Blog #10: Did Trudeau succeed in making Canada a just society?

 "Every individual should receive what is due to him or her. It’s a simple question of fairness." In 1968 election speech, Pierre Trudeau pledged to make Canada a "just society". A place where all the Canadians are equal. Trudeau introduced Canada's "Multiculturalism Policy" on October 8, 1971 recognizing that while Canada was a country of two official languages, it did not have a single unitary culture but rather recognized the plurality of cultures. He passed the Constitution Act in 1982, which has clarified issues of aboriginal and equality rights ( no discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion. sex. age, or mental and physical disability). He established the charter of rights and freedoms into the constitution, fought for universal healthcare, passed the Citizenship Act in 1977, which outlawed discrimination against members of racial or ethnic groups, and Introduced the official languages act.  Also, a new immigration act was passed in 1978 which had three goals of promoting family reunion, upholding humanitarian values, and encouraging economic growth in Canada. Unlike, America, Canada is a "mosaic", where people form many ethnic groups live respecting each others cultures and participating in Canadian society.   

 Did the 15th Prime Minister of this nation succeed in making Canada a just society? In my opinion, he did succeed in making Canada a just society. Currently, multiculturalism is one of the proud accomplishment of Canada. People respect each others' cultures while living in one society, which, in my opinion makes the country to have more potential with the various people with different skills. Pierre Trudeau has certainly worked to make this country a home for everyone. Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s vision of a just society with reference to multiculturalism, rights and freedoms for all and bilingualism are evident in society today. 

Blog #9: October Crisis and War Measures Act

The French Canadians didn't want to be treated as second-class citizens. By the late 1960s separatist groups began terrorist acts to press their demands. On October 5, 1970, the British trade commissioner, James Cross was kidnapped by four men from the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ). The FLQ demanded $500 000 in money, transportation to Cuba, release of the "political prisoners" and read the FLQ manifesto(declaration of beliefs) over national television networks. Only 5 days later, Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte was kidnapped. Unfortunately, Pierre Laporte's dead body was found later and the crisis deepened. When Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa asked the federal government for help, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau sent in Canadian Troops and brought the War Measures Act. It took away the civil rights of Canadian because it allowed police to arrest, question, and detain suspects, without charging them, for up to ninety days.

Was the use of War Measures Act justified? In my opinion, it was justified because the FLQ was going too far and the government could not just give all the things that the FLQ wanted because they were communicating though kidnapping, terrorizing, dealing and the use of threats. If Pierre Trudeau's government had not acted strong toward this crisis and had given what was demanded by the FLQ, then the crisis could have turned out worse. I also think that it was a good opportunity to show the power of the government in prevention of the future occurrences of the events like the October Crisis and the creation of  the groups such as the  FLQ. Police all over Quebec conducted thousands of searches and arrested more than four hundred people. After two months, the RCMO and the Quebec police found James Cross. The significance of this event would be that it put a stop to separatist terrorism and it played its role as an alarm for Canada to realize that the relations between the French Canadians and the English Canadians are critical and that it is time to resolve the conflicts which soon led to the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown proposal. 

Blog #8: Was the cold war inevitable? the significance?

The Cold War followed shortly after the World War 2 as the different ideologies of the two super powers, Soviet Union and US developed. The conflict between the democratic nations and the communist nations intensified through various events leading and during the cold war. One of the first skirmishes of the cold war was an economic fight over the recovery of Western European nations. To prevent the weak European countries to fall into Soviet's communism, the Marshall plan was developed. The first event occurred on August 29, 1949 when the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb at a test site in Siberia. Then, on October 1st, 1949, the Chinese communists, led by Mao Zedong won a long civil war against Chinese Nationalists. The Gouzenko Affair also confirmed anti communist fears/ the "Red Scare"  in North America. The Korean War was also a war of democracy and communism as the North and South were divided and each supported by the US troops and the Soviet troops. The Suez Crisis occurred when Egypt with the new nationalistic government was determined to take the control over its own resources, such as Suez Canal. The Cuban missile crisis occurred when it welcomed the economic aid and military support from the Soviet Union and the US found out that the Soviet missiles were being installed in Cuba.

Was the Cold War inevitable? I think that the cold war was inevitable because the ideologies of the communism and democracy are so different that they would have had to have the war eventually in order to stop the conflicts arising between the two governments due to their ideologies. How did it affect Canada? It impacted Canada because it was the nation between the US and the USSR, the military was in the defence position against the Soviet Union, people's movements were restricted, people had to practise the duck and cover drills and they had to live under the fear of an atomic bomb attack or a nuclear war.  Canada joined in the Marshall plan and shipped $706 million worth of food, equipment, and raw materials to Europe. Between 1948 and 1953, Canada and US jointly contributed $ 13.5 billion in European economic aid. Also, Canada and United States developed organizations such as NORAD (North American Air Defence system) and DEW (distance early warning line). What was gained through the cold war or what is the significance of it? The significance of it is that the Soviet Union communism was crumbled at the end of the war and the peace was restored.Also, technology improved as the two nations competed and threatened each other with the technologies, such as sputnik, the first human-made earth satellite.

Blog #7: The United Nations

The United Nation is an international peace organization created by 51 nations around the globe after the World War 2 to maintain a lasting world peace. After numerous stages of joining and adjusting, the United Nations officially came into existence on 24th October, 1945 (The United Nations day is celebrated on 24 October each year).In April 1945, delegates from 51 nations gathered in San Francisco to formally establish the UN. The United Nation was originally created in response to World War 2 and the fact that the League of Nations had failed. It was formed to keep the world peace by preventing and lessening the chance of another world war through solving conflicts between nations. The 4 purposes of UN are to keep world peace and prevent the outbreak of new wars, to help advance justice and law throughout the world, to defend human rights and help promote equality among different individuals and groups around the globe and to encourage friendly relations among nations. There were 5 significant stages that have led to the creation of the UN. First, the "United Nations" was coined by US president Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 Jan 1942 during WW2, when reps of 26 nations pledged their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. After two years, in the fall of 1944, officials form US, Britain, Soviet Union and China gathered At Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C where they laid plans for UN. Then, April 1945, delegates from 51 nations gathered in San Francisco to formally establish the UN. The Charter of the UN was signed on 26 June, 1945 in San Francisco and the UN officially came to existence on 24 October, 1945

 Canada has been active in the United Nations since its foundation in 1945. Canada's PM, Mackenzie King attended the UN conference in San Francisco. Although Canada was not one of the 'Big Five’, it had become a major middle power. He wanted to ensure that smaller nations like Canada would not be forced by the major powers. His voice was heard at the conference, and the UN charter was changed so that any country asked to contribute troops or money to UN security operations had to be consulted about the operations first. There are currently 15 peacekeeping operations and one special political mission, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

So what is the importance of UN? UN works for peacekeeping, peace building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance. The United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds and programmes) affect our daily lives and work to make the world a better place. It works on variety of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, gender equality and the advancement of women, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, to achieve its goals and build a safer world for the future generations.

  What would have happened if UN never existed? Since the United Nations is a peacekeeping international Organization, it works to provide solutions, resolve the conflicts between the nations to keep fair relations among the countries, which mean without it there would be more frequent conflicts and fights among nations and a higher chance of another world war. Since the UN also works for human rights and the fundamental issues, such as refugees protection, disaster relief, human rights, gender equality, variety of developments, promoting democracy, etc, our daily lives would be negatively affected. (Less freedom and rights for humans, less equality among individuals, less efforts put into less fortunate, more human rights violation)

  What is its Significance to Canada? The first significance is that Canada has been a member of the UN organization for almost 12 years, which means it has contributed to UN's peace keeping operations by supporting with troops and money. For example, under UN, Canada served in the Korean War in the 1950's to defend South Korea along with the other 15 nations from UN. The second significance is that even though Canada played a significant role in WW1 and received some independence from Britain, it was still recognized as a small nation. However, with Canada's war effort during WWII, its importance as a source of food and goods, and its industrial and financial strength had made gained itself some attention by 1945. Therefore, the PM, Mackenzie King could attend the UN meeting in San Francisco and although Canada was a middle power, King's opinion of more respect for small nations was accepted and the charter was changed so that the small nations cannot be forced to supply troops or money for security operations. As a result, the creation of UN and its conference were another step for Canada's independence and its acknowledgement in the world. 

What is the difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations? I think that the key factor that differentiates the League of Nations and the United Nations is the equality of voice/power of the nations within the group. I think that the reasons why the League of Nations have failed its mission to keep the world peace are because of the ambition and the sense of revenge of the Nazi Germany, the treaty of Versailles which the league itself was created by (its harsh conditions toward Germany) and the inequality among the nations. The treaty of Versailles was planned and written by the major powers, which caused a sense of inequality within the group even though it was a peacekeeping group. In contrast, in the United Nations, all the member nations except for the Security Council members are all treated equally.

Blog #6: The Atomic Bomb... Was it necessary?

          In the early August of 945, the world saw the birth of a disastrous weapon, the atomic bomb. On August 6th, 1945, at 8:15 am, Japan's 7th largest city, Hiroshima was attacked by the first atomic bomb, "Little Boy" carried by an American b -29 bomber, the Enola Gay. 3 days later, on August 9th, 1945, Japan's Nagasaki had been the target of the second nuclear bomb, "fat man". That night, Emperor Hirohito said "the time has come when we must bear the unbearable." Japan surrendered on August 10th, 1945, the day known as VJ (victory over japan) day. This horrendous weapon had been planned and created by America. the American government had earlier decided to work on the invention of an atomic bomb by forming the top secret Manhattan project. Under tight security, numerous scientists, led by Robert Oppenheimer began a race against time because the Nazi Germany was suspected to be working on the same thing.

           After the first bombing, 70 000 precious lives were taken, 61 000 were injured and 20 000 of the dead and missing were school children. The outcome of this monster was much more horrifying than what the world has experienced. people in the streets were vaporized, leaving only their imprinted shadows on the walls, they were buried in collapsed buildings, and the Japanese survivors (only 10% of the people who were within 500 meters of the center of the  bomb) died soon due to the radiation sickness, gamma rays and cancers. The question is, was it necessary? Was the atomic bomb really necessary for Japan's surrender? I personally think that the atomic bomb was necessary and played a key role in putting an end to World War 2. It is a known fact that the atomic bomb had been a deadly monster to Japan. however, Japan and Nazi Germany's ambition of domination was too strong that it caused the Allied Powers to choose the most drastic and effective way. They were the ones to break the peace in the first place by showing their determination of world conqueration. My second question is, what if the Allied powers had not used the atomic bombs, then what would the outcomes be? how would it have changed the course of the war? I think that the result would have been unbearable to the world because Germany was developing atomic bombs also, which means that if the Allied powers had not used it first and Japan had not surrendered, then the Allied nations would have suffered form  what Japan had to go through with atomic bomb  attacks. Also, the world would have been dominated and controlled by the Nazis or the fascist groups. some of us would not even exist today if that had happened  Therefore, I thin that even though the atomic bomb was a drastic way,  it was necessary to defend the Allied nations, crush Germany and Japan's mad ambition and finally put an end to World War 2.

Blog #5: What Caused World War2?

On September 1st, as the German Wehrmacht rolled across the German - Polish border, another disastrous war, named the World War 2 officially announced its beginning. There are many factors and events that have led Europe into another war. For example, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and their ambition to conquer the entire Europe had a huge impact on the formation of World War 2. Appeasement(the policy of making concessions in order to maintain peace) , Treaty of Versailles(the peace treaty written at the end of WW1 to ensure a lasting peace in Europe), the league of nations (the new league created by the Treaty of Versailles  are all key factors that have contributed to WW2.  However, it is not true that all of them had equal contribution to the war. The question is which of these factors has been the most significant contribution to WW2? 

Some people say that the policy of appeasement was the key path to the war. Was it? Appeasement was used and supported by the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain and the Canadian Prime Minister, McKenzie King. Because Britain, Canada, France and other nations had fresh memories of WW1, they could not possibly imagine having another war. Therefore, they came up with appeasement after thinking that the peace will be sustained if Germany got a bit of what they wanted, however Germany's ambition was too great for peace. Germany asked for more and more since the other nations were giving them what they exactly wanted. However, i personally think that we cannot blame the prime ministers for using appeasement as their solution to keep peace. Clearly, all the nations were still suffering from WW1 and they were not ready for another destruction. Also, Hitler, with his famous speeches and the use of words, he made sure that the other leaders were convinced that he is a man who keeps his promises. 

I think that the Treaty of Versailles played a larger role than the appeasement in terms of contribution to WW2. The reason is because i think that the Treaty of Versailles is the event that destroyed peace in Europe and caused all the other events that have led to WW2 including the appeasement discussed above. Let's go over all the steps and the chain of the events, starting from the last stage. The WW2 was erupted because of Germany's invasion of Poland  → Germany did not hesitate to invade Poland because of the appeasement.    → the appeasement had to be used because of Germany's ambition to conquer the Europe and their threats of starting another European War. → Germany had the ambition was determined to gain its power and greatness back because they were stripped of its power and wealth through the treaty of Versailles. As you can see, the first stage of the formation of WW2 is the Treaty of Versailles and its harshness toward Germany. therefore, I think that the Treaty of Versailles hass the key factor that has contributed to WW2 by providing a sense of revenge to Germany and encouraging Germany's nationalism created by the destruction of the nation's pride. 

Blog #4: Mackenzie King or R.B. Bennett?

Mackenzie King or R.B. Bennett

The burden of economic challenges of the Great depression in the 1920's and the 1930's were on shoulders of the new generation of political leaders. The two new political leaders who were in power during the tumultuous times are Mackenzie King and R.B. Bennett. Mackenzie King was the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie  the fiery reformer. He became the new Liberal leader in 1919 as Sir Wilfrid Laurier died shortly after World War 1. He was an expert labor negotiator , skilled at using compromise, and knew the importance of  the national unity  ahead of political goals. He is known to be the longest serving prime minister in Canada, beginning in 1921, he held the power in 1925, 1926, 1935, 1940 and 1945. R.B Bennett  held the power from 1930 to 1935. As a business man, he believed that if the businesses survive and grow, they would be able to provide jobs for workers, provide them enough wages to buy their products, as a result, stimulating more business growth and upward spiral of employment and production to save the nation from the terrible depression. The question that arise here is who was a better leader and what aspects of him made him more outstanding than the other?

First, let`s look at what  Mackenzie King has done after his victory in the 1921 election. As he came in to power, the Progressive Party  had emerged as a national party representing the interests of farmers, however the Progressive Party lacked a unified platform and Mackenzie King lure the progressives to the Liberal by lowering tariffs on farm machinery and equipment and by reducing the freight costs for gain shipments, which had been suspended during World War1(the Crow Rate). In 1920, the Maritimes Rights Movement was launched my numerous people who believed that Canada was responsible for any region that was economically disadvantaged due to its geographic location. However their demands were not granted because Mackenzie King did not want to lose his votes from the Western provinces. Discouraged by the support from the government, Maritimes Rights Movement disbanded in 1926. King believed that the depression was just a temporary crash caused by the business cycle and when the provincial governments asked for help for unemployment, he responded with the famous five cent speech that his government would not even provide them a five cent. He was accused unable to deal with the depression. 

Bennett won the election in 1930 and Canada was in his hands. He tried to raise the production and unemployment  rate by higher the tariff to protect the Canadian business from other companies, however exporting industries were not helped by the high tariffs. He created relief camps for the numerous homeless and single men known as transients. instead of wandering in the cities, the camps provided them shelters, food, clothing and twenty cents a  day for building bridges, roads, cutting trees and dugging ditches. Despite the government's effort to support them, they were disillusioned by the lives in the relief camps and they demanded for more. Bennett also suggested the New Deal which included the regulation of hours of work, minimum wage, improvement of working conditions, employment, industrial accident,s insurance against sickness. However, those were also not appreciated by the citizens because many were already employed and they viewed the new deal as Bennett's desperate effort to win the next election. 

 It is a fact that the time that King and Bennett had power was a period of challenge and depression. King and Bennett belonged to different parties, however they had the same intention and goal which was to save  Canada from the depression and make its economy stronger. However, I personally think that Bennett was a better prime minister because even though King had outstanding skills to work though problems with national unity,  he did not believe in depression and he thought that the economic struggle was temporary and that the economy will recover on its own. In contrast, Bennett tried many ways solve the problems and save Canada from the depression. Even though his efforts were not greatly appreciated by the people, I think that his non-stopping suggestions and efforts deserve some respect and gratitude.