White poppies for peace

By James Clark Features and Opinion Editor 

November 2008 Issue

The red poppy is the most recognized symbol of Remembrance Day in Canada. Every year in early November, millions of Canadians pin a red plastic poppy to the lapels of their jackets and coats, showing their support for those who died in wars past. The practice exists in other parts of the British Commonwealth, including Britain, where it originated.

Many Canadians are familiar with the poem “In Flanders Fields” by John McRae, a Canadian physician and Lieutenant Colonel who wrote it in 1915. Perhaps the most famous verse ever written about the First World War, the poem makes reference to the poppies that grow in Flanders Fields where thousands of soldiers killed in battle were buried. The red poppy quickly became a symbol of their deaths.

Shortly after World War I, the Royal British Legion was founded, consolidating a number of veterans’ organizations into one central body. One of their first campaigns was the Poppy Appeal, a national initiative that put veterans to work making artificial poppies in exchange for donations from members of the public who, still to this day, wear the poppies in the lead-up to Remembrance Day. The Appeal is Britain’s largest and most well known charity, raising funds for veterans and their families in order to advocate on their behalf.

Despite the Appeal’s success, not everyone has embraced the red poppy. Not long after the campaign began, it was quickly co-opted by political and military leaders to generate support for war, much in the same way that Remembrance Day has. In the wake of World War I – the “war to end all wars” – many people resisted further drives to militarism, and attempted to cultivate equally powerful symbols for peace.

In 1926, the No More War Movement, which had emerged from the anti-conscription movement in Britain, attempted to convince the British Legion to replace the words “Haig Fund” that appear at the centre of its plastic poppies with the words “No more war”. The movement was ultimately unsuccessful, which gave way to the idea that the peace movement should produce its own version of the poppy.

By 1933, the Women’s Co-operative Guild picked up the idea, and produced the first-ever white poppies to be worn during Armistice Day, later to be renamed Remembrance Day. A year later, the Guild won support from the newly-founded Peace Pledge Union, which eventually took over the distribution of white poppies, an initiative it has continued in the years since.

The purpose of the white poppy is to remember all victims of war, soldiers and civilians both. It is also meant to promote a culture of peace, advocating for non-military means to solve conflicts. The Peace Pledge Union has placed wreaths of white poppies every year since 1937, in an effort to prevent the further expansion of war.

Like the red poppy, the white poppy has sometimes provoked controversy among veterans and their supporters who perceive it as a snub, or even as a symbol of disrespect. However, the original creators of the white poppy had no desire to offend those who had served; they merely sought to expand the scope of remembrance, and to counter its militarization.

Today, the white poppy has gained in popularity, and has become more widespread – and for the same reasons it was launched in the first place: to resist the glorification and celebration of war.

As public opposition grows to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, Canadian political leaders will likely exploit Remembrance Day ceremonies to drum up support for the war. The outcome, however, is usually the opposite of what’s intended. More people are wearing white poppies, as an act of remembrance and resistance. And in doing so, those who oppose this war, or wars in general, will continue a tradition that is almost as old as the red poppy itself.

Technology is not our saviour

By: Melissa Fong

November 2008 Issue

All too often technology is seen as the great democratic liberation of the voice for the Left. It is not seen for what it truly is: a tool, and nothing more than a tool.

During rabble.ca’s Media Democracy Day, I was disappointed in the technology-heavy presentations that, in some cases, spent more time selling tech-savvy devices than discussing how we can use them. I am in no way saying that technology has not done amazing things for progressive movements, especially in developing an unheard voice, but we should be wary of merely celebrating the successes of technology for two important reasons.

First, the technology revolution has contributed to mass consumerism, and there is no greater price gouge than consumer electronics. Second, and more importantly, relying on the digital age to disseminate information will only increase our silencing. The digital age has made it too easy to filter information.

Who really reads the newspaper or even watches the television anymore? No, computers have made the printing press and the boob tube irrelevant. Now we use RSS feeds and filter in news feeds to our email. We decide what we want to filter in terms of televised programs and find what we want on YouTube. We can’t even be bothered to listen to the radio anymore when Napster and the iPod revolutionized the way we manage and consume music.

All this is to say that we carefully filter information that we receive because we cannot be bothered to see or hear anything that we do not want taking up our valuable time. This is all well and good, but what happens when progressives only hear stories from the Left? And what happens when the conservative Right only hears stories from the conservative Right? When we filter information, we exaggerate the differences we already have.

Similarly, the Left needs to challenge itself by exposing itself to ideas that are counterintuitive to progressive values. We must continually understand what is going on in other people’s minds, not just reinforce what our community probably already knows.

Reading an Ayn Rand book is a great way to see a pro-capitalist worldview, and to test your own ability to develop your own argument for why anti-capitalism is a more socially-just orientation. It is a good test of your knowledge and a great way to understand why some people, so different from you, may believe what they believe.

We also have a responsibility to engage with people who do not share the same worldview as ours. We have the responsibility to understand who they are and why they believe what they do. It is only through building relationships and finding people unlike us that we can communicate and have a real dialogue that fosters understanding and inter-subjectivity.

If progressives do not understand the other side of the argument, our words will enter one ear and exit the other. The Left must have the interpersonal skills to develop arguments that resonate with a greater public that are not necessarily already “converted.”

The digital age is a great way to send information to people who are interested and looking for that information. Technology, however, is a terrible way to increase exposure to people who are not looking for it, or would not consider looking for it. These are the people the Left has to reach.

In short, technology is a great bonding tool for people within the network to build internal solidarity and keep people up to date. However, it is a terrible replacement for bridging exercises that will actually reach the people whom the Left wants to radicalize and recruit. We should not be too proud to be radicals disseminating radical information to the same radical people. We should be trying to radicalize and bridging our message to the broader public.

Will Bob Rae neglect Ryerson to become Prime Minister?

By Nikki Gil

November 2008 Issue

Despite the Liberal party’s defeat in the 2008 federal election, Bob Rae celebrated another victory as he was re-elected the Member of Parliament for Toronto-Centre and the Ryerson community.

The Liberal party, on the other hand, won the lowest levels of support since Confederation, and Stéphane Dion took the heat. Immediately following the election, Dion was faced with the decision to step down as party leader right away, or after the leadership convention in May 2009.

Dion wants a smooth transition between party leaders, so he decided to step down as leader after the leadership convention where a new one will be chosen.

Rae is a front-runner to replace Dion as Liberal party leader. Rae ran against Dion for the position in the 2006 leadership convention, but came in third place. Second place was Rae’s lifelong friend and rival, Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff and Rae were roommates while attending the University of Toronto. They have made an informal non-aggression pact in a bid to avoid turning the upcoming contest for the party leadership into a showdown. Rae stated that an understanding has been reached that the race must be civil and respectful.

Rae’s focus is already turning to the contest for the Liberal leadership, and it may worry students that he won’t continue to pay attention to the members of the Ryerson community.

Rae has stated that he wants to make the Toronto-Centre riding a centre for innovation and change when it comes to sustainability, an issue that is very important around campus. He has also mentioned that he wants to focus on issues surrounding public transit and, most importantly, student debt.

With his focus set on the leadership race, Rae could end up ignoring these issues in his quest to become Canada’s next Prime Minister.

Rae has held the position in the Toronto-Centre riding since 2007 when former Member of Parliament Bill Graham retired. Rae fought for the Liberal nomination against Meredith Cartwright, a local human rights activist. It hasn’t been two years but Rae is already trying to move onto bigger and better things. He has yet to make an imprint in his current riding, and in the Ryerson community.

Even when Rae mentions his riding, he talks about the diversity and the income levels between those who live in condominiums in the financial district and those who live in Regent Park. He focuses on the importance of the people in the downtown core and their concerns, but he doesn’t mention the 24,000 full-time students of the community that attend Ryerson University. He does, however, mention that his riding includes the east end of the University of Toronto campus, as if it deserves greater importance because he is an alumni.

Even his acebook friends include 232 people from the University of Toronto network compared to 43 people from the Ryerson network. There are seven other universities where he has more facebook friends than Ryerson, including York, Queen’s, and McGill.

His official website provides a link for “Bob on the issues” which is not available. He has been re-elected, but what will he be doing? Why does he deserve this position? He could choose to answer these questions by visiting campus, talking to the students, and advocating for issues that affect the Ryerson community positively.  Or he could set his sights on becoming the next leader of the Liberal party. It remains to be seen if he can do both.

Why Canada should get out of Afghanistan

By James Clark Features and Opinion Editor

November 2008 Issue

The month of October marked the seven-year anniversary of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, a conflict that has lasted longer than World War II. And from the beginning, Canada has been a part of it. 

In the immediate wake of 9/11, then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien committed Canadian troops to what would soon be called the “war on terror.”

By December 2001, 40 members of Canada’s Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) had been deployed to Afghanistan, followed by several hundred regular forces by January 2002. 

At the time, Canadian troops backed up the US-led Operation Anaconda, the first time Canadians had engaged in combat since the Korean War.

In 2003, Canada took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), participating in Operation Athena just outside Kabul. 

By spring 2005, the Canadian government had agreed to deploy troops to the southern province of Kandahar where they would engage in counter-insurgency operations. In February 2006, Canadian military leaders accepted command of forces in southern Afghanistan from the US.

Since then, Canadian troops have been engaged in a series of battles with the Taliban and other resistance forces in the south, gaining ground, and then losing it later.

At the time of press, nearly 100 Canadian troops have been killed in Afghanistan: 97 soldiers, one diplomat, two contactors, and two aid workers. This is the highest death toll of Canadians in any battle since the Korean War.

The growing death toll and the increasing wariness of the Canadian public about the mission’s potential for success have undermined support for the war. 

As a result, federal government leaders have been anxious to drum up support for the mission, offering a variety of explanations for Canada’s involvement, depending on the audience.

While led by the Liberals, the federal government initially claimed that Canada was in Afghanistan to defend Canada’s national interests, to show Canadian leadership on the world stage, and to help rebuild Afghanistan. 

Since then, other government leaders, including members of the current Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have given other reasons: to support our US allies, to fight terrorism, to avenge the deaths of Canadians killed in 9/11, to spread democracy, to support women’s rights, and so on.

After seven years of war, however, Canadians are less easily convinced that these are sufficient reasons to be in Afghanistan, or that they bear any truth whatsoever. A series of high-profile scandals in Afghanistan in which Canadians have been implicated has further eroded support. 

The most infamous case involves Canadian soldiers who knowingly transferred Afghan detainees to torture under the command of the Afghan National Police. 

The public has also learned of the widespread involvement of Canada’s oil, gas, and energy industries in securing access to natural resources in Central Asia, leading some observers to describe the mission as “just another war for oil.” 

The construction of oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean has been a pre-occupation of the US state department since the Carter administration.

In addition, numerous studies and reports from organizations all over the political spectrum have come to similar conclusions about the state of Afghanistan today: it is worse off than it was in 2001. 

Fewer Afghans have access to clean water and electricity. Poverty and unemployment are more widespread, literacy rates continue to drop. Afghan women have less security than they did under the Taliban despite what freedoms they are formally guaranteed by the Afghan constitution. 

The central government is dominated by warlords and drug lords who continue to commit human rights abuses on a wide scale, hundreds of millions of aid dollars have disappeared, reconstruction is at a near stand-still. 

Western corporations have managed to extract more money from Afghanistan than has been committed in international aid, tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed while an even greater number suffer injuries. 

The Taliban is enjoying unprecedented levels of support as it leads an effective resistance movement against the mission. NATO military leaders have publicly asserted that no military solution is possible in Afghanistan, and even the Pentagon has described the mission as in a “downward spiral.”

Groups as diverse as the Canadian Senate, the Senlis Council, Oxfam, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association, and NATO’s military command have stated overlapping criticisms of the mission, although they often argue for different solutions. 

However, the frequency and similarity of the complaints about the current mission show that it is no longer possible simply to cheer-lead the war, a once common tactic among political and military leaders in the early years after the invasion.

These realities have led to two developments: the first is that the demand to withdraw troops from Afghanistan has become a legitimate alternative. 

Mainstream organizations like the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), both representing literally millions of people, support the “safe and immediate withdrawal” of all Canadian troops from Afghanistan, instead supporting humanitarian and aid efforts. 

As the mission began to deteriorate, this demand was excluded from the accepted range of options to improve the situation. Now it is widely supported by the Canadian public.

A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that 56 per cent of Canadians oppose the mission in Afghanistan. 

In addition, 58 per cent opposed Parliament’s decision in March 2008 to extend the current mission by another three years, to 2011. The irony of the situation is not lost on the public: the Canadian government justifies Canada’s presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that it is helping to “spread democracy” while ignoring the opinions of a growing majority of Canadians who oppose the mission.

The second development is related to the first. 

Just as the case for withdrawal has become a legitimate alternative, so too has the case to engage the Taliban in negotiations. 

When this idea was first suggested by NDP leader Jack Layton, he was dismissed as “Taliban Jack.” Just weeks later, the same idea was pitched by Republican Senators in the US. Now even military leaders say publicly that the only way to end the insurgency is to involve all players in Afghanistan in a comprehensive, inclusive and wide-ranging peace process.

Unfortunately, some political leaders, including most of Canada’s current government, cling to ideological assumptions about Afghanistan and the “war on terror” rather than consider the changing situation on the ground across Central Asia. 

As war threatens to spread deep into Pakistan, and with Barack Obama advocating US-led air strikes on Pakistan, there is now a greater urgency to engage all players in Afghanistan in negotiations that can lead to a real and lasting peace in the country.

Such a scenario will only be possible when Western governments and the corporate interests that back them set aside their own interests in favour of what Afghans themselves believe is the best way to rebuild and develop their country.

For more information, please contact the Canadian Peace Alliance: www.acp-cpa.ca.

What would you do with $490 billion?

By: Ryerson Free Press Staff

November 2008 Issue

Stephen Harper’s government has committed a record $490 billion to military spending over the next 20 years. That includes spending on the war in Afghanistan, which is already $10 billion over budget at $18 billion.

Nearly half a trillion dollars, even just a portion of that amount could dramatically boost social spending in Canada, and alleviate a range of social problems.

Doubling federal spending on housing to $4 billion a year could help end homelessness in Canada.

Six new warships cost $4.5 billion. The same amount could eliminate all tuition fees at every university and college in Canada.

Four strategic airlift airplanes cost $2 billion. The same amount could provide a $4,000 grant to every student in Canada.

This Remembrance Day, it’s time to end the war

By: Nora Loreto News Editor

November 2008 Issue

For this month’s issue, the Ryerson Free Press has decided to challenge the popular notion of Remembrance Day. As a newspaper that is unapologetically anti-war, we believe it is appropriate to explain how we see and understand the world, and to re-affirm our belief that we have the ability and the responsibility to make it a better place.

On Remembrance Day, we call for an end to Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan.

Remembrance Day used to be an occasion when Canadians remembered the cost of the Great War, and recalled its bloody legacy to call for an end to war. Certainly, after the deaths of over 60,000 Canadians in Europe at a time when Canada’s population was only six million, there was a lot to remember, and a better world to imagine.

Nov. 11, 2008 will be the 90th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I. The battle that grew out of imperialist expansion and dangerous nationalism was finally over, and Canadians were called to thank those who fought – and those who died – for defending their freedom.

Partly due to the destruction and devastation of Europe after World War I, World War II erupted only 20 years later. This time, the rise of fascism gave the Allied nations something new to fight, rather than plain old nationalism. Adolf Hitler had made his intentions known to conquer Europe, and the Third Reich’s expansion into a continental power represented a real threat to the sovereignty of European nations.

Canadians again joined the fight, and earned the respect and adoration of the people who were liberated from the occupying German forces. Most notable were the Dutch in how they received the Canadian soldiers. They were the last nation to be freed by the Canadians, and it happened during the last days of war on the European continent.

I grew up in Georgetown, Ontario, where there was a sizable Dutch population that immigrated to Canada, never forgetting the role of Canadian troops in liberating their country from Nazi control. It was the Dutch community that coordinated Georgetown’s annual Remembrance Day ceremony and other activities dedicated to “Keeping the Memory Alive.” I sang in those concerts from the early 1990s until I left Georgetown in 2003. As the years passed, I watched the tone of the ceremony change in a stark and disturbing way.

Rather than looking back in remembrance, and looking ahead to a future of peace, some people have increasingly exploited Remembrance Day as an occasion to justify, tout, cheerlead, glorify or otherwise distort Canada’s current mission in Afghanistan.

Remembrance Day is not nor has it ever been a day that should be used to promote, encourage the involvement in, or support Canada’s war effort. The use of the date by some to twist “remembrance” into support for the current government’s foreign policy objectives is capitalising on a tragedy to fuel support for war.

This year, on Remembrance Day, for the first time since the Korean War, we will remember nearly 100 Canadian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan. And while Canadians mourn collectively the loss of those men and women, we should turn our thoughts and prayers to the task of bringing all our soldiers home, safely and immediately.

Canada is in a combat mission in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed in battle. The Canadian government has been implicated in the transfer of Afghan detainees to torture at the hands of the Afghan National Police. Billions of dollars of aid money has disappeared into the pockets of the warlords and drug lords who dominate Afghanistan’s parliament. The list of tragedies goes on.

On Remembrance Day, all peace-loving Canadians need to stand up, and call for an end to this war. We need to reject the claim that it is not appropriate to demand peace on Remembrance Day. We need to demand that our troops be returned safely to their families now.

It is our duty to do this, in the memory of those who have fallen in wars gone by. We owe it to them, and to future generations.

Streeters: What we remember

Interviews by: Alyssa Friesen

Photographs by: Riley McLeod Photo Editor

November 2008 Issue

Sean Donegan, Information Technology Management

How has war affected your life?

“The government is supporting a war that I don’t agree with, the war in Afghanistan.   I don’t see a reason for us to be there.  It’s not a direct effect on me, but I’m not proud of Canada’s involvement.”

How has war affected your family?

“My grandfather served in WWII.  He was in the military -there is a bit of military history in my family.  Actually, my other grandfather too,  was in the military. They didn’t really talk much about their experiences, to me, or to the family.  They just mentioned they were at war; they didn’t say very much.”

How will you remember on November 11?

“Probably just a solemn moment of silence to myself. 
I’m not religious, so just a moment of silence to remember
my grandfathers.”

 

Alex Kolanko, Computer Science

How has war affected your life?

“It hasn’t really affected my life.  Personally, I am against the war.  That war, I think, affects most peoples’ lives.  But not me personally.”

Has war affected your family in the past?

“Not really.  My great-grandparents are from Poland, but they left before WWII.  So it didn’t really affect them.  It affected their various family members, but I’m not really close to them.”

What will you remember on November 11?

“I think I have a project due on November 11…”

Janet Mclure, post-Film student (not photographed)

How has war affected your life?

“Seeing clips of the Gulf War on television has given me a huge fear of violence.  But maybe that’s just me… maybe not just me.  I remember watching it and being freaked out enough to have nightmares.  The horizon on fire; everything being on fire.”

Do you think war is a thing of the past or is a relevant to you today?

“It’s relevant.  I think it’s definitely relevant.   I mean, it hasn’t directly affected my life, it isn’t something I experienced, but it’s definitely –obviously- definitely relevant today. We see the repercussions of it, but we don’t see the violence.”

Aaron Hall (right), Film

How has war affected your life?

“If you want to call the Northern Irish conflict, that’s, I mean, my parents moved.  My parents are from Belfast. It’s not really been called a war, but it was a conflict.”

Will you remember on November 11?

“I would like to say that I remember and pay respect to the people that have been in war.  It’s good in the fact that my parents moved so that I could be raised in Canada and not have to experience that, but it would be arrogant for me to say that I remember.”

“We know what’s going on, but we don’t have to involve ourselves where we are right now.   I think it’s pretty arrogant of people today to say that they understand what it is, because we don’t.  War now is pushing a button.” 

Omar Zulfiqar (right),  Chemical Engineering 

How has war affected you?

“I’m from Pakistan.  Most of my friends who came to Canada, we don’t get that much exposure to history.  If you come to high-school, you aren’t required to take history courses.  So most of us don’t know the history behind Remembrance Day.  All of what we know about Remembrance Day is through the media -that is the one symbol of Remembrance Day that we know about.”

Has your family been affected by war?

“Grandparents, yeah.  There was war between Pakistan and India a long time ago.  And there was the Independence.  I guess it’s more relevant to people who have actually seen war or have been in war, like my grandparents might have been able to relate I guess.”

“There was never a draft or any obligation for people to go into the military.  Even if you are just a bit above the poverty line you don’t have to go into the military.  But the reason Pakistan has a big military is because most of the population is below the poverty line.  So that’s how such a big army forms in such a poor country like that.”

Global Entrepreneurial Week: fight the economic downturn

By Alyssa Friesen

November 2008 Issue

United with various countries under the banner of Global Entrepreneurship Week, Ryerson is set to rally its students and ignite the entrepreneurial spirit within.

Hosted by Students in Free Enterprise at Ryerson (SIFE), Global Entrepreneurship Week from November 17 - 21 looks to inspire, connect, inform, mentor and engage the next generation of entrepreneurs.  

The events include the return of RYE Market, Dragon’s Den behind the scenes, seminars including Social Entrepreneurship and the Global South, a StartMeUp Ryerson workshop: How to Get Free Publicity, an Entrepreneurship Case Competition and an OPIC Business Plan Competition submission.  SIFE is also planning a entertainment activities including an Entrepreneurship Madness Pub Night at St.Louis Pub to wrap up the week.

Prem D’Mello, Project Manager of Global Entrepreneurship Week, is excited for the events.  “We want to know about various aspects at Ryerson to learn entrepreneurial skills and turn their ideas into reality”  D’Mello said. 

Among the events D’Mello anticipates, is the CBC entrepreneurship show Dragon’s Den.  Executive producers, Stuart Coxe and Mike Armitage have confirmed their attendance.  Joining them on the panel will be Robert Herjavec, a Dragon on the show, who sold his IT security firm for over $100 million, and Ryerson Professor Sean Wise.   The event includes an unaired episode of Dragon’s Den, lessons from the den, discussion of entrepreneurship and a question and answer period.

D’Mello hopes the show will stimulate minds and motivate students to go for their ideas.  “Even the smallest idea can be the biggest idea,” says D’Mello.  

The RYE Market has scheduled its return during the first two days of the week.  Taking place at the Ryerson Business Building, vendors will be set up at tables to display and test out their ideas with the public, staff and faculty.  

Jeffrey Peng, Project Manager of RYE Market, is excited to say that this year the event is open to not only students, but also staff and faculty.  

 “They will get valuable feedback they will not receive anywhere else,” Peng says.  “The way we have designed it this year, each of the vendors will have a questionnaire and everyone has to fill it out.  The public will receive a RYE Market testing card and for filling out will make them eligible to win prizes.” 

D’Mello hopes that indirectly these vendors, if they have their own business or are just starting, will be encouraged to use the resources offered through SIFE Ryerson’s StartMeUp Ryerson program.

As a member of SIFE Ryerson, D’Mello has personally experienced the benefits and opportunities the organizations provide.  D’Mello says that SIFE Ryerson desires “to help as many students as we can help and then build on it in the future, and see that process of growth.” 

Students attending Global Entrepreneurship Week will also have the opportunity to learn about social entrepreneurship.  Frances Tibollo, Founder and President of The Oaklands Foundation, will be explaining what is social entrepreneurship, why it is important in today’s world and how students can get involved in the process of positive change.  She will be introducing ideas on the rapidly growing movement of entrepreneurship and non-for-profit businesses.

Tibollo’s Oaklands Foundation is a non-profit organization which deals with education and development in impoverished nations.  Her vision is to connect young people in developing areas with the opportunity to receive proper education and enable them with the skills to one day start up their own businesses, thereby assisting them in the initial steps towards defeating poverty in their country.

“As our mission, we in the Ryerson community need to find new ways of moving forward and learning about things in entrepreneurship,” says D’Mello.  “Now with the new economy, people are afraid of trying, of taking the risk.” 

D’Mello says that the present time is the perfect time to get ideas acknowledged.  

Global Entrepreneurship Week will not only bring people together, D’Mello says, but the week will give young entrepreneurs the kick start they need to get going.  

Tickets to Dragon’s Den will be available in advance for $3 at booths across the campus or through the SIFE Ryerson office and will be $5 at the door.  All the net proceeds will go directly towards Kiva.org, the world’s first person-to-person micro-lending website, empowering individuals to lend to entrepreneurs in the developing world.  More information on event details can be found online at www.siferyerson.com/entweek.

Remembering Ahmed Sekou Toure as Guinea turns 50

 

By Norman Otis Richmond

I have a confession — I am addicted to Radio Netherlands. 

It is not even a fifty-fifty love; it is more of a love-hate thing. 

I love their International flavour. Here is where I can hear about what is happening from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. However, their coverage of African affairs on many occasions makes me want to puke.

The West African nation of Guinea turned 50 on October 2. A recent feature on Radio Netherlands’ Bridges with Africa, called, “Guinea at 50: Going through a massive mid-life crisis,” made my blood run cold. 

It was a one-sided attack on Guinea’s first president, Ahmed Sekou Touré (b. Guinea, January 9, 1922; d. 26 March 1984).

As a youth, Touré, along with Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and Algeria’s Ahmed Ben Bella were some of the leaders that I and many of my generation identified with.

While only a fool would attempt to defend the current regimes, President Lansana Conte, only a bigger fool would attempt to denigrate the role that Touré played in the struggle for World African Liberation. Lansana has been the head of state of Guinea since the death of Touré in 1984. He took power in a military coup shortly after Toure’s death. A professional military man, he actually fought against the heroic Algerian people on the side of the French, during their war of liberation against colonialism.

However, he did fight against the French for the independence of Guinea after his involvement in Algeria. Today, Guinea is one of the poorest countries on earth.

Touré helped lead Guinea to independence from French colonial rule in 1958. In Cameroun, an armed uprising began in 1955 when the Union des Populations de Cameroun was declared illegal. 

UPC had demanded the withdrawal of French troops, an end to Cameroun’s status as a United Nations mandate, and a revolutionary land reform with the slogan, “the land to those who till it.” Without protest, the UN allowed the French troops to violently crush the revolt. Western history books seldom write about the revolt in the Cameroun.

A trade unionist, Touré was able to help lead his nation to independence by proclaiming, “We prefer dignity in poverty to affluence in slavery.”

After secondary schooling, he worked as a clerk and trade union organizer, becoming a founder of the Rassemblement Democratique Africain in 1946. His political base in Guinea depended part on unionized urban workers and part on rural opposition to the system of administrative chieftaincy imposed by the French. This enabled him to lead the local section of the RDA, the Parti Democratique de Guinée, and to emerge along with the leaders of the UPC as one of the most radical of the nationalist leaders in French West Africa.

African people will remember Touré as a great Pan Africanist who attempted to unite Africa and Africans world-wide. It was Touré, along with Nkrumah and Mali’s Modibo Keita, who attempted to form a United States of Africa in the 1960s. Nkrumah asked the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba to join this alliance before his assassination on January 17, 1961.

Guinea was one of the first African nations to open its doors to overseas Africans. Six years after Guinea’s independence, a delegation from the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee visited Guinea on the invitation of Touré. The politically astute Harry Belafonte made the arrangements. Belafonte is a direct descent of the “tallest tree in our forest,” Paul Robeson.

Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) has said that Fannie Lou Hamer, the Mississippi-born freedom fighter who made the statement, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired,” was one of the people who benefited from Touré and Belafonte’s gesture. Hamer loved the experience and conveyed it Touré. 

“Oh, Stokely, the president came to visit. Oh, he was so handsome, all in his white robes, and he was so kind.” Despite the language gap, she had spoken with everyone she’d met. “Oh Stokely, those people be jes’ like us. The way they fix they hair, some of them. How they stand, how they walk, even the way they carry they babies.”

It was Touré who gave a base to the liberation forces in another West African nation, so-called Portuguese Guinea. The movement there was lead by one of the world’s foremost theoreticians, Amilcar Cabral. Cabral was the leader of the African Party for the Independence of Cape Verde and Guinea.

The former French colony of Guinea, became known as Guinea-Conakry and the Portuguese colony came to be known as Guinea –Bissau.

The Portuguese invaded Guinea November 1970 with the intent to assassinate Touré and Cabral. The Portuguese colonialist made a sensational attempt to invade Guinea-Conakry. They were knocked out early in a Mike Tyson fashion.

The PAIGC started the armed struggle against Portuguese colonialism in 1963. But in the following years the Portuguese suffered defeat after defeat. Touré’s government supported the PAIGC completely.

Mai Palmberg, the editor of the book, “The Struggle for Africa” discussed the aborted invasion. “The invasion proved to be a total fiasco, because PAIGC and Guinea’s defense forces were able to respond quickly and drive the enemy out. It was later revealed that West Germany and France had supported the Portuguese invasion, and that their representatives in Conakry had assisted the invasion forces” Palmberg said.

While it is true that Touré’s relationship cooled with the Soviet Union in his later years, he nevertheless cooperated with them against Apartheid South Africa. 

When Apartheid South Africans invaded Angola, the progressive forces worldwide united with Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola. The forces of reaction supported Apartheid South Africa and puppet groups like the National Liberation Front for Angola and the National Union for the Total Independent of Angola UNITA.

Washington expressed its disappointment and irritation at Touré’s transgression and warned that it would affect relations between the two countries.

Touré was defiant, informing the Soviet ambassador, “You have permanent and unconditional permission to use Conakry airport for all flights relating to Angola.”

How will history evaluate Touré? I believe the revolutionary forces of the world will hold him up as a person who was on the right side of history.

As for Radio Netherlands, they are merely the mouthpiece for imperialism and history will reflect that the word of Apartheid is of Dutch origin.

Norman Richmond is a Toronto-based writer, broadcaster andhuman rights activist. Richmond can be heard on CKLN-FM 88.1 www.ckln.fm  Thursdays on Diasporic Music 8pm to 10pm and Saturday’s on Saturday Morning Live 10am to 1pm He can be reached at norman@ckln.fm

Privatization causing community health care crisis

 

By: Carys Mills

November 2008 Issue

In late September there were protests in support of public health across Ontario.

The Ontario Health Coalition organized the ‘Listen Up McGuinty” protests. Ontarians were bussed to the protests in Toronto, Windsor, Kingston, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. The three goals of the mass protests were to raise the issues of hospital funding cuts, the lack of non-profit homecare and low care levels in nursing homes. 

“Community care is in crisis,” said Diane Betty-Wearing, at the Toronto protest that began at Metro Hall Square. Betty-Wearing has worked at the Hamilton VON for 14 years.

She said no one’s coming directly from post-secondary education to work in community care any more. She blames privatization and fierce American competition.

Co-worker, Lee-Anne Breese, has been at the VON for three years. Since she’s started she’s noticed an increasing turnover rate. “[It should be] about people, not profits,” said Breese. 

Breese said it was essential for awareness of the state of homecare and retirement homes to be achieved. 

 “I think change can happen with McGuinty,” said Betty-Wearing, explaining that she thinks the state of public health care in Ontario can improve without a having a new premier. 

« Previous Page — Next Page »