News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 958     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.5K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 620     0 

Remembrance Day ~ Lest We Forget

Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

The Canada of 1914-1918 is, of course, not the Canada of today. Canadians were British subjects then, and fought for England. Canadians did not have Canadian passports; they had British passports. Canada was an adjunct to Britian, before and after that war.
Click to expand...

Exactly. On one hand, people praise Canada's multiculturalism, but then on the other criticize the diminishing recognition of its British past. We can't have it both ways.
 
Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

The huge Canadian military loss of life during WWI - for a country with such a small population - was real, widely felt at home because it affected so many families, and neither mythic ( a product of the imagination ) nor composed of "romantic" deaths: the mechanized horrors of that war shattered whatever romantic notions of warfare may have existed in the public imagination. The fact that Canadian troops were British subjects doesn't negate the impact those losses had on the evolution of Canadian identity at home and abroad. Remembrance Day, and the proposed state funeral for the last surviving WWI soldier, serve a symbolic purpose in ensuring that we "never forget" and do not negate critical understanding of the causes of wars.
 
Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

Yes, there was a huge Canadian loss during a war (65,000 men) which produced a huge number of casualties. They greatest proportion of Canadians who were killed were actually from Newfoundland, which was still part of Great Britain. Australia lost over 55,000 men as well. France lost about a quarter of all males between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. These are just a few examples of the war deaths that were produced during this time.

While recognizing the huge numbers of deaths, this should not be a numbers game. One should have a clear understanding of why those people died. I am saying that this war offers no clear picture for its origins, and as a result, it has become confused with the Second World War. The most simple image for the First World War is of a battle between colonial powers grappling for control over what they perceive to be as international assets that they have a right to.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, this is not to reduce in any way the people who fought in this war, or the sacrifices that they made. They did what was asked of them at that time. For that alone they deserve respect.

What I do take exception to is the notion that a Canadian identity was forged during the First World War. Canadians knew they were fighting for Britain, and did not go to Europe to forge a defining quality of Canada. On the battlefield they fought to stay alive by killing their enemy.

As I have said, I have no issue with commemoration, but not understanding why a war happened is a form of forgetting.
 
Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

But will we commemerate the legacy of this war in terms of the damage it did? Do we remember the huge number of civilian deaths? Do we recall the abuse of colonial power in dragging unrelated nations into a conflict that revolved around their control? Do we recognize that the political failings of the First World War contributed directly to the Second World War? Do we even recall that when soldiers returned home from that war, many found poor treatment and unemployment?
Click to expand...
I'd state that it's imparitive that any act of Remembrance recognises all these factors. There is no glory in war; it has no real upsides. We must all remember the damage it inflicts on everything it touches and why we must all work to prevent war from occurring.

Can Remembrance not also include the loss of life from those colonies who were dragged in to the war whose relatives and decendants are Canadians today?
 
Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

No sensible person could confuse a war with apparently "no clear picture for its origins" such as WWI, with a war with a very clear purpose - the defeat of fascism - such as WWII.

Wars do not follow predictable, linear trajectories in the effect that they have on national attitudes and identity. Canadians may indeed have gone overseas to "fight for Britain" in 1914, but that didn't guarantee that they came home in 1918 with the same attitudes or sense of identity. The returning British troops swiftly learned this, as the "Land fit for heroes" that they returned to let them down terribly. The effect of the "numbers game" of Canadian demographic losses is surely not to be discounted as having an effect on our identity.
 
Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet wins

with a war with a very clear purpose - the defeat of fascism - such as WWII.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, while the defeat of fascism was certainly a laudable end result of the Second World War, I don't think that was the reason why most countries entered it. The British Government was willing to appease the Germans until the invasion of Poland (though there was considerable internal opposition to this policy). The US entered the war two years later, after Pearl Harbour (which was likely triggered by compteting Japanese and American Imperialism in the Pacific).

Though I am sure many people went overseas to fight because the Fascists were a clear menace. Though I doubt that the defeat of fascism was the original purpose of WWII. Generally the cause of wars are complex.

However, I will not distinguish casulties whether it is a "just" or "questionable" war. A death is a death, each one a sorrow.
 
>Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war vet

Fighting to make the world safe for fascism has always struck me as a less glorious death than fighting to rid the world of fascism.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

I'm not a professional historian, but it's been my understanding since high school that Canada's role in WWI, particularly at Vimy, has been recognized as one of (not the only, of course) major steps toward Canada's emergence as a mature nation, loosened from the British apron strings. Canadian troops were recognized as having achieved things that the British and French had not. At the end of the war Canada had the leverage to be represented in its own right at the peace conference that drew up the Treaty of Versailles, and Canada got its own seat at the League of Nations. Things like this might well not have happened before the war, when Canada was seen as part of the "British Empire".

I'm pleased that the family of the last veteran will be offered a state funeral and I hope the gesture will be accepted. It's meant as a tribute to all of the veterans, not just one man. I hope it will be watched live in schools if it takes place on a school day.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

With respect to offering a state funeral to the family of the last veteran to die, lets remember that the last veteran to see combat has already passed away some time ago.

Linking the performance of soldiers at Vimy with the emergence of Canada as a mature nation demands explanation. Loosened from British apron strings? Highly evocative imagery, but at the top the commanders were British. Canadian troops followed orders, they did not go off and do their own thing.

At the end of the war, pretty much everyone showed up at the peace conference in 1919. It was a benefit to Britain to have a country under its sphere of influence show up in order to bolster British ends at that conference. Everyone wanted a piece of the action in carving up the post-war world at that time. The British had to face their long time European competitors, the French, and both those nations had to face that recent upstart, the Americans. Let's not overplay Canada's independence here, or its place on the world stage at that time. We want to feel good about our country, but let's not do so by substituting actual events with wishful thinking.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

"Following orders" has little to do with how the world actually works: Canadian troops were part of a command system controlled by the British but doesn't preclude there being a distinctly Canadian experience of the war that changed the country's sense of identity. As I pointed out earlier, Canadians may have joined up in 1914 as soldiers of the king but wars are unpredictable, soldiers are changed by those experiences, and things aren't linear. That something is officially "supposed" to be a certain way is no guarantor that it will be that way. "Actual events" aren't just the things, such as the peace conference, that are written about in the official histories, they exist between the cracks. The evolution of the Canadian identity is not an officially sanctioned, controlled, top-down process.

This reminds me of our 'Toronto Style' architectural debate: those who believe that a unique identity inevitably results from communities creative people who produce or do something that expresses their values, versus those who believe that it can only exist in relation to what other people are doing.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

I think you might be mixing many things together here. Following orders, how the world works (and the questions about what would be included in that "world," and what one would mean by "works"), personal experiences and historical assessments on what those things mean, are not linear or objective. To proclaim that Canada became a nation on the basis of such events is just that, a claim. These things are defined after the fact. In this case, many years after the fact (the fact being the war itself). In other words, it is not a product of the war, not a product generated immediately after the war, not a product of consensus of the soldiers involved; but a product of historical selection by some historians a long time after the conclusion of that war.

Babel, you have suggested in a general way that Candian "troops" were part of the command system "controlled" by the British. But as I pointed out, and you echoed, it was British command. Canadians did not bridle at this thought because they were not making distinctions between who they were fighting with: the British. Historically speaking, there is nothing wrong with that. That is what they went to do, that is what they did, and by many historical accounts, what some did very well.

But as for a unique "Canadian" experience, again, this is a subjective assessment. One can presume that there were unique French experiences, British experiences, German experiences, Australian, Austrian, Turkish and Russian experiences of the war as well (to name just a few). Within this narrow national definition of experiences are the even more varied personal experiences of the war, what went on and what it meant. To somehow conclude that all Canadians went to war with the same ideas in mind, and came home with the same "nation-building" experience is an excessive conclusion. It is not born out by the facts, either, as the nationalist conclusions are a much more recent artifact.

Take one example: there are often significant differences of opinion about the war between those who volunteered to go to war and those who were drafted. On the basis of that contentious issue, you can actually find historians who suggest that opposition to the war and the draft in Canada was a greater stake to forging Canadian independence from Britain than going off to war to fight for Britain. Many of those who did not want to get drafted saw the war as a colonial conflict that they had nothing to do with. At that time these would have been considered the sentiments of traitors, not a declaration of independence. This feeling would have been due to the fact that Canadians who supported the war knew that they were fighting for Britain (or British causes, ideals, and so on, ideals and beliefs that they shared), and concluded the war with the same ideas pretty much intact.

The idea that Canada, or an independent Canadian nation, was forged during the First World War is not a fact of history, but a matter of how people choose to look back at that war long after its conclusion. It is a subjective assessment that is the result of compiling a limited set of events, and concluding with one broad declaration about what those events might mean.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

Bizorky: I didn't realize the depth of the discussion I was provoking with my earlier comment! Thanks for your comments; I don't find much to disagree with.

I wasn't suggesting that Canada suddenly became a mature nation because of WWI, but I think it's indisputable that the war experience was a large contributing factor. Other things may have included evolving ideas of society generally during the 1920s, a time of significant social change and the questioning of "accepted" ideas (maybe an earlier version of the late 60s). Canada's economy became less entwined with that of Britain and more aligned with the U.S, as industrialization proceeded. Even the arts played a role (Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven definitively broke with old "accepted" British and Eurpoean styles and established a distinctively Canadian style of visual art, starting in this same time frame of WWI and the immediately following years).

Of course other countries took their own experiences from WWI, for better or worse. Very radical changes took place as a result of this war in Germany and Russia, in particular. Old orders were completely overthrown. Our experience was more gradual and peaceful. And historical claims are indeed defined "after the fact", as you suggest. The nature of historical events is that their significance is often not seen until years later.

I haven't got citations readily at hand but I'm sure I could find several, from respected historians, indicating that WWI was a significant milestone in the evolution of Canada's identity as a truly independent country. Prior to that time, most in Canada (English-speaking Canada at least) would have seen little or no divergence between our interests and sentiments, and those of Britain. I don't think it was even seriously questioned. Of course that didn't change overnight, but it did change.
 
Re: >Re: DOMINION INSTITUTE --State funeral for last war

Observer Walt: I agree with you when you point out that a large number of developments that begin to define Canada emerged in the early twentieth century. You have picked out a few examples that are often paid little attention to, such as in the arts. The fact that such developments fell into the general time frame as the First World War, however, does not always indicate a direct correlation. The 1920's were incredibly rich with respect to the arts and ideas. Interestingly, some movements took hold due to the shattering effects of the First World War, and the idea that concepts of progress which had emerged before the war had been completely undermined by the destructive results of that conflict.

As for historians, you can site Jack Granatstein as one supporter for the idea that Canada began its emergence as a modern nation on the battlefields of the First World War. He is quite vocal about this notion, and I have had the opportunity to talk to him about it. Obviously we had very different points of view, as his focus is on military history. As I pointed out earlier, within this spirited acedemic debate are those historians who don't take such a positive view of the results of the First World War and Canada. Some have suggested that Canada would have asserted more independence if it had chosen to stay away from the war. However, the overwhelming links between Canada and Britain made such a stance unlikely.

The outcomes of the First World War affected a huge number of countries. If you are interested, Margaret MacMillan's book "1919" provides a brief description of how the conclusion of that war altered the map and the politics of the planet, and even began setting the stage for the Second World War. And when I say "brief," I mean it in a relative manner; the book runs over 500 pages in length.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top