Paula Kirman interviewed me recently for her article: "A not so proud history." The interview appears in the Fall Winter 2010 issue of Prairie Books Now! As I told Paula, "History isn't about the past at all. It's about charting a future in which our children are not unwitting victims of our mistakes.``
The Province of Alberta`s Eugenics Board existed in the context of a populist political culture that viewed political dissent as something nearing treachery (eg: William Aberhart`s Accurate News and Information Act and the Manning government`s lawsuit against the IODE over its publication of criticisms of Alberta Social Services). That culture helped political `leaders` to create a dual sense of self-righteousness and victimization among the electorate.
As I tell Prairie Books Now!:
``The political culture Aberhart created, and Ernest Manning perfected, is one of extreme passivity and a pack mentality. It is still largely with us....It`s a culture that lets politicians get away from the hard questions by invoking `Western Alienation` or Aberhart`s dream of oil riches and wealth on earth for the righteous. Of course we are not the only province in Canada where this happens, but the historical context is unique here. It`s based on the warping of that progressive vision that birthed the province.``
Unfortunately, the latest issue of Prairie Books Now! is not on-line. (You can pick up a copies at bookstores throughout western Canada.
A few more quotes from Paula`s article:
"The topic of eugenics in Alberta proved to be very sobering for Harris-Zsovan, who describes her main emotion while working on the book as dismay."
"Harris-Zsovan finds that there are connections between past policies and the current Alberta political landscape."
"While Eugenics and the Firewall is often shocking in what it reveals, there is also an underlying feeling of hope that we can learn from history"
"History is not just shabby stories. Scandals are not best left buried. If we don't come to terms with our ancestors' mistakes, we will make the same ones," Harris-Zsovan says.
Tuesday 28 December 2010
Friday 17 December 2010
The Real King's Speech
Christmas Day Messages by the Sovereign to the peoples of the Commonwealth are a tradition. This year is no exception: Elizabeth II will address to the subjects of her realms and the wider Commonwealth, just as her father did in his reign.
But no Royal Christmas address was more poignant than the one Canada's wartime king, George VI, made in 1939 -- as Canadians joined the the Empire the fight against all aspects NAZI tyranny (including Eugenic sterilization and murder.) Colin Firth's movie, The King's Speech tells how an Australian therapist helped him, while still Duke of York, overcome his stutter in order to speak to his subjects.
The King's subjects across the world sat frozen in the dark winter of uncertain victory when he quoted these words by Minnie Louise Harkins:
"I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year, 'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.' And he replied, 'Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be better than light, and safer than a known way."
But no Royal Christmas address was more poignant than the one Canada's wartime king, George VI, made in 1939 -- as Canadians joined the the Empire the fight against all aspects NAZI tyranny (including Eugenic sterilization and murder.) Colin Firth's movie, The King's Speech tells how an Australian therapist helped him, while still Duke of York, overcome his stutter in order to speak to his subjects.
The King's subjects across the world sat frozen in the dark winter of uncertain victory when he quoted these words by Minnie Louise Harkins:
"I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year, 'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.' And he replied, 'Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be better than light, and safer than a known way."
Wednesday 15 December 2010
Distaste for Opposition: Part of Alberta's Eugenics Past?
27th November, 2010, Greg Weadick, MLA for Lethbridge West, told the Lethbridge Herald that he favours more local imput from the local health advisory councils. (Apparently, the one in Lethbridge doesn't hold many public meetings.) He added that he'll also be scheduling meetings to get citizen input.
A good start, maybe.
But Weadick and the rest of the Tory caucus know, the Alberta Health Services Superboard is not bound to take the advice of local advisory committees. And Weadick stopped short of advocating a return to the our province's political tradition of electing local hospital board trustees.
Why? The tradition of electing local hospital trustees (and education trustees, too) goes back to the roots of the province.
Is the Tory Caucus opposed to any citizen input they cannot control? And why do Albertans put up with the erosion of our democratic traditions?
Surely, the province's dark past, as home to the worst eugenics sterilization scandal in the British Empire (carried out at the bidding of an non-elected, out of control, band of government appointees, who did not even bother to follow the flawed dictates of the Sexual Sterilization Act), suggests that we need more accountability to the electorate in our health system, not less.
If we aren't careful, the province's politicians will shut out the electorate when it comes to education, too. I predict that our local school boards will soon become the play thing of mandarins in Edmonton, too -- unless we stand up and say 'no'.
Let's reverse the trend.
A good start, maybe.
But Weadick and the rest of the Tory caucus know, the Alberta Health Services Superboard is not bound to take the advice of local advisory committees. And Weadick stopped short of advocating a return to the our province's political tradition of electing local hospital board trustees.
Why? The tradition of electing local hospital trustees (and education trustees, too) goes back to the roots of the province.
Is the Tory Caucus opposed to any citizen input they cannot control? And why do Albertans put up with the erosion of our democratic traditions?
Surely, the province's dark past, as home to the worst eugenics sterilization scandal in the British Empire (carried out at the bidding of an non-elected, out of control, band of government appointees, who did not even bother to follow the flawed dictates of the Sexual Sterilization Act), suggests that we need more accountability to the electorate in our health system, not less.
If we aren't careful, the province's politicians will shut out the electorate when it comes to education, too. I predict that our local school boards will soon become the play thing of mandarins in Edmonton, too -- unless we stand up and say 'no'.
Let's reverse the trend.
Monday 13 December 2010
Why the Crown of Maples is not a Colonial Relic
I've noticed that quite of few non-Canadians read this blog. I suspect my foreign readers, unless they are from a Commonwealth country, don't quite understand how Canada can be an independent nation and yet share a monarch with 15 countries (including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, Jamaica and several other Caribbean countries, and even tiny Tuvalu). Here's the full list of countries Canada shares a Head of State with: The Commowealth Realms.
The various incarnations of the British (English/Scottish) Crowns have always included more than one kingdom: France, Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, and Norway all have histories of sharing what was later called the British Monarch.
The term British itself is an admission that the Queen rules multiple kingdoms and has several parliaments.
Bet you didn't realize that Scottish Kings once considered Norway one of their kingdoms. Henry VIII of England, considered himself to be King of France, too. And many French Kings considered England part of their territory. Several 19th Century British Monarchs were also Electors of Hanover, in what is now Germany, and many of the King`s German subjects were counted among the loyalists who fled the American Revolution to British North America. (Canada)
This illustrates another important point: Citizenship in a Commonwealth country is not based on ethnicity. It`s based on adherence to parliamentary democracy and loyality to the Crown, including Parliament. (If only we could remember that!)
For a more modern understanding of Canada's constitutional monarchy, read, The Crown of Maples published by the Government of Canada. Just click on the headings and the text will appear.
Enjoy.
The various incarnations of the British (English/Scottish) Crowns have always included more than one kingdom: France, Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, and Norway all have histories of sharing what was later called the British Monarch.
The term British itself is an admission that the Queen rules multiple kingdoms and has several parliaments.
Bet you didn't realize that Scottish Kings once considered Norway one of their kingdoms. Henry VIII of England, considered himself to be King of France, too. And many French Kings considered England part of their territory. Several 19th Century British Monarchs were also Electors of Hanover, in what is now Germany, and many of the King`s German subjects were counted among the loyalists who fled the American Revolution to British North America. (Canada)
This illustrates another important point: Citizenship in a Commonwealth country is not based on ethnicity. It`s based on adherence to parliamentary democracy and loyality to the Crown, including Parliament. (If only we could remember that!)
For a more modern understanding of Canada's constitutional monarchy, read, The Crown of Maples published by the Government of Canada. Just click on the headings and the text will appear.
Enjoy.
Wednesday 8 December 2010
my comment on death threats & freedom of speech
Sadly, some so called 'libertarians' in Alberta, have apparently suggested that Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, be killed by the United States secret service. One of these individuals also, apparently, sent a threatening email to a Canadian woman who called him on his own words. (I am leaving the names of the individuals who made these comments out because the police are investigating these matters and these allegations must be proven in court. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty.)
What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.
Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.
Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.
To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)
If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.
We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.
We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.
What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.
Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.
Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.
To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)
If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.
We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.
We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.
Saturday 27 November 2010
Are we missing the point?
This morning I was googling online coverage of the launch of Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. I noticed that very few people commenting on blogs announcing my book want to own their eugenics past. They blame 'others' for it.( If you live in a Western Democracy and much of the rest of the world, there's a good chance one of your great-granddaddies believed in eugenics. And whether you consider yourself left-wing or right-wing, your political legacy includes pro-eugenics advocates.)
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
Monday 15 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall: What's the book about?
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
Saturday 13 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall: National launch 17 November
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall heading to bookstores 12 November.
Mark 12 November 2010 on you calendar! That the day Eugenics and the Firewall will be ready for bookstores across Canada. Launch details are being pinned down as I write this.
In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the back cover text:
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the back cover text:
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
Friday 17 September 2010
Belinda Crowson`s straight shooting speech would make the Galts Dance the Highland Fling.
``To all of those people who told me that it’s not appropriate to talk about those women, to those people who told me that when 13 year-old girls enter prostitution it’s my personal fault, to those people who told me that I should go to church more (ok, that one’s probably true), and to those people who told me people were deliberately choosing not to move to Lethbridge because of the plaque we put on The Point and because of my book, I have to say loudly, clearly and resoundingly – thank you. I wouldn’t have written this book without you.``
Belnda Crowson, Author of `We Don`t Talk About Those Women`` (Lethbridge Historical Scoiety 2010) at her book launch 15 September 2010
Perhaps the ladies of the night thought we needed a bit of piano music. Or maybe the city`s founders just wanted bit of the bagpipes. But as ghouls played havoc with the microphones at our famously haunted Galt Museum last night, I glanced out the window at Sir Alexander`s ruins (the part of the hospital he commissioned and which was built while he was alive and a frequent summer resident of our city.)
For just one second, I thought I could glimpse our city`s co-founder,Canada`s First Finance Minister and creator of the Canadian Dollar, standing there in his top and tails wearing the medals Queen Victoria gave him. Was that a satisfied grin on his face? And was that his son, Elliot, standing just behind him?
There`s no doubt about it. Lethbridge`s straight talking Father of Confederation and his son would have loved his Belinda Crowson`s speech. (and the sketch about Mayor Hardie.) And Sir Alexander`s father, novelist John Galt, would have literally danced highland fling over it.
Belinda did the city proud last night. She also did writers in Canada a great service by braving the smug, self-censoring Albertans who continually try to sanitize our history and manipulate our heritage to suit their own political and social agendas.
Most imporatantly, Belinda`s given readers a great book to curl up with this winter!
Contact the Galt Musuem Bookstore or the Lethbridge Historical Society to get your copy of We Don't Talk About Those Women: Lethbridge's Red Light District 1880s to 1940 by Belinda Crowson, (Lethbridge Historical Society 2010)
Belnda Crowson, Author of `We Don`t Talk About Those Women`` (Lethbridge Historical Scoiety 2010) at her book launch 15 September 2010
Perhaps the ladies of the night thought we needed a bit of piano music. Or maybe the city`s founders just wanted bit of the bagpipes. But as ghouls played havoc with the microphones at our famously haunted Galt Museum last night, I glanced out the window at Sir Alexander`s ruins (the part of the hospital he commissioned and which was built while he was alive and a frequent summer resident of our city.)
For just one second, I thought I could glimpse our city`s co-founder,Canada`s First Finance Minister and creator of the Canadian Dollar, standing there in his top and tails wearing the medals Queen Victoria gave him. Was that a satisfied grin on his face? And was that his son, Elliot, standing just behind him?
There`s no doubt about it. Lethbridge`s straight talking Father of Confederation and his son would have loved his Belinda Crowson`s speech. (and the sketch about Mayor Hardie.) And Sir Alexander`s father, novelist John Galt, would have literally danced highland fling over it.
Belinda did the city proud last night. She also did writers in Canada a great service by braving the smug, self-censoring Albertans who continually try to sanitize our history and manipulate our heritage to suit their own political and social agendas.
Most imporatantly, Belinda`s given readers a great book to curl up with this winter!
Contact the Galt Musuem Bookstore or the Lethbridge Historical Society to get your copy of We Don't Talk About Those Women: Lethbridge's Red Light District 1880s to 1940 by Belinda Crowson, (Lethbridge Historical Society 2010)
Saturday 11 September 2010
Who is John Galt? Well, Let me Tell You.
Somebody in Lethbridge tried to bring some fictional character named John Galt into the city debate on taxes. Very, very sad. Most Lethbridgians have no idea of the grand vision the city was founded on. It was a vision that started with the Scottish Novelist, John Galt. Not without his own foibles, he often got himself in trouble for speaking his mind when it would have been better to chill. (I find him somewhat of an inspiration.) He also didn't really like taking orders, which caused big problems with the directors of the Canada Company. But Canada owes a great debt to him.
John Galt was a social progressive who wound up in debtor’s prison for trying to build a Royal City named Guelph.He got in trouble trying to help poor Scots own their own land at prices that the Canada Company directors were not amused by.
He was a Sandemanian convert (thanks to his father-in-law, publisher and lay preacher, Alexander Torrance) who believed in sharing and in building large scale infrastructure and cultural projects. (His sons went back to Presbyterianism and Anglicanism.)
His son, Sir Alexander Galt, largely shared his father’s belief in the grand vision of Canada, but he took it further to envision a reformed British Empire with a shared monarch among equal dominions. (Ie: the modern Commonwealth but with a lot more clout.)It was a vision he arrived at after considering every option for Canada from outright republicanism, to annexation, to continued colonial status. And, I believe, it's a decision that helped create Canada's global perspective.
Member of the Provincial Parliament for Sherbrooke Quebec, Alexander Galt introduced the motion to federate British North America in the Canadian Colonial Legislature at Kingston. It was another progressive novelist and friend of Charles Dickens, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, who was among the first British Officials to catch on to this poetic vision. Too bad we don’t teach this stuff in School.
The City of Lethbridge (founded on that original vision first espoused in Galts original motion to the provincial assembly) survived thanks to huge financial contributions and concessions from the Federal Government and from philanthopy from benefectors such as the Baroness Coutts and Lady Galt herself.
If you want to know the real vision of Canada, read Canadian Reflections, one of the best poems ever written about the Canadian Dream. Sir Alexander Galt's father, John Galt, wrote it when he was dying pennniless in Scotland. He and his wife, Elizabeth, believed so strongly in that dream that he sent their three sons back to Canada to start over. (Elizabeth eventually joined them here.)
Alexander Galt and his brothers, John and Thomas, arrived in the country as youths: penniless, shamed, and having watched their father cheated out of his businesses. Both Thomas and John were later knighted for their contributions to Canada.
For many years, Sir Alexander Galt was a good friend of Charles Dickens, whose own social conscience was shaped by the fact that his father had also been sent to debtor’s prison. The Galts' social conscience led them to donate a huge amount of money (most for health care), facilities (a hospital for example) and land (including Galt Gardens) to the City of Lethbridge in order to that those dreams could be fulfilled. Yes, Lethbridge is the only city in Canada founded by a Father of Confederation — not that that is poltically correct to say these days.
Incidentally, Sir Alexander Galt, died fearing that his District of Alberta, NWT adventure had landed his wife and unmarried daughters in the same predicament his own father had left his mother. Elliott Galt spent his life fixing the problem.
Is it odd that when John Galt's name gets mentioned in the Muncipal Election, nobody seems to understand how really important he was to our city, our province, our country, and the Commonwealth of Nations? No, it's not odd. It downright depressing. Pathetic really. And as ungrateful as the City Council who changed the street names Sir Alexander Galt gave Lethbridge to honour its early benefactors, just a few weeks after his sons, Elliott and John, turned over a hospital and a health care endowment that continues to benefit citizens of this region -- a region they loved.
Jane Harris Zsovan, Author, Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada (2006), Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret.(J. Gordon Shillingford Publishing, Fall 2010.)
John Galt was a social progressive who wound up in debtor’s prison for trying to build a Royal City named Guelph.He got in trouble trying to help poor Scots own their own land at prices that the Canada Company directors were not amused by.
He was a Sandemanian convert (thanks to his father-in-law, publisher and lay preacher, Alexander Torrance) who believed in sharing and in building large scale infrastructure and cultural projects. (His sons went back to Presbyterianism and Anglicanism.)
His son, Sir Alexander Galt, largely shared his father’s belief in the grand vision of Canada, but he took it further to envision a reformed British Empire with a shared monarch among equal dominions. (Ie: the modern Commonwealth but with a lot more clout.)It was a vision he arrived at after considering every option for Canada from outright republicanism, to annexation, to continued colonial status. And, I believe, it's a decision that helped create Canada's global perspective.
Member of the Provincial Parliament for Sherbrooke Quebec, Alexander Galt introduced the motion to federate British North America in the Canadian Colonial Legislature at Kingston. It was another progressive novelist and friend of Charles Dickens, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, who was among the first British Officials to catch on to this poetic vision. Too bad we don’t teach this stuff in School.
The City of Lethbridge (founded on that original vision first espoused in Galts original motion to the provincial assembly) survived thanks to huge financial contributions and concessions from the Federal Government and from philanthopy from benefectors such as the Baroness Coutts and Lady Galt herself.
If you want to know the real vision of Canada, read Canadian Reflections, one of the best poems ever written about the Canadian Dream. Sir Alexander Galt's father, John Galt, wrote it when he was dying pennniless in Scotland. He and his wife, Elizabeth, believed so strongly in that dream that he sent their three sons back to Canada to start over. (Elizabeth eventually joined them here.)
Alexander Galt and his brothers, John and Thomas, arrived in the country as youths: penniless, shamed, and having watched their father cheated out of his businesses. Both Thomas and John were later knighted for their contributions to Canada.
For many years, Sir Alexander Galt was a good friend of Charles Dickens, whose own social conscience was shaped by the fact that his father had also been sent to debtor’s prison. The Galts' social conscience led them to donate a huge amount of money (most for health care), facilities (a hospital for example) and land (including Galt Gardens) to the City of Lethbridge in order to that those dreams could be fulfilled. Yes, Lethbridge is the only city in Canada founded by a Father of Confederation — not that that is poltically correct to say these days.
Incidentally, Sir Alexander Galt, died fearing that his District of Alberta, NWT adventure had landed his wife and unmarried daughters in the same predicament his own father had left his mother. Elliott Galt spent his life fixing the problem.
Is it odd that when John Galt's name gets mentioned in the Muncipal Election, nobody seems to understand how really important he was to our city, our province, our country, and the Commonwealth of Nations? No, it's not odd. It downright depressing. Pathetic really. And as ungrateful as the City Council who changed the street names Sir Alexander Galt gave Lethbridge to honour its early benefactors, just a few weeks after his sons, Elliott and John, turned over a hospital and a health care endowment that continues to benefit citizens of this region -- a region they loved.
Jane Harris Zsovan, Author, Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada (2006), Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret.(J. Gordon Shillingford Publishing, Fall 2010.)
Wednesday 16 June 2010
Can West Global:Headlines should match the article.
Dear Canwest Global:
I tried to let you know that your headline was in error, but your email link doesn't work. Not surprising, given this morning's gaff.
The headline you splashed across the internet this morning: Canadians don't want Queen, even if she's done great job is just plain wrong according to the text of the article underneath it:
For example, according to this, the Queen's approval rating is 73% and CDNs don't want to become a republic anytime soon. (That's remarkable considering that we've had mostly pro-republican governments between 1964 and 2006 and most business interests are pro-US/Canada integration and have been using the media to foist that agenda on CDNs for decades.)
Further, if 80% of Quebeckers want a republic after the reign;and 2/3 (you conveniently don't give the actual percentage) of CDNs indicate they would favour becoming a republic after the Queen dies (in 20 or even 30 years if she lives the lifespan of women in her family); that would indicate than in many provinces most CDNs favour remaining a monarchy when Charles or William becomes King.
And that's without us even having a discussion about what the Commonwealth and our ties with the Crown mean to us culturally and economically! Thanks to the media and pro-U.S. business lobbies, most Canadians do not realize that many of the fastest growing markets are in the Commonwealth.
They don't know that they can vote if they live in Britain. They don't know that the British government does not really consider the Queen's subjects foreigners (It's still called the foreign and Commonwealth office in the U.K.)
Consider the opportunities that still remain for Canada if she capitalizes on these ties. Most Canadians answering your survey were never given that information, I bet. Even Quebecois would likely change their mind if they were given those facts. (And Anglo-Canadians would become fans of the Francophonie if they saw the opportunities there too.)
Why don't you ever do a story on trade opportunities within the Commonwealth -- a market of 2 Billion people? Surely loosening any such ties is bad from a business point of view, especially as Canada and Commonwealth is again comng to the fore in with both British and Canadian governments. (O.K. I guess I have queries to write.)
Further, most people answering your survey may not realize that there's a bigger national unity risk to republicanism than to retaining the monarchy. (Quebec isn't going anywhere if they see a trade opportunity of 2 billion customers. And it's time to tell Quebeckers about those opportunities even if their politicians and elite don't want ordinary Quebecois to hear this stuff.)
Under the Canada Act, this country cannot become a republic unless every MLA, MNA, MPP,MP and Senator agrees. Considering that many Canadians (the majority in most parts of Ontario, the Prairies -- including Alberta--and the Maritimes) do not want to change our form of government--I would expect most --7-9 --CDN provincial legislatures would refuse to endorse a republican constitution. An elected head of state would would further concentrate power in Central Canada.
And that could well mean bye, bye Alberta and bye bye Saskatchewan and bye bye Nunavut, the NWT and the Yukon. And maybe the Maritimes, BC, and Ontario. What does that leave? Quebec -- alone without a market of 2 billion people? Nah. I don't think so.
In short, if you bothered to investigate these issus and inform CDNs, the answers on that survey would change. But then you couldn't run the same old worn out story you run every time a member of the Royal family prepares to come to Canada. It's more than annoying, it's a disservice to the country.
Her Majesty is coming to celebrate Canada Day with Canadians -- something she was not allowed to do very often under previous administrations. And so, let's welcome her and invetigate the opportunities our system of government can yet give us instead of focusing on issues that are destined tear up our beloved country and its' constitution and international ties that still give us untold opportunites far beyond this continent..
I tried to let you know that your headline was in error, but your email link doesn't work. Not surprising, given this morning's gaff.
The headline you splashed across the internet this morning: Canadians don't want Queen, even if she's done great job is just plain wrong according to the text of the article underneath it:
For example, according to this, the Queen's approval rating is 73% and CDNs don't want to become a republic anytime soon. (That's remarkable considering that we've had mostly pro-republican governments between 1964 and 2006 and most business interests are pro-US/Canada integration and have been using the media to foist that agenda on CDNs for decades.)
Further, if 80% of Quebeckers want a republic after the reign;and 2/3 (you conveniently don't give the actual percentage) of CDNs indicate they would favour becoming a republic after the Queen dies (in 20 or even 30 years if she lives the lifespan of women in her family); that would indicate than in many provinces most CDNs favour remaining a monarchy when Charles or William becomes King.
And that's without us even having a discussion about what the Commonwealth and our ties with the Crown mean to us culturally and economically! Thanks to the media and pro-U.S. business lobbies, most Canadians do not realize that many of the fastest growing markets are in the Commonwealth.
They don't know that they can vote if they live in Britain. They don't know that the British government does not really consider the Queen's subjects foreigners (It's still called the foreign and Commonwealth office in the U.K.)
Consider the opportunities that still remain for Canada if she capitalizes on these ties. Most Canadians answering your survey were never given that information, I bet. Even Quebecois would likely change their mind if they were given those facts. (And Anglo-Canadians would become fans of the Francophonie if they saw the opportunities there too.)
Why don't you ever do a story on trade opportunities within the Commonwealth -- a market of 2 Billion people? Surely loosening any such ties is bad from a business point of view, especially as Canada and Commonwealth is again comng to the fore in with both British and Canadian governments. (O.K. I guess I have queries to write.)
Further, most people answering your survey may not realize that there's a bigger national unity risk to republicanism than to retaining the monarchy. (Quebec isn't going anywhere if they see a trade opportunity of 2 billion customers. And it's time to tell Quebeckers about those opportunities even if their politicians and elite don't want ordinary Quebecois to hear this stuff.)
Under the Canada Act, this country cannot become a republic unless every MLA, MNA, MPP,MP and Senator agrees. Considering that many Canadians (the majority in most parts of Ontario, the Prairies -- including Alberta--and the Maritimes) do not want to change our form of government--I would expect most --7-9 --CDN provincial legislatures would refuse to endorse a republican constitution. An elected head of state would would further concentrate power in Central Canada.
And that could well mean bye, bye Alberta and bye bye Saskatchewan and bye bye Nunavut, the NWT and the Yukon. And maybe the Maritimes, BC, and Ontario. What does that leave? Quebec -- alone without a market of 2 billion people? Nah. I don't think so.
In short, if you bothered to investigate these issus and inform CDNs, the answers on that survey would change. But then you couldn't run the same old worn out story you run every time a member of the Royal family prepares to come to Canada. It's more than annoying, it's a disservice to the country.
Her Majesty is coming to celebrate Canada Day with Canadians -- something she was not allowed to do very often under previous administrations. And so, let's welcome her and invetigate the opportunities our system of government can yet give us instead of focusing on issues that are destined tear up our beloved country and its' constitution and international ties that still give us untold opportunites far beyond this continent..
Thursday 15 April 2010
Alberta's Eugenics Disaster:Lessons to benefit all Canadian Political Parties
Eugenics and the Firewall will be published this fall. Writing it took me on an amazing journey through Alberta’s past and political culture. I got a chance to look at Albertan’s changing attitudes toward the Sexual Sterilization Act.
The Province of Alberta’s handling of the eugenics issue during the 20th century is fascinating, and a cause for both hope and worry. The saga shows us the belief systems underlying Alberta’s political culture. (And Albertans aren’t as right wing or as homogeneous as pundits claim. )
Hundreds of lives were ruined by the public’s blind trust in a theory, politicians’ adherence to ideology and expert recommendations, and the voters’ faith in the moral rightness of the provincial government. This fascinating saga has lessons for all Canadians of every political stripe.
The Province of Alberta’s handling of the eugenics issue during the 20th century is fascinating, and a cause for both hope and worry. The saga shows us the belief systems underlying Alberta’s political culture. (And Albertans aren’t as right wing or as homogeneous as pundits claim. )
Hundreds of lives were ruined by the public’s blind trust in a theory, politicians’ adherence to ideology and expert recommendations, and the voters’ faith in the moral rightness of the provincial government. This fascinating saga has lessons for all Canadians of every political stripe.
Thursday 21 January 2010
Canada's invisiblity a good thing?
Good News! Canada's Armed Forces is setting up a field hospital in Haiti. Great idea. Now this is the kind of effective mission Canadians do best. And we do it without strings attached.
Let's not change that.
In recent days, pundits have talked about boosting Canada's international reputation and influence in the Americas. One gentlemen, suggests Canada make Haiti a protectorate and share power there with the U.S. (Ok Americans, go ahead and laugh. I know you want to. Canadians, too.)
Aside from the fact colonialism is abhorrent to most Canadians, there are other resasons this would not work. Our different systems of government (constitutional monarchy vs. republic), different political cultures, and the fact that the Americans regard us a country, that Fox News and South Park points out could be invaded (with guns) and still be the punch-line (Ut is kind of funny becuase when US tried to invade Canada, in 1812, the joke was on them.)
The U.S regards Canada just like every other country in the Americas. They may like us as individuals, trade with us, visit us, and pay our musicians and actors big money, but they do not Canada as a equal in the Americas. (That, by the way, is the essential problem for the Americans in the Americas. Fix that, and they've solved a whole range of international issues.)
Now, there is an upside to all this. Freed from competing with Americans for turf and prestige, Canadians do what they do best. Our aid workers and emergency personnel go into other countries where the people we help are assured that we do not have some political agenda for being there.
We can fight for human rights as John Diefenbaker fought against apartheid. We can take a stand on international issues, as Pearson did during the Suez Canal crisis. And we can concentrate on building our economy and sharing our prosperity with each other and the world. Other nations may not see Canada as powerful, but they often do see us as an honest broker.
Haiti needs aid workers, more than soldiers. It needs money and jobs more than military. And while, building field hospitals and clearing runways is important; providing funds to non-profits on the ground in Haiti is the more effective course in the long run -- for Canadian taxpayers and the Haitian people.
So please, no more talk of protectorates and neo-colonisim. It's not only offensive. It's quite frankly delusional.
Let's not change that.
In recent days, pundits have talked about boosting Canada's international reputation and influence in the Americas. One gentlemen, suggests Canada make Haiti a protectorate and share power there with the U.S. (Ok Americans, go ahead and laugh. I know you want to. Canadians, too.)
Aside from the fact colonialism is abhorrent to most Canadians, there are other resasons this would not work. Our different systems of government (constitutional monarchy vs. republic), different political cultures, and the fact that the Americans regard us a country, that Fox News and South Park points out could be invaded (with guns) and still be the punch-line (Ut is kind of funny becuase when US tried to invade Canada, in 1812, the joke was on them.)
The U.S regards Canada just like every other country in the Americas. They may like us as individuals, trade with us, visit us, and pay our musicians and actors big money, but they do not Canada as a equal in the Americas. (That, by the way, is the essential problem for the Americans in the Americas. Fix that, and they've solved a whole range of international issues.)
Now, there is an upside to all this. Freed from competing with Americans for turf and prestige, Canadians do what they do best. Our aid workers and emergency personnel go into other countries where the people we help are assured that we do not have some political agenda for being there.
We can fight for human rights as John Diefenbaker fought against apartheid. We can take a stand on international issues, as Pearson did during the Suez Canal crisis. And we can concentrate on building our economy and sharing our prosperity with each other and the world. Other nations may not see Canada as powerful, but they often do see us as an honest broker.
Haiti needs aid workers, more than soldiers. It needs money and jobs more than military. And while, building field hospitals and clearing runways is important; providing funds to non-profits on the ground in Haiti is the more effective course in the long run -- for Canadian taxpayers and the Haitian people.
So please, no more talk of protectorates and neo-colonisim. It's not only offensive. It's quite frankly delusional.
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Please Prove Me Wrong
The BBC is reporting that there are no Canadians providing emergency aid at Leogane in Haiti. The Canadian media reported that HMCS Athabaskan landed in Leogane yesterday while HMCS Halifax and Canada's DART Team landed at Jacmel, the ancestral home of our Governor General. (Translation for non-Canadians: Queen's reprsentative and stand-in when Elizabeth II is not in the country.)
I was puzzled by the discrepency, but British Press often get news wrong when it comes to Canada. (American media avoid making mistakes by not covering Canadian stories at all.) So I scanned the English speaking media from several countries and I found no mention of any Canadian ships in Haiti and few mentions of Canadians even providing aid to Haiti.
How do you miss ships in the harbour unless no one knows they are there?
If we are not contributing enough that anyone on the ground in Haiti knows we are there, then the mission is a failure and shame to Canadians and our Armed Forces. If that is so, the Government of Canada must stop wasting our money and bring them home. Or make the mission effective. Whether that can happen is out of our individual hands.
But Canadians can pray effectively. We can send our money to accredited organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Dcotors without Borders, knowing the Government of Canada will match our donations.
Still, I am deeply disappointed. Like milions of Canadians, I thought Canada's DART, Mounties, ships, sailors, and soldiers would be effective in Haiti. But, perhaps we were only deluding ourselves to get a good night's sleep. How very, very sad, for us and even more so for the Haitians.
One last thing,I would be absolutley delighted to be proven wrong. So, please leave your comments. Good news would be welcome.
I was puzzled by the discrepency, but British Press often get news wrong when it comes to Canada. (American media avoid making mistakes by not covering Canadian stories at all.) So I scanned the English speaking media from several countries and I found no mention of any Canadian ships in Haiti and few mentions of Canadians even providing aid to Haiti.
How do you miss ships in the harbour unless no one knows they are there?
If we are not contributing enough that anyone on the ground in Haiti knows we are there, then the mission is a failure and shame to Canadians and our Armed Forces. If that is so, the Government of Canada must stop wasting our money and bring them home. Or make the mission effective. Whether that can happen is out of our individual hands.
But Canadians can pray effectively. We can send our money to accredited organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Dcotors without Borders, knowing the Government of Canada will match our donations.
Still, I am deeply disappointed. Like milions of Canadians, I thought Canada's DART, Mounties, ships, sailors, and soldiers would be effective in Haiti. But, perhaps we were only deluding ourselves to get a good night's sleep. How very, very sad, for us and even more so for the Haitians.
One last thing,I would be absolutley delighted to be proven wrong. So, please leave your comments. Good news would be welcome.
Wednesday 6 January 2010
Thanks N.J.
N.J. Lindquist interviewed me recently regarding my contribution to Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Stir the Heart & Warm the Soul.
N.J. Lindquist is an author, publisher, & advocate for Canadian writers, (especially those with a Christian world view.) I would like to her for allowing me to speak candidly about Canadian publishing, how Canadians view their own stories, and, especially, how that affects the work of Canadian writers with a Christian world view, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Anglican.)
While you are on the HAC site, take a look at interviews by other Canadians who have contributed to Hot Apple Cider: Stir the Heart & Warm the Soul.
N.J. Lindquist is an author, publisher, & advocate for Canadian writers, (especially those with a Christian world view.) I would like to her for allowing me to speak candidly about Canadian publishing, how Canadians view their own stories, and, especially, how that affects the work of Canadian writers with a Christian world view, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Anglican.)
While you are on the HAC site, take a look at interviews by other Canadians who have contributed to Hot Apple Cider: Stir the Heart & Warm the Soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)