by chaotic waste and instability; and in an age of plenty

it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity.

Power has more and more become concentrated into the hands of a

small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to

Kenneth McNaught, A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J.S. Woodsworth

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959), 321–330. Reprinted with

permission of the publisher.

The CCF Platform 349

their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When

private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society

oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main

benefits go to speculators and profiteers, to catastrophic depression,

in which the common man’s normal state of insecurity and hardship

is accentuated. We believe that these evils can be removed only in a

planned and socialized economy in which our natural resources and

the principle means of production and distribution are owned,

controlled and operated by the people.

The new social order at which we aim is not one in which

individuality will be crushed out by a system of regimentation. Nor

shall we interfere with cultural rights of racial or religious minorities.

What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic

resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure

and a much richer individual life for every citizen.

This social and economic transformation can be brought about by

political action, through the election of a government inspired by the

ideal of a Co-operative Commonwealth and supported by a majority

of the people. We do not believe in change by violence. We consider

that both the old parties in Canada are the instruments of capitalist

interests and cannot serve as agents of social reconstruction, and that

whatever the superficial differences between them, they are bound to

carry on government in accordance with the dictates of the big

business interests who finance them. The C.C.F. aims at political

power in order to put an end to this capitalist domination of our

political life. It is a democratic movement, a federation of farmer,

labor and social organizations, financed by its own members and

seeking to achieve its ends solely by constitutional methods. It appeals

for support to all who believe that the time has come for a far-

reaching reconstruction of our economic and political institutions

and who are willing to work together. . . .

350 The CCF Platform

A Portrait of the

Fighting Forces

The Second World War was the most documented conflict in history,

and Canada’s participation in the war provides an excellent

illustration of that dynamic. The engagements of Canada’s military

forces were covered extensively by journalists and often captured on

film. There was certainly a tendency to glorify the efforts of the men

and women in uniform. Nonetheless, the accounts from journalists

who reported from the front lines or were attached to units offer a

valuable insight to the gritty commitment of Canadian forces during

the war. The following excerpt comes from Canada’s most popular

news magazine, Maclean’s. Entitled “Tank Battle,” by L.S.B. Shapiro,

it describes in detail one component of the country’smilitary

engagement in northern France in September 1944.

Some day—if the war lasts long enough—when tanks have developed

armament capable of meeting fixed antitank weapons on even terms

or better, we may see them sweeping like cavalry into enemy

positions. Today they are being used in close support of the

infantry . . .sometimes they are used in place of infantry for defensive

flank protection. They are distributed in small packets among

battalions and companies. But the men who command tanks long

for the day when they can be employed as popular imagination would

have—in open battles of magnificent scope and decisive result. . . .

Michael Benedict, ed., On the Battlefields: Two World Wars that Shaped a

Nation, Vol. II (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2002), 355–364.

A Portrait of the Fighting Forces 351

Their job is like an airman’s, with something added. It requires

nerves of steel, quick decision, technical skills of the most exacting

kind. And something more—an ability to maintain the mind at trigger

edge for many hours under the mental torture of imminent death. The

airman’s moment of battle climax is come and gone in a moment; the

violence of a tank battle is slow and excruciating.

He lacks the soaring freedom of the fighter pilot, or the comforting

sense of catlike mobility which comes to a rifleman when he is

advancing over a battlefield. The tankman sits with four others in a

Sherman, surrounded by high explosive shells, with every moment

bringing new possibility that he will be holed and shattered. The tank

commander shares the confined space with his driver and co-driver,

who doubles as a loader, gunner, and wireless operator. He has a very

keen sense of claustrophobia; occasionally he leaves his turret open

though it would be safer to shut it.

He rolls into the shadow of a hedge, keeping his eyes on the skyline.

Suddenly the silhouette of a tank rises over the distant ridge. Its

dappled camouflage tells him it is German. His mind must be faster

and sharper than he ever thought it could be. Is the enemy a Panther?

Or a Tiger? Has it an 88 or a 7.5? Should he take a shot at it? Is it

1,200 or 1,800 yards off? Why has it suddenly and boldly silhouetted

itself? Are there other enemy on the reverse slope, planning to ambush

him? Has he been seen? Is the terrain right for a winning battle by a

Sherman? Can he get around to the Panther’s soft side or are their

88’s within range?

The answers to these and a dozen other questions must fall into his

mind immediately—before the plan of battle can be formulated.

Sometimes he has less than five seconds to weigh the answers and put

the conclusions into lethal operation.

Day in and day out the tankman undergoes this ordeal. He is the

toughest warrior of them all.

352 A Portrait of the Fighting Forces

A Japanese-Canadian

Perspective

The treatment of Japanese Canadians during and immediately

following the Second World War stands as one of the bleakest

episodes in the entire scope of the history of the Canadian

government’s treatment of its citizens. Many Japanese Canadians

documented their experiences, so historians have abundant resources

to consult as they assess the role that fear and prejudice played in

bringing about the relocation of thousands of Canada’s citizens from

British Columbia. One such individual, Muriel Kitagawa, contrib-

uted regularly to the New Canadian in the 1940s. The following

pieces come from her papers, manuscripts, and essays. These were

collected by Roy Miki and published with an extensive collection

of letters to her brother, Wes Fujiwara. They eloquently address

the issues of citizenship and racism in the context of the Second

World War.

We’ll Fight for Home! [January 1942]

The tide of panic, starting from irresponsible agitators, threatens to

engulf the good sense of the people of British Columbia. The daily

press is flooded with “letters to the editor” demanding the

indiscriminate internment of all people of Japanese blood, alien or

Canadian-born; demanding the immediate confiscation of our right

Muriel Kitagawa and Roy Miki, eds. This Is My Own: Letters to Wes & Other

Writings on Japanese Canadians, 1941–1948 (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1985),

180–182.

A Japanese-Canadian Perspective 353

to work as we like; our right to live like decent human beings. One

and all, they add to the height of sardonic cynicism; if we are as loyal

as we say we are, then we ought to understand why we ought to be

treated like poison. ....

For the very reason that or Grade School teachers, our High School

teachers, and our environment have bred in us a love of country, a

loyalty to one’s native land, faith in the concepts of traditional British

fair play, it is difficult to understand the expression of a mean

narrow-mindedness, an unreasoning condemnation of a long

suffering people. We cannot understand why our loyalty should be

questioned.

After all, this is our home, where by the sweat of our endeavours we

have carved a bit of security for ourselves and our children. Would we

sabotage our own home? Would we aid anyone who menaces our

home, who would destroy the fruits of our labour and our love?

People who talk glibly of moving us wholesale “East of the rockies,”

who maintain that it is an easy task, overlook with supreme

indifference the complex human character.

They do not think what it would mean to be ruthlessly, needlessly

uprooted from a familiar homeground, from friends, and sent to a

labour camp where most likely the deficiencies will be of the scantiest

in spite of what is promised. They do not think that we are not cattle

to be herded wherever it pleases our ill-wishers. They forget, or else it

does not occur to them, that we have the same pride and self-respect

as other Canadians, who can be hurt beyond repair. In short, they do

not consider us as people, but as a nuisance to be rid of at the first

opportunity. What excuse they use is immaterial to them. It just

happens to be very opportune that Japan is now an active enemy.

On Loyalty [February 1942]

The quality of loyalty is difficult to define in exact terms. There is a

oneness with one’s country, just as there is the blood tie with one’ s

mother. There is the fighting urge to defend that country should it be

threatened in any way. There is a passionate, unquestioning,

354 A Japanese-Canadian Perspective

unqualified affinity with the land that excludes the pettiness of a

manmade—and therefore imperfect—government. All this and active

service for the country is loyalty.

Who can glibly say I am a Japanese National of Japan just because I

am of the same race with black hair and yellow skin? Who can

rightfully tell me where my heart lies, if I know better myself? Who

can assume with omniscience that I am disloyal to Canada because I

have not golden hair and blue eyes? What are these surface marks

that must determine the quality of my loyalty? Nothing, nothing at

all!

Yet because I am Canadian, must hate be a requisite for my

patriotism? Must I hate vengefully, spitefully, pettily? Will not hate

cloud my good sense, muddy the clean surge of willing sacrifice, the

impulse to rally strongly to the flag of this country? Hate never fought

as fiercely as love in the fight for one’s country. Hate impedes, while

love strengthens.

Therefore it is not hate for a country one has never known, but love

for this familiar Canadian soil that makes me want to use my bare

fists to uphold its honour, its integrity.

Who is there, unless he does not know the quality of loyalty, who

will question mine?

A Japanese-Canadian Perspective 355