Pierre Vallières' "White Niggers of America"

While the title of Pierre Vallières' book--part memoir and part political treaties--is  quite obviously offensive today, at the time of its publication in 1968 Vallières meant to illustrate what he saw as a striking parallel between the experience of the Québécois and African Americans. Whether or not his parallel goes too far is up to the reader to decide. While I understand Vallières point, personally, I think his comparison takes things a little bit too far. 

Pierre Vallières, a Québécois journalist, writer and intellectual, was arrested by American police on the request of the Canadian government while picketing outside the United Nations in New York in 1966. While awaiting deportation to Canada to face what he described as trumped-up murder charge related to his involvement with the FLQ, Vallières hastily penned this book. After serving as his own defense in court, he was sentenced to life in prison. Vallières considered himself a political prisoner, and criticized the court for convicting him of murder based on his political activities and opinions. 

In his book, Vallières explains that French-Canadians were--in many cases--forcibly brought over to Canada by the French government, where they were mistreated by first the ruling class, then the Church, and the Anglo-Canadians and Americans. He chronicles how French-Canadians were paid less, denied economic opportunities and treated as a source of cheap labour-- treated like "slaves." 

Vallières draws on his own childhood growing up in the slums of Montreal in the 1940s and 50s with no running water, no sewage system, and poor educational opportunities. Driven by the desire to escape a meaningless and oppressive life in which he could only ever hope to be satisfied with "half a loaf," he pursued his education and focused on his writing, while trying to reconcile himself with the Church and with his own nation--Quebec. 

Vallières concluded that the only answer for Quebec was a Marxist one. The only path which would allow the Québécois to be free was, in Vallières' view, a path of "radical changes in the relations of production" which could only happen through revolution. By necessity, the revolution would need to be a violent one, and would need to be organized; it would not simply happen on its own. 

For Pierre Vallières the FLQ was "the armed avant-garde of the exploited classes of Quebec." He saw Quebec as one piece or front of a global revolutionary movement. Quebec was, to use his words, the avenue through which he had chosen "to pursue the struggle against imperialism."  

As a piece of Canadian political history, this book is a gem. Not only does it shed light on one of the many perspectives which drove the separatist movement after the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, but it also provides a unique look at the FLQ and at the application of Marxist theory in the Canadian political sphere. 

Reading Again

Over the past month I haven't had a whole lot of time to read or to write about anything not related to my classes. Now that I've handed in my last final paper and written most of my exams, I can finally dig into the pile of books I've been anxiously anticipating and hopefully post on here more frequently.

I started this blog almost exactly two years ago at the end of my first year of university. I wanted to make sure that I was absorbing what I read and thinking about it as well. Two years later, that's still what I want to do. The major difference between two years ago and now--apart from my ever evolving taste in reading material--is that now, unlike then, someone occasionally reads my posts.

To kick off my return to leisure reading, I thought I'd share a couple of the books I've bought over the past two or three months. Even when I'm not reading, I'm buying.

To start, I'll share my most recent buy, The Battle of London: Trudeau, Thatcher, and the Fight for Canada's Constitution by Frederic Bastien. When I pre-ordered the new Dean Brody CD that comes out April 21st (go check out his music!) I threw this in to get free shipping. Canadian Constitutional law and history have fascinated me for a long time, but until recently my reading and exploration have been fragmented. 

Next, I have Fifth Business by Robertson Davies. This was mandatory reading in my grade 12 English class back in high school. I hated it at the time, but it's been a few years and for whatever reason it keeps coming back to me. I will always be grateful to my high school English teachers for introducing me to Canadian Lit. I think it's time for a re-read. I couldn't resist the Penguin Modern Classics edition. 

Finally, I picked up Autumn of the Patriarch by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, an author who has quickly become one of my favourites. It should be a fascinating and perhaps challenging read as there don't appear to be any chapter or even paragraph breaks anywhere within the text. 

Square Dancing in the Ice Age (Abbie Hoffman)

Square Dancing in the Ice Age shows the more serious side of Abbie Hoffman. While books like Revolution for the Hell of It and Steal this Book are humorous, satirical and--for lack of a better word--whimsical with their treatment of politics, this book portrays an older, more seasoned and more serious Hoffman.

It includes more than 25 essays and articles written by Hoffman while he was underground (as a fugitive) and after he turned himself in. He makes it very clear in his introduction and throughout the book that he regrets nothing about his political activities during the 60s and 70s. He does not consider himself one of those radicals who learned his lesson, reconciled with society and settled down. In fact, the final essay shows Hoffman, once again, in an activist role. This time, as an environmental activist concerned with a project on the St. Lawrence. 

When Hoffman went underground  in 1974, after being accused(falsely?) of conspiring to distribute cocaine, he did not find a quiet corner to hide in. Instead, after setting himself up with a false identity (he had many in his years underground), he took risks and helped sustain himself by writing. 

One of my favourite articles in this collection is "Inside the FBI." Hoffman literally walked into the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington DC, where the FBI has its headquarters, and took a tour. He actually published the article afterwards. What caught my interest was not only the sheer insanity of Abbie's act, but the tone of the article. It's a thoughtful and extremely well framed critique of the FBI as an institution. 

Another favourite was "Cold War Language: An Editorial Reply." If I hadn't of realized it before, this article would have shown me just how well-educated and well-read Hoffman was. The article is, in its essence, a study of rhetoric. The first lines are as follows: "Language shapes our environment. It is impossible to have thoughts without words. This well established fact seems to be completely ignored by reporters and broadcasters who claim to be 'objective' while using heavily loaded language"(p.195). Hoffman had to have read Saussure. 

A few of the article are light hearted as well. There is one "Mexico: Less Money, More Fun" which presents itself as a travel article, and one titled "The Great Gourmet Rip-Off" detailing Hoffman's travels in France where he pretended to be a writer for Playboy, thereby securing himself free meals by some of the country's best chefs. "Television's God Show" and "In Search of Lock Ness Nellie: A Fable" are also great, light, but deep articles.

(As a side note. I found a used library discard copy of this book online and paid about $10 for it including the shipping). 

In My Mailbox Today: To America With Love: Letters from the Underground

Abbie Hoffman fascinates me. His politics are not my politics. Yet, in a way, I admire him. His books capture my imagination and inspire me. Hoffman, an American activist and so called "Yippie," specialized in street theatre (sometimes called guerrilla theatre) in the 1960s and 70s. In 1974, after getting busted for drugs, Hoffman went underground to avoid jail time.

I discovered Abbie Hoffman's work about a year and a half ago when I read Revolution for the Hell of It. I followed it up a few months later with Steal This Book and, shortly after, The Autobiography of Abbie Hoffman. I'm currently waiting for another book, Square Dancing in the Ice Age to arrive. 

Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell in and Out of Love with Vladimir Putin

Published in 2013, Fragile Empire by Ben Judah is a journalistic portrayal of post-soviet Russia. Judah focuses on President Putin, and frames the book around the perception that he has fallen out of favour and his days in power are numbered.

Looking at this book now, in November of 2014, I can't help but wonder if Judah would write this book differently now. Putin may have gone through a rough political patch, but his popularity in Russia is still very high. As other writers have noted, Putin will continue to enjoy popularity because there is no one with equivalent popularity or power to replace him.

I started Fragile Empire in September and have been reading it chapter by chapter since then. My Contemporary Russian Politics Professor assigned the book as mandatory reading. I found it refreshing and light, compared to the other more academic articles I also read in the course.

While I enjoyed the book, it's already out of date. So much has happened in the past year (Russia, Ukraine, Crimea etc.) which isn't mentioned. If you're going to pick up this book, it's best to do so in collaboration with some more up to date works,

Common Ground (Justin Trudeau)

Reading a political memoir is like a holiday for the mind. I can easily step away from denser texts and the complexities of everyday life, to a single story. Memoirs and biographies give me the kind of relaxation that other readers might receive from a crime thriller or a YA novel. 

I loved this book. I respect Justin Trudeau even more than I did before I read it. Please don't jump to conclusions however. I won't be voting Liberal in 2015 election--or any election for that matter. I respect Justin Trudeau's politics, but I don't necessarily agree with or support some of his policies. 

I sympathize with the difficulties Trudeau faced growing up. I hadn't realized that Margaret Trudeau suffered from mental illness. I can only imagine how hard it must have been growing up in the spotlight and then going through his parents' divorce. 

Trudeau starts the book with his childhood, not because he wants to write biographically, but because his political development begins, necessarily, with his father and the people, ideas and events he experienced growing up in a political family. 

Common Ground is not a book about Trudeau's life for its own sake, it is a book about Trudeau's politics. As such, it is a piece of propaganda--if you will--to promote the figure of Trudeau. It's no coincidence that this book was released approximately one year before the prospective date of the next Federal election. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying this is a negative thing. In fact, as a political tool, the book is fantastic. It's a legitimate avenue for Trudeau to inform and perhaps gather new supporters. The final portion focuses on Trudeau's election as leader of the Liberal party and outlines his philosophy behind gaining support as well as his ideas for the direction of the party. 

Whether you're a Liberal supporter or not, Common Ground is worth the read, if only for the sake of understanding more about one of the more prominent figures on the federal political scene  

Sex and the Single Prime Minister: or how pierre elliott trudeau seduced canada with the lights on (Michael Cowley)

I ordered Sex and Single Prime Minister, a book of photographs of Trudeau accompanied by funny captions, from an online used book dealer out of Quebec. It arrived in the mail today. Other than being a little worn around the edges, my copy of this 1968 book is in really good shape. I thought I'd take the opportunity to share a few images from this amusing little piece of Canadiana.  

In my Mailbox Today: "Common Ground" by Justin Trudeau

I pre-ordered Justin Trudeau's memoir two or three weeks ago. I love Canadian political memoirs and biographies. I have a small section on one of my bookshelves dedicated to Justin's father, Pierre Trudeau, and there certainly is a wealth of books on Pierre. I've read books by and about Person, Pierre, Diefenbaker, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, Michael Ignatieff and probably more. To anyone who says that Canadian politics aren't interesting, I hand you the trove of literature by and about our politicians. I'll take a Canadian political memoir over an American one any day. 

I hope to read Common Ground over the weekend. I'll post a full review when I'm finished. 

The Answer Is Still No: Voices of Pipeline Resistance (Edited by Paul Bowles & Henry Veltmeyer)

After  interviewing opponents and anti-pipeline activists along route of the proposed Northern Gateway, academics Paul Bowles and Henry Veltmeyer put together this 143 page volume which includes, word-for-word, the voices of twelve people fighting for greater consultation with First Nations and for cancellation of the pipeline project. 

In the book's introduction, the editors say they are certain of one thing: "the Enbridge pipeline will never be built." After reading the interviews, I'm inclined to agree with the editors, but at the same time I also sort of believe the pipeline will be built. Stopping the massive projects of governments and corporations is not an easy task; some would say it's an impossible task. 

The Answer is Still No is the first book I've read on pipeline politics, but it won't be the last. Pipelines aren't just about environmental policy. So much more is at stake. If governments and corporations can walk all over First Nations communities and ignore the desires of Canadians, then we have a democratic deficit--a problem. Also worrying is the rhetoric used to brand anyone who opposes pipelines and big oil. The labels of "radical" and "eco-terrorist" are used to discredit even the most mild-mannered and law-abiding protesters. 

If you haven't read about pipelines before, The Answer is Still No would be a good place to start.

The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montreal (Sean Mills)

I love to read political histories of the 1960s. Unfortunately, Canadian based books on this subject are not plentiful. At least not as plentiful as those on, say, the United States or France. What caught my attention about this book was not only the time period, but also the reference to post-colonialism in the sub heading. I consider myself to have a  very basic working knowledge of Quebecois history, but I had never before viewed that history through a colonial context. 

What the author, Sean Mills, does in The Empire Within, is highlight the social and nationalist movements of Montreal as part of  the larger, postcolonial and revolutionary environment of the period. 1960s Montreal was not a closed subsystem, but rather an open one, taking in and adapting the ideas and language that came out of the Black Power Movement in the United States, the revolution and rise of Communism in Cuba, the student and labour movements in France and the post-colonial uprisings in Latin American and Africa. 

Of course, Mills does acknowledge how skewed the vision of many activists in Montreal were during this time period. Many people chose to view French-Canada as a colonized and oppressed group (a very valid and true argument) but those same people did not consider the role they themselves had played in the colonization of the indigenous peoples of Canada.  It wasn't until the late 60's and early 70's, that Quebecois activists began to take note of the oppression of women, indigenous peoples and other ethnic minorities. 

I can't describe how much I enjoyed this book. I have a feeling similar to the one I got when I read Betty Freidan's The Feminine Mystique for the first time. My perception of events has once again been altered by what I have read. I will be thinking about what I have read here for a long time afterwards. 

Captial: In the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty (Part One)

When my local library acquired Thomas Piketty's Capital: in the Twenty-First Century I was the first one to sign it. That was about three weeks ago. Today, I'm only about 250 pages in, with hundred yet to read. Unfortunately, with the due-date in two days and holds lining up behind me, I won't have time to complete the book. So, I've placed an order on Amazon (it's very reasonably priced) and I shall finish Capital at my leisure.

For now, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on Capital so far. As far as content goes, there is nothing "life-altering" in the first two-hundred and fifty pages, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting.

Piketty examines short run and (when possible) long run trends in income distribution and the share of income which goes towards labour vs. capital (Piketty uses capital in a very broad sense). He also tackles and discounts a number of theories regarding the eventual, natural evening out of income distribution. Unfortunately for readers who are not strong in economics or mathematics, he does use some technical language from within these disciplines, as well as formulas involved in his own research. However, he makes an attempt to at accessibility for the less educated reader by using the writings of Jane Austen and Balzac as complementary supports.

I look forward to reading more of this book when my own copy arrives. I would definitely recommend it for any reader with an interest in the trends of Capitalism or income inequality and distribution.

Time To Say Goodbye: The Case For Getting Quebec Out of Canada (Reed Scowen)

Published in 1999, Time To Say Goodbye is far from current. Reed Scowen writes from a time when the Liberals were still the "natural governing party" and the financial crisis and recession of 2008 were still far in the future. The 1995 Quebec referendum was still fresh in people's minds and experts said Canada was in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Like many writers of the 1990's, Scowen lets his imagination run wild and sets out to explain some of the "what ifs" of Quebec separation. 

In 1995, Quebecers voted "No" to separation, but Scowen (an anglophone Quebecer who spent much time outside the province, as well as in it) argues, not for Quebec to take the initiative and leave the federation, but rather for the rest of Canada to give Quebec the boot. 

Scowen argues that Quebec's political vision is incompatible with Canada's political vision as a whole. Quebec's demands for special status and the continuing soap opera for separation (my paraphrase of his description) only serve as divisive and distracting poisons to the other nine provinces (and the territories, although he fails to mention them). If Canadians were to vote for divestiture--the compulsory transfer of title or interest--Scowen argues that Canada would be economically and politically better off in the long run. 

Perhaps I only laugh at him because I'm fifteen years from his time, but I find it somewhat Utopian when he suggests that the divestment movement must start as grassroots in a single province and then gain traction through a provincial party and then an opposition federal party. I find it hard to believe that any of our white-collar, tie-choked politicians would embrace any movement that would jeopardize their hold on power, economic stability (especially in this post-2008 world), or cause massive conflict within their party. I laughed even harder when Scowen suggested that after a referendum, divestment (including amendment of the Constitution to exclude Quebec and arrangements for the allocation of debt and military equipment) could be completed in 18 months. Even more unrealistically, he casually mentions that perhaps France might take responsibility for Quebec, if it weren't for objections from the United States and from Quebecers themselves. As if France even gives Quebec a fleeting thought?

Regardless of the plausibility of Scowen's plans, the book was an interesting read. For instance, I learned that Newfoundland was divested by the United Kingdom to Canada. 

Imperialist Canada (Todd Gordon)

Imperialist Canada entered my bookshelf as a birthday present. I took it with me on a vacation last week and read through it a chapter a day, while enjoying many cups of tea. Published in 2010, Imperialist Canada sets out to explain why Canada should be considered, and is, an Imperialist country. 

Within the first chapter, Todd Gordon defines contemporary imperialism. As Gordon explains, imperialism is no longer just a matter of one country making a territory of another. He chooses to operate on David McNally's definition which states that "imperialism is a system of global inequalities and domination embodied in regimes of property, military power and global institutions through which wealth is drained from the labour and resources of people in the Global South to the systematic advantage of capital in the North (p.26). With this definition in mind Gordon sets out to prove that Canadian foreign policy is driven, not by benevolence or the desire for peace, but by the desire to create new markets for Canadian capital to expand into and dominate.

Gordon spends a portion of the book tackling FIPAs (Foreign Investment Protections Agreements), which place obligations on how foreign governments treat Canadian corporations, as well as Free Trade Agreements and FDIs (Foreign Direct Investment). He also devotes an entire chapter to mining, oil and gas, telecommunications, garment manufacturing and financial services, illustrating how corporations in these fields exploit the countries they enter, draining wealth and transferring it to the North. 

He recognizes too, the role imperialism plays in domestic Canadian affairs. First Nations peoples have frequently been disposed of land and of control over their land's resources. They have been treated as a source of cheap labour. They and their land are wells from which wealth is extracted and moved elsewhere. 

I was impressed to see Gordon identify how language can shape public perception. I have long been frustrated with the use of the word "terrorist" to describe anyone and everyone who opposes the state (and involved corporations). "Terrorist," Gordon points out is "a suitably vague and therefore flexible label. The terrorist can be found virtually anywhere" (p.293). A record exists of First Nations being labeled by bodies within the state as possible terrorists, or an "asymmetrical security threat" (p.296). This label comes, Gordon suggests, not because the people have a desire to physically harm others in an effort to gain power, but because they interrupt the everyday practices of the state and of corporations through protest to protect what is their's. 

Notably, the modern media in Canada, refrains from labeling the First Nations of Canada as terrorists, but the same is not so of those who take similar actions in the global south. 

Gordon uses examples from countries such as Haiti (the Canadian government funded those who staged a coup and overthrew the legally elected government in 2004) and Columbia to show the way in which language can manipulate the public's perception of events and conflicts. 

Of all the ideas in this book, I was most intrigued by the connection Gordon makes between the old idea of "the white man's burden" and of "the burden of the American military." Once, imperialism was justified by the idea that the whites of Europe had to shoulder the burden of taking civilization and religion to the Global South. Today, elements of imperialism are often justified by the idea that the militaries of the Global North--especially that of the United States--much shoulder the burden of creating and maintaining order in the failed and failing states of the Global South. Failed State is perhaps just a euphemism for uncivilized. 

Imperialist Canada is by far one of the most interesting pieces I've read on Canadian foreign policy to date. 

Khrushchev's Russia (Edward Crankshaw)

I love the look of the old Penguin books. For a cheap paperback printed over fifty years ago, my copy of Krushechev's Russia, is in very good condition. The pages are yellowed and the spine has some wear on either end, but other than that, the book is undamaged. If I recall correctly, I didn't pay a thing for it. About two years ago I pulled a dozen or so of these penguin books from a recycling dumpster. It seemed a shame to let them be destroyed. After collecting dust on my shelf for a very long time, I finally picked this one up.

It's a short, non-fiction read spanning only 176 pages. Published in 1959, the book provides a picture of the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. Crankshaw chooses to focus, not of foreign policy or international affairs as many of the writers did and still do when discussing Russia, but rather he focuses on the internal state and changes within Russian society, government and industry. The picture provided is very small and perhaps an inaccurate one at times. Crankshaw makes interpretations and predictions at a time when it was assumed that Khrushchev would remain in power in the Soviet Union for a long time to come.

One of the more interesting aspects of the book is Crankshaw's interlude about literature and writing near the end. Crankshaw describes the previous Russian literature under Stalin as being a literature in which, "the only possible hero was the young man with a steam shovel who thought solely in terms of fulfilling his norm, of then exceeding it; the only possible heroine was the young woman who was prepared to turn her back on the man she loved, if the man she loved showed the slightest sign of putting his private concerns, including her, before his allotted task (p.101-2). Subtly, Crankshaw implies that what happened under Khrushchev was a loosening of the reigns which had formerly forced Russian authors to write nothing that did not reinforce the dominant ideologies and rhetoric of Soviet Russia. I admire this line: "An author," Crankshaw says, "is not a piece of machinery registering events" (p.105).

Crankshaw spends a number of pages praising the loosening of government restraints over literature, but reminds the reader to make no mistake; while there may be a thaw, there are still constraints in Soviet literature. To prove this point, he recounts a garden party in Moscow where a selection of  Soviet writers were invited. They listened to a speech given by Khrushchev. A few indirect threats were uttered within the speech and apparently one author fainted.

Regardless of what Soviet Russia was and wasn't under Khrushchev, it is apparent that the system developed under the tight hand of Stalin was relaxed and altered in many ways. Innovations and reallocation of funds allowed the standard of living in the country to begin to increase.

Krushchev's Russia is a unique piece of historical writing which is well worth the read, but perhaps it is best consumed accompanied by other, more modern writings on the same time period and subject so that the reader is provided with as balanced a view as possible.

Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (Micheal Ignatieff)

I swear I didn't buy this book because of its attractive cover, although I have to admit it's why I pulled the book off the shelf. I've never seen anything quite like it. That is to say, I've never seen a published book that still looks like manuscript on the outside, although I've read many a book that reads like a first draft manuscript on the inside. 

Now, I'm not a Liberal or even a Liberal party supporter. I have to admit, I would prefer a Liberal led government over a Conservative one, but I'm not in the practice of choosing the lesser of two evils when there is another option. 

Putting aside my personal political views, I'll turn my attention to the book at hand, Fire and Ashes by Michael Ignatieff, the former leader of the Federal Liberal party of Canada who rode the helm of the party as they crashed in the 2011 election, loosing their status as the official opposition and becoming a meager third party. The book does cover this portion of Ignatieff's career. 

I would refer to the book as less of an autobiography and more of a memoir of Ignatieff's time in politics, beginning with his youth in the 1960s and ending with his disgraced exit from politics after the 2011 election. Initially, I was a little taken aback by the way in which he begins his book. He writes of encounters with Pierre Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson, but also of his family's great feats. His puts a lot of stock into the greatness of his Russian heritage who, we are told, were minor nobility. He also spends a small section flaunting the fact that his father was "almost" appointed governor general under Pierre Trudeau. 

I have to admit, I do like Ignatieff's perception of ideal politics. Through out the book he expresses a distaste for partisan politics over cooperation; he despises the way MPs in the legislature see each other as enemies rather than opponents. What is comes down to is that the war metaphor and partisan politics poison politics and as Ignatieff implies bad blood prevent politicians from effectively teaming up and working together in times of crisis. 

 Naturally, there were many points in Ignatieff's book which I do not agree with. For example, he stated that simply because he had been out of Canada for thirty years prior to 2005, which was about five or six years before the Federal election in which he ran for Prime Minister, didn't mean he couldn't effectively represent the people of Canada. Sure, being out of Canada does not make a person any less of a Canadian, but to spend thirty years elsewhere surely represents a lack of devotion to home politics. I'm surprised Ignatieff wasn't at least out of touch with current issues. But then, I suppose a team of well educated staff must have written hundreds of memos, giving him a quick snapshot of key issues. 

I'm not bashing Ignatieff, I'm just saying it wasn't his time or his place to try for Prime Minister. Surely, years ago when we gained our sovereignty, we put aside the idea of a Prime Minister who has spent the majority of his adult life abroad prior to running for election. 

Overall, I enjoyed the book. If you're looking for a light political read, or simply a better understanding of who governed the Liberal party prior to Justin Trudeau and after Stephane Dion, this is the book for you. Then again, maybe you just want something to pass a few hours in a bus station or on a plane with which won't put you to sleep but make you feel good for reading something educational. God knows. Read the book, or don't :)