Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

Lubomyr was one of my interlocutors when negotiating the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund and was the more activist of the three so not totally surprising to see this controversy:

The largest library association in the world has pulled an award for a book co-edited by a Royal Military College professor over concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators and war criminals.

In late January, the American Library Association honoured the book, Enemy Archives, edited by Royal Military College professor Lubomyr Luciuk and Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Viatrovych, on its list of the best historical materials for 2022 and 2023.

But the book has been criticized by a Jewish organization and Holocaust scholars who have raised concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators in Ukraine during the Second World War.

The association has now retracted the award and is investigating how the book came to be honoured in the first place.

“We apologize for the harm caused by the work’s initial inclusion on the list,” Jean Hodges, director of communications for the library association, said in a statement.

“The committee will be reviewing the award manual and procedures,” she added.

Luciuk, in an email to this newspaper, noted the library association’s decision was “perplexing” and added that journalists should read the book lest they “misrepresent” it.

Viatrovych did not respond to requests for comment.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which promotes Holocaust education, welcomed the decision by the American Library Association.

“It is very disappointing to see that some are willing to use this moment of great public support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression as an opportunity to re-write Ukrainian history, and specifically to whitewash the involvement of Ukrainian nationals in the commission of genocide against Ukrainian Jewry,” said Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, senior director for policy and advocacy at the center. “This book got a platform it never deserved given the outright misinformation it contains, and we are glad to see this problem being rectified as institutions take a closer look at the book and its dangerous and outrageous claims.”

Enemy Archives: Soviet Counterinsurgency Operations and the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement – Selections from the Secret Police Archives discusses the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists as well as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Some Ukrainians see those who belonged to those organizations as heroes who fought against the Soviets.

Some Holocaust scholars, Jewish organizations, and the Polish government have labelled those individuals as Nazi collaborators who were involved in the murders of up to 100,000 Poles and Jews.

The National Post published an excerpt from Enemy Archives on Feb. 9, 2023, prompting criticism from the news agency, the Jewish News Syndicate, as well as the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Rob Roberts, editor-in-chief of the National Post, told the Jewish News Syndicate at the time that “the excerpt included a paragraph disputing the view that the Second World War era Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists were Nazi collaborators. However, we recognize that this collaboration has been established by prior scholarship.”

Luciuk told JNS that “the so-called ‘Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’ should read the book. They obviously haven’t.”

McGill-Queens University Press, which published the book, stated that Enemy Archives was rigorously examined before being released. “The path of Ukrainian nationalism, and its intersections with Jewish history over the past century, is often challenging and difficult to reconcile, with significant impacts on current political events in the region,” noted Lisa Quinn, executive director of McGill‐Queen’s University Press. “There are inherent yet necessary risks in this area of study, and to participating in the contentious academic and public debates about how to tell these histories to advance understanding of both the past and present.”

Per Anders Rudling, a professor at Lund University in Sweden who has extensively studied the issue of Nazi collaborators, issued a statement about the book, noting “I am frankly surprised McGill Queen’s Press (would) lend itself to this form of memory activism.”

National Defence sent an email noting the views expressed are entirely those of Luciuk and his co-authors and the professor has the right of academic freedom.

Supporters of the book have focused much of their anger on Ukrainian-Jewish writer Lev Golinkin, who they blame for the American Library Association’s decision to pull the award.

Golinkin wrote an April 10 article in the U.S. publication, The Nation, arguing the book was whitewashing Nazi collaborators.

The Council of the Ukrainian Library Association and another related group launched an appeal of the American Library Association’s decision. They claimed Golinkin, who has taken part in protests against Russia, is pushing pro-Russian propaganda.

Viatrovych also shared a social media response in which a Ukrainian pointed out that Golinkin is a Jew and a parasite.

That same account also accused another Ukrainian Jew, who has spoken out about the history of Nazi collaborators, of being a parasite.

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler referred to Jews as parasites to justify their destruction.

Source: Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

British government says controversial statues to stay — with ‘comprehensive’ explanations

More mature approach compared to Canada where the default appears to be take them down.

Explanations are a good approach as the goal should be to educate about the past, warts and all, not suppress it.

One should be able to distinguish between those cases “beyond the pail” (i.e., statues of tyrants and dictators) and those with more mixed records like Sir John A or who were progressive in their time, like Dundas and Ryerson:

The British government said Thursday that contested statues should be kept in place but complemented with a comprehensive explanation, in newly published guidance reacting to a spate of statue removals during anti-racism protests that swept the world in 2020.

What to do about statues of historical figures such as colonialists or slave traders became a divisive issue in Britain after one was toppled by Black Lives Matter protesters in the city of Bristol and others were removed by officials.

Then prime minister Boris Johnson and other ministers denounced this as censorship of history, while activists and some public figures said the glorification of such figures in public spaces had to end.

The culture ministry’s new guidance said custodians of contested statues and monuments should comply with the government’s policy to “retain and explain.”

They should put in place “a comprehensive explanation which provides the whole story of the person or event depicted, so that a fuller understanding of the historic context can be known, understood and debated,” the ministry said.

The guidance, which applies to structures in public spaces but not inside museums, said explanations could include alternative media and creative approaches, not just texts.

It also said that if, after careful deliberation, custodians wanted to relocate a statue, they had to submit a planning application, meaning that the local authority would decide.

“I want all our cultural institutions to resist being driven by any politics or agenda and to use their assets to educate and inform rather than to seek to erase the parts of our history that we are uncomfortable with,” Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer said in a statement.

Divisive debate

Critics of the Conservative government say it has seized on divisive issues to stoke culture wars in the hope of bolstering support from its electoral base at a time of economic hardship when it is trailing the opposition Labour Party in opinion polls.

The Conservatives say they are fighting a far-left agenda that seeks to denigrate Britain and its history.

In one of the defining moments of the Black Lives Matter movement in Britain, protesters tore down a statue of 17th century slave trader and local benefactor Edward Colston and threw it into Bristol harbour in June 2020.

The incident sparked a reckoning with the past in a range of British institutions, and some other monuments were removed in an orderly fashion, including a statue of 18th century slave trader Robert Milligan in London.

However, an attempt to have a statue of the colonialist Cecil Rhodes removed in Oxford failed.

The controversies echoed debates in other countries — notably the United States, where historic statues honouring leaders of Confederate States from the Civil War era have also been contested and removed, and Canada, where statues of individuals connected to colonialism, slavery and residential schools have been vandalized.

Source: British government says controversial statues to stay — with ‘comprehensive’ explanations

No One Ever Made the Case for Reparations Better Than Reagan

And it was under Conservative PM Mulroney that Canada also issued an official apology and payments for Japanese internment in Canada, along with the creation of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation:

Today, as Californians consider a reparations package that could reach $800 billion to pay for the harm the state has done to its African-American population on matters ranging from over-policing to housing discrimination, there’s a pro-reparations argument that needs to be revived. It’s that made by Ronald Reagan 35 years ago.

With California’s Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans getting ready to submit a draft of its report to the state legislature by late June, Reagan’s argument has become more relevant than ever. “For here we right a wrong,” Reagan declared in 1988, as his second term as president was nearing its end. Reagan spoke these words to mark his signing of a bill designed to provide restitution for the World War II internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

At a time when those making the case for reparations are accused of being woke, we forget the heartfelt case for payments combining restitution and reparations that Reagan made without fearing he would lose his credentials as a political conservative.

The decision to remove Japanese Americans from their homes during World War II reflected long standing anti-Asian prejudices. The Roosevelt administration contended that Japanese Americans posed a danger to the country in case of a Japanese attack on America’s West Coast. But there was no comparable treatment of German Americans or Italian Americans despite the United States also being at war with Germany and Italy.

Reagan’s speech is one that few want to recall because of the racism it calls attention to, but the speech is a lesson in how to deal with history we would like to have back. At the speech’s core lies Reagan’s belief that, while we cannot undo the wrongs of the past, we can mitigate their continuing impact.

In his address to the nation in 1988, Reagan managed to apologize for government wrongdoing and argue that his apology left America stronger. “So what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor,” Reagan declared. “We reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.”

The timing of Reagan’s speech is noteworthy. It came decades before the Supreme Court in 2018 explicitly repudiated the Roosevelt-era Supreme Court’s 1944 Korematsu decision sanctioning the wartime internment of Japanese Americans. In words that echo Reagan’s, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. described Korematsu as “morally repugnant” and “gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

Prior to 2018 the strongest legal dissent from the Korematsu decision was the “confession of error” that the Justice Department issued in 2011 when it acknowledged the misleading role the Solicitor General had played in 1944 in defending the internment of Japanese Americans.

Reagan began his 1988 speech by describing the cruelty of the internment that the government was now seeking to redress. He spoke of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry being removed from their homes and placed in makeshift internment camps solely because of their race.

The rush to internment began on February 19, 1942, 73 days after the United States entered World War II when President Franklin Roosevelt issued Order 9066. The order came with so little planning that for a time Japanese-American families were interned in the horse stables at Santa Anita race track. In his address Reagan believed it was important not to sugarcoat the emotional and economic impact of internment.

The redress for Japanese Americans interned during World War II has meant tax-free payments of $20,000 to more than 82,000 claimants as a result of the 1988 act. The total amounts to over $1.6 billion.

Reagan was not put off by the cost of restitution, which in fact falls short of the amount of money lost by the men and women interned in the 1940s when put in current dollars. At the heart of Reagan’s speech was his belief that “no payment can make up for those lost years.”

Thirteen years after Ronald Reagan’s White House speech, the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism During World War II opened in Washington on June 29, 2001. Unlike the memorials on the National Mall, the National Japanese-American Memorial does not immediately draw attention to itself. The memorial sits just north of the Capitol on a small triangle of land at the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and D Street.

The 33,000 square-foot park and plaza that hold the memorial invite contemplation. Designed by Washington, D.C. architect Davis Buckley, the memorial, like Reagan’s speech, makes a point of being direct and elegiac about the injustices it addresses. On one of its walls are the names of the 10 internment camps where Japanese Americans were held during World War II, and at the center of the memorial is a bronze sculpture, “The Golden Cranes,” by Nina Akamu, whose grandfather died in an internment camp. Her sculpture consists of two cranes struggling to break free of the barbed wire that entangles them.

“The burden of righting a historic wrong sanctioned by the government does not simply fall on those responsible for the wrong at the time it was committed.”

Ronald Reagan was not able to attend the opening of the Japanese-American Memorial, but he is present there. Words from his 1988 speech are inscribed on the edge of the memorial pool.

Reagan concluded his speech by recalling the time he attended a 1945 medal ceremony in Orange County, California, at which World War II General Joe Stillwell honored a Japanese-American military hero of the war in Europe with a posthumous Distinguished Service Cross. Reagan’s role at the 1945 medal ceremony, like that of the other celebrities there, was a minor one, but decades later, he saw his presence at the ceremony worth addressing.

In doing so, Reagan was not just personalizing his speech. He was making clear a lesson in continuity that is easy to forget: the burden of righting a historic wrong sanctioned by the government does not simply fall on those responsible for the wrong at the time it was committed. It falls on a state or nation owning up to its past.

Nicolaus Mills is author of Like a Holy Crusade: Mississippi 1964—The Turning of the Civil Rights Movement in America. He is professor of American studies at Sarah Lawrence College.

Source: No One Ever Made the Case for Reparations Better Than Reagan

Luciuk: Ottawa’s National Holocaust Monument must include Ukrainians

The challenge with all monuments and memorials is to respond to the groups that made the demand for a memorial with other groups that were less central to the atrocities and genocide.

In somewhat crass political terms, Ukrainian Canadians deservedly obtained recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide and funding to commemorate WW1 internment of Ukrainian Canadians and some other groups, just as Jewish and other ethnic groups have received recognition of past historical injustices. And it is churlish to criticize other groups and their memorials:

I’m offended.

My mother was a teenager when the Nazis kidnapped her, one of millions of Ukrainians enslaved by Hitler’s legions. Even so, she was lucky. She survived. Millions did not. Another victim, whom I befriended later in life, was Stefan Petelycky. A Ukrainian nationalist, he was interned in the most notorious Nazi concentration camps. He never forgot what the Germans did to him. He couldn’t. His forearm was branded with Auschwitz tattoo #154922.

Certainly, Ukrainians weren’t the Holocaust’s only victims. Millions of Jews died. Millions of Polish Catholics were murdered. And I acknowledge the Russians who ran afoul of Nazi racism, even if I despise the fascism infecting Russia today. Indeed all Slavic peoples were considered untermenschen (subhumans). The Nazis planned to exterminate or deport most of them, leaving only a few to serve as helots, bond servants of the Third Reich’s settler-colonial imperialism. Thankfully, the Nazis were defeated. Millions of Ukrainians died making sure of that.

Does the federal government know this? I doubt it. Within hours of the official unveiling of the National Holocaust Monument on Sept. 17, 2017, featuring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then-minister of Canadian Heritage, Mélanie Joly, a controversy erupted over the dedication plaque. Originally, it stated: “The National Holocaust Monument commemorates the millions of men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust and honours the survivors who persevered and were able to make their way to Canada after one of the darkest chapters in history. This monument recognizes the contributions these survivors have made to Canada and serves as a reminder that we must be vigilant in standing guard against hate, intolerance and discrimination.”

This saccharine inscription was denounced. Now it reads: “The National Holocaust Monument commemorates the six million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.”

Underscoring Nazi Germany’s responsibility for a genocide is essential. Emphasizing the six million Jewish dead is required. But why, despite almost two dozen other plaques, was the suffering of millions of non-Jewish victims largely ignored?

This becomes even less comprehensible as you discover who is remembered. For example, several hundred Afro-Germans are — yet few, if any, ever ended up here. The same is true of other victim groups, such as Roma, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses. At a time when the federal government goes on and on about being inclusive, why were Ukrainian, Russian and Polish victims excluded, seemingly by design? Did someone decide they were the “collaborators” seemingly targeted by the revised text? That would be grossly unfair: far more of them fell fighting fascism as compared to the few who collaborated.

This could be fixed by adding another plaque. There’s room and a precedent for revising; I’ll even pay for it. So why hasn’t it been done? I have asked more than one minister, more than once, over several years. They don’t answer. Federal promises about how all  the victims would be hallowed were nothing but ballyhoo.

As it stands today, the National Holocaust Monument intentionally ignores the suffering of millions of people. It neglects the contributions many Holocaust survivors made to Canada — among them Stefan Petelycky and Maria Luciuk. At a time when Ukrainians are again defending themselves against a genocidal agenda, this deliberate slight is particularly galling. Why is Pablo Rodriguez, the minister responsible, refusing to address this monument’s discriminatory messaging? Why hasn’t he ordered a revision that would transform this site into a truly inclusive place of memory?

There are too many hungry people out there for me to toss tomato soup at this monument; I’ll donate the can to a food bank instead. Likewise, I won’t indulge in criminal vandalism, like those hooligans who spray-paint statues at night. Armed with the courage of my convictions, I protest in daylight, sans balaclava. As for those stoked-up packs tearing up about tearing down statues — doing so neither erases their purportedly unhappy pasts nor does it compensate for present-day failings.

Frankly, we should all be more grateful for the good country we live in. But, should you come across a publicly funded monument perpetuating a prejudice, let’s talk about it. Meanwhile, redoing the National Holocaust Monument shouldn’t be too difficult. After all, it has been done before.

Lubomyr Luciuk is a Fellow of the Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto and a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

Source: Luciuk: Ottawa’s National Holocaust Monument must include Ukrainians

Elghawaby: How celebrating our histories are a form of resistance

Sometimes, these are forms of resistance, sometimes more forms of recognition and celebration. As most of these are now part of government programs or sponsored partly by governments, business and others (arguably co-opted), I doubt that all of the participants in the various events view them from a resistance perspective.

Certainly that was not my experience when I routinely attend these events when running the multiculturalism program a number of years ago.

Events involve others outside the particular community improve awareness and understanding of community specific heritage and issues across a broader range of Canadians compared to those that do not:

There may come a time when celebrating Islamic Heritage Month, Latin American Heritage Month, or Women’s History Month, will seem quaint and unnecessary. Yet, marking these three commemorations this month, and countless other similar occasions throughout the calendar year, are in fact acts of resistance and defiance.

As American academic Jessica M. Parr noted last year in the digital magazine Public Books “ [ …] the choices a society makes in terms of how and what it chooses to remember and acknowledge of its past beg important questions: What do the choices say about a society’s identity and values? What do they imply about who belongs within that society, and whose experiences matter?”

Oftentimes, it takes visionaries to persist in telling stories that are undervalued, silenced, or simply forgotten. 

Take Afua Cooper, a multidisciplinary artist and scholar at the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at Dalhousie University. She had to fight to study Canadian Black history when she first started work on her PhD over two decades ago. Cooper would eventually be vindicated.

“I persevered and I didn’t listen to [those who told me not to study this area],” she told me by phone earlier this month. We spoke days before she would be accepting an honorary doctorate from Simon Fraser University and just weeks after receiving the J.B. Tyrrell Historical Medal from the Royal Society of Canada, the highest honour available in the field. Her work has been instrumental in advancing Black Canadian studies and which preceded an eventual “explosion in Black history and Black studies as a whole.”

Cooper, who is also a dub and spoken word artist, has previously served as poet laureate of Halifax Regional Municipality for the 2018-2020 term. Her career draws from intersectional identities and is informed by her varied histories. 

“We have to take oral cultures as seriously as we take scribal cultures, the written cultures,” she explained to me. “That resonated with me as a Muslim because the early culture of spoken word was so important to the early history of the Arabs and of the first Muslims [ …] having this oratory among the diverse African nations and communities was so important.”

It isn’t enough for people like Cooper to do the work to bring recognition to the histories that underpin our societies, even as they are too often skipped in history textbooks. There is a heavy responsibility on many of us to create space in our workplaces, schools, universities, associations, to mark these histories and join communities in interrogating the historic experiences and contributions made. The burden shouldn’t solely depend on communities’ themselves to take the opportunity that special government designations offer, but on fellow colleagues, supervisors and leaders to encourage collective sharing and learning.

Furthermore, encouraging communities to bring positive light to their presence helps to dispel dangerous stereotypes and encourage robust civic engagement. Among the key activities at the Toronto-based Hispanic Canadian Heritage Council is an eight-week School4Civic program, which encourages greater participation in our democratic institutions.

This month also marks the 30th anniversary of Women’s History Month, with Person’s Day falling on Oct. 18. The month’s theme, “She Did, So Now I Can,” is an apt nod to those who break barriers to defy expectations, serving as inspiration to those coming afterwards.

And earlier this fall, the House of Commons voted unanimously to designate November as Hindu Heritage Month. Each designation, each recognition affords all of us the chance to resist harmful and divisive narratives that risk fraying a social fabric that requires constant effort to hold together.

So ask yourself: how are you marking these special months? How are you advancing your learning about the struggles and triumphs experienced by those with whom you share space?

Don’t let your answers disappoint.

Source: How celebrating our histories are a form of resistance

Lord: We should use Canada’s fallen statues to start a public conversation about our history

Agree. We need to understand history and context, rather than simply ignoring history and the forces behind previous values and those behind change. Always have preferred updating or new historical plaques to that end, rather than simply ignoring the complexities of the day:

At the University of Ghana, the administration in 2018 removed the statue of famed Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi in response to a petition that claimed he was racist.

In 2020, during anti-racism protests in Bristol, a slave trader’s statue was torn down and thrown into the harbour.

Mexico City confirmed last fall that a figure of an Indigenous woman will replace the capital’s Christopher Columbus monument.

Ideas about history are constantly in flux. In recent years, people everywhere have been critically rethinking representations of the past from a perspective of social justice and anti-colonialism. And as part of this collective reflection, communities, cities and countries are reassessing what, how and who they publicly honour and celebrate with the statues featured in their public spaces.

Canada is no exception: Last year, anger at the deaths of Indigenous children at residential schools led crowds in Winnipeg to topple a Queen Victoria statue and another of Queen Elizabeth II.

Earlier this year, Ryerson University was renamed Toronto Metropolitan University after years of advocacy, consultation and committee work, as well as protests that defaced and toppled his statue, ultimately throwing it into Toronto Harbour. (Ryerson, a supporter of public education, was a high-profile advocate of the residential-school policy, which separated more than 150,000 Indigenous children from their families – producing suffering for generations.)

But what happens next to these statues of fallen historical figures is a logistical, financial and educational question that cities and communities are struggling with. In New Orleans, four Confederate monuments have now been in storage for more than a year after they were taken down. Similarly, Baltimore keeps four monuments in a secret location while a city task force decides what to do with them.

But for Canada, this question of what cities should do with statues they no longer want represents a unique opportunity to lead in the creation of a new type of public institution – one that offers both a practical solution and addresses the complexity of our changing understanding of the past and its impact on the present.

This describes neither a museum nor a warehouse, but a proposal that I call an “aware-house.” Such a space would display fallen statues to build understanding about historical processes, including how and why they were first erected and how they came to be removed. Appreciating its potential positive impact as both a learning and healing experience requires looking at the current discourse on this issue.

Once a statue is taken down, whether by crowds or by design, what happens next isn’t clear. Storage is expensive, and once a figure ends up there, it’s unlikely to be brought back up again – removing the opportunity to have that educational conversation or use the moment to foster public engagement.

“Just send them to a museum” is a common misconception in this discussion. The mission of museums is not to be the attic for the nation’s unwanted items. Other alternatives, such as the case made by sociology professor Gary Younge to stop creating any monuments featuring historical figures, could be a go-forward option, but it doesn’t address what to physically do with those that are removed.

Countries such as Russia and the former Yugoslavia created “gardens of fallen statues,” but these are limited in their scope serving primarily as places of nostalgia rather than education or community healing.

The aware-house, meanwhile, would create a public place that starts with the recognition that history is a living discipline. Imagine a towering space, such as an aircraft hangar, filled with monuments and statues from our past. The foundation of the conversation they are driving starts with the framework that history and norms are ever changing, and then looks to explore what it means with perspectives from across sectors, backgrounds and life experiences. A swipe of a QR code empowers users to engage in a multimedia and immersive metaverse experience.

Equally important, the process of designing the aware-house is part of the healing journey of wronged communities and involves engaging new and diverse stakeholders in discussions, not only with historians of different viewpoints, but sociologists, poets, artists, psychologists and policy makers. Exhibitions on different themes could be shared around the country and adapted to local stories as needed to continue dialogue around the issues that these statues surface – including their long-term impact on public and social problems today.

Just as Canada in 2014 established the CMHR, the world’s first national museum dedicated to human rights, we could now lead the way on a new global chapter: pro-actively addressing the interplay between legacy racism, sexism, colonial exploitation and contemporary institutional and systemic challenges.

And as the country reflects on Pope Francis’s recent apology tour, it’s the perfect time to launch an aware-house – which, by curating and contextualizing removed relics to create genuine awareness and understanding for the future, could become an anchor component of our national reconciliation efforts.

Gail Lord is a museum planner and the president and co-founder of Lord Cultural Resources. She was the consultant for the establishment of both the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) and the National (Smithsonian) African American Museum of History and Culture.

Source: We should use Canada’s fallen statues to start a public conversation about our history

B.C. commits $100 million to Japanese Canadians in recognition of incarcerations

Of note:
B.C. is giving $100 million in funding to address the historical wrongs it caused when it helped to incarcerate thousands of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

The announcement comes on the 80th anniversary of the first arrivals of Japanese Canadians to the Greenwood, Kaslo, New Denver, Slocan City and Sandon camps in 1942.

Premier John Horgan says funds will go toward providing updated health programs for survivors, the creation and restoration of heritage sites and updating the provincial curriculum to include what he calls a “terrible chapter” in B.C.’s history.

Horgan says the recognition is “long overdue” and the funding symbolizes “turning a page” in how Japanese Canadians have been treated by past governments.

The province says in a statement that this builds on a 2012 apology by the B.C. legislature and responds to a redress proposal advanced in 2021 by the National Association of Japanese Canadians.

B.C. also gave $2 million to the Nikkei Seniors Health Care and Housing Society last May as a first step toward fulfilling a promise to recognize the incarceration of almost 22,000 people.

“This endowment will not change the past, but it will ensure that generations that are with us still, and those that come after, will have the opportunity to see something positive coming out of what was clearly a very, very dark period in our collective histories,” Horgan said at a Saturday news conference.

Source: B.C. commits $100 million to Japanese Canadians in recognition of incarcerations

Canada forced these Japanese Canadians into internment camps. Now they’re at the same nursing home

Good reminder of our history and the lasting memories:

Leaning forward in her wheelchair to look over a massive photo album, Sue Kai delves into memories from decades ago. Kai, 96, and her son, Brian, pore over snapshots of her past, some dating back to the moment her life was irrevocably changed.

Kai was 16 years old, and living with her family in the downtown Vancouver home her father built with his own two hands, when it happened.

“One Sunday everybody is going crazy: ‘Bomb bomb bomb bomb,'” said Kai. “I said, what’s a ‘bomb bomb bomb bomb?’ Then they said ‘Pearl Harbor.'”

Source: Canada forced these Japanese Canadians into internment camps. Now they’re at the same nursing home

Ukrainian Canadians fight to save a forgotten cemetery in Quebec’s Abitibi region

Spirit Lake was one of the examples cited by Ukrainian Canadians during endowment fund negotiations over the World War I Internment Fund in 2008-9:

Beyond the crops, tucked deep in a boggy forest on a farmer’s land in the Abitibi region of Quebec, you’ll find the remnants of a cemetery, a few crosses still visible between the trees.

More than 100 years ago, at least 16 detainees from the nearby Spirit Lake internment camp were buried here.

But there’s no commemorative plaque or historical protection for the land that is slowly being swallowed up by forest.

Source: Ukrainian Canadians fight to save a forgotten cemetery in Quebec’s Abitibi region

Federal officials rethink wording of markers at gravesites of past prime ministers

Don’t envy those responsible for reviewing the wording and developing new wording that provides a more balanced view of “the good, the bad and the ugly” of previous PMs (or other historical figures), as well as the historical context that shaped their actions:

It was in late January that vandals so badly scratched out the face of Mackenzie King on an awareness panel by the former prime minister’s final resting place in Toronto that a federal agency decided the panel had to be replaced.

For more than two decades, the commemorative panel didn’t receive a revamp, just like others at prime ministerial gravesites overseen by federal officials.

Those officials, however, are rethinking what the panels should say and reflect how the country views its past, specifically in light of historical mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples.

Inevitably, experts say, that will cause tension about how to mark these sites.

The plaques are among a suite of issues that Parks Canada and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada have to deal with in the coming years at the 16 gravesites, the details of which are outlined in inspection reports released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The program first launched in 1999, hoping to prevent the final resting spots of prime ministers from becoming irreparably damaged.

All but one of the graves are in Canada — R.B. Bennett is buried at a church in Mickelham, U.K., a town of 600 people about a one-hour train ride southwest of London. His sarcophagus needs repairs to cracks and breaks, not to mention a good cleaning of moss.

Over its more than 20 years of existence, the program has spent about $1 million on inspections, repairs, commemorative plaques and flagpoles at gravesites. Annual spending is based on yearly needs, and Parks Canada said it anticipates average annual expenses to increase slightly over the next five years.

Some of that has to do with the addition last year of John Turner’s gravesite in Toronto. The documents say an awareness panel was supposed to be installed this fall; Parks Canada would only say that “planning continues” for a commemoration ceremony.

New panels are set to be installed at each remaining gravesite that would identify the former prime minister’s time in office, and the reasons that they, and the graves, carry national historic significance.

Cecilia Morgan, a social and cultural historian from the University of Toronto, said the usual tension that surrounds commemorations can be exacerbated when the focus is on a historical figure who has taken on a larger symbolism in the public’s mind, and whose actions or achievements are thrown under a more critical light.

“Commemoration is so often contested,” said Morgan, who studies the history of commemoration in Canada.

“What I see often is the kind of deep emotional attachment that people have, to their sense of the past and to the symbols that we create of that past that is often solidified in those particular individuals or organizations.”

Parks Canada in an email said wording on the revamped plaques would “recognize the enormous shifts in historical understanding” and “reflect on the past in the context of the present.”

Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, chair of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in Winnipeg, said a diverse panel should debate wording on the plaques to mark a prime minister’s contributions to the country’s history, both positive and negative.

She pointed to Sir John A. Macdonald as an example: He made a contribution as the country’s first prime minister, but was also an author of the government-funded, church-run residential school system where Indigenous children were torn from their families and subjected to widespread sexual, emotional and physical abuse.

Any wording, she said, should make everyone a guardian and witness to these realities and work to ensure the negatives never happen again.

“It will not be easy. It will be very uncomfortable,” said Wesley-Esquimaux, who is also Chair for Truth and Reconciliation at Lakehead University.

“But I think you cannot get to reconciliation, or better relations, without having that conversation and without acknowledging the kinds of things that have happened because people … made decisions that had a very tragic impact.”

Aside from the plaques, the gravesite inspection reports also flag issues with rust from metal ties seeping through stones at multiple graves, and writing on markers disappearing at others because of the elements and years of problematic maintenance.

The biggest work order appears at the final resting place of Pierre Trudeau.

The grey stone, concrete and brick mausoleum has taken a beating from increasing freeze-thaw cycles during winter months, as well as stronger and heavier rainfalls becoming more frequent, which federal inspectors chalked up to climate change.

The sheet metal roof and flashing are well past their lifespan and can’t stop water from seeping in, requiring a complete replacement. Parts of the outer wall need to be carefully dismantled to repair water damage, including one load-bearing wall at the crypt of the former prime minister.

The 2020 inspection report calls for work to start no later than this fall. Parks Canada said it is developing a work plan that includes “detailed investigations (that) are ongoing with planning and design work to follow.”

Parks Canada said more severe weather related to climate change has had an impact on gravestones, sarcophagi and mausoleums it oversees. The agency added that it has increased the frequency of inspections hoping to better “recognize and mitigate damage or deterioration caused by climate change and a variety of other factors.”

Source: Federal officials rethink wording of markers at gravesites of past prime ministers