B.C. town at war over 'peace monument'

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-09-27 02:06pm

Link

B.C. town reels after proposal to fete draft dodgers airs on Fox

Brian Hutchinson
National Post

NELSON, B.C. - 'I bet I know why you want to come here,'' said the woman at the hotel, when I called to make my reservation.

Denial was futile. The crew from Fox News had just blazed through town, igniting a controversy and setting everyone on edge.

Fox News producers learned of a local plan, hatched this month, to celebrate and memorialize thousands of U.S. draft dodgers and war objectors who ran to Canada during the war in Vietnam. Dozens are said to have settled here, in this bucolic, mountainside community 700 kilometres east of Vancouver.

The Fox crew arrived last week, and its story was broadcast internationally.

Nelson's city hall was immediately flooded with angry phone calls, e-mails and letters, most of them from furious Americans vowing never to set foot here again.

The dodgy celebration is the brainchild of a small group with an excruciatingly long name, and an equally cumbersome acronym: the Reunion Committee to Reunite War Resisters and Those Who Assisted Them during the Vietnam War, or RCRWRTWATDVW.

Leading the group is Isaac Romano, a local child therapist who moved here from Seattle five years ago. He envisions a ''spectacular'' weekend of discussion, and the premiere of a feature- length documentary about American war objectors in Canada.

What really seemed to rankle Fox viewers, however, is RCRWRTWATDVW's plan to unveil a metal sculpture meant to honour male and female war objectors, and Canada's role in welcoming them from the U.S. The work will depict a trio of people holding hands.

''If you think a monument to yellow belly cowards is going to somehow give a sense of respectfulness to these shameful Americans, who turned their backs on their country, you are sadly mistaken,'' one angry American wrote in an e-mail to city hall. ''I for one will never visit your town and spend a thin dime ever again, if this thing is built.''

That was among the milder comments the city received.

On Saturday, CanWest reported that the largest combat veterans' group in the U.S. has asked President George W. Bush to voice its displeasure over the proposed statue to the Canadian government.

This has not gone over well with local business owners. A must-stop on the global counter-culture circuit, Nelson is filled with artists, spiritual seekers and dreadlocked drifters. But it owes much of its current prosperity to tourism, and to the American dollars it attracts.

Under most circumstances, the proposed celebration to salute U.S. draft dodgers would have received scant notice. It's not even supposed to take place for another two years. But it was well enough received at a press conference here, staged by RCRWRTWATDVW.

The city's Mayor appeared delighted. ''I think it's the right place for it,'' David Elliot told the Nelson Daily News, after the press conference. ''We have a lot of open-minded people in this area and certainly people who are conscious of the efforts that happened in the Vietnam War.''

Then Fox News arrived, and all hell broke loose. Mayor Elliot sounded shell-shocked this weekend, when I called on him at home.

''I made an innocent comment, off the cuff,'' he explained. ''Yes, I am a peace activist. But I wasn't speaking as mayor when I said I liked the idea. I wasn't even talking about the sculpture, which I don't support. We don't have a lot of public art here.''

Strange, but true. The one piece of public sculpture I did find here is utterly bland and inscrutable. It is made of stone, and sits across the street from city hall. It depicts a pair of grievously overweight children, hugging a pedestal, atop of which is perched an eagle, or a hawk. The bird appears to be smiling.

What this is supposed to represent, I know not. Donated to the city 20 years ago, the sculpture is titled, simply, ''The Monument.''

RCRWRTWATDVW can install whatever kind of sculpture it likes, wherever it likes, concedes Mayor Elliot. As long as it's on private land.

''Everyone went and assumed that the sculpture is being endorsed or sponsored by the city,'' he griped. ''It's not.''

Definitely not, adds Ian Mason, a Nelson city councillor. He is preparing a ''resolution of non-support'' that will make Nelson's position on the event crystal clear.

Mr. Mason expects his resolution to be adopted by city council at its next meeting, in early October. It has to, he says, because businesses are already suffering. ''I've heard from hotel and resort owners saying they've received cancellations because of the [controversy]. We are looking at significant job losses, potentially.''

Down at the Royal Canadian Legion hall, I found local army veterans plotting their own resistance to the war resisters. ''Those draft-dodging a-holes,'' snorted one legion member. ''We are in communication with our provincial command and we will be formulating a strong response to this nonsense. That's all I can say about it right now.''

Mr. Romano vows that the event will proceed, but concedes that the sculpture may not be placed in Nelson. He says another press conference regarding the affair will be held later this week. ''There has been a major development,'' he told me yesterday, but declined to elaborate.

Perhaps the only person to benefit from the maelstrom is Michelle Mason, a Vancouver-based filmmaker. The controversy, she concedes, is quite a stroke of luck; she intends to weave it into the draft dodger documentary she is making, slated to premiere at the Nelson festival.

''Things are falling nicely into place,'' she told me yesterday. ''This whole thing about the sculpture is really interesting. There are already so many monuments to war in Canada. Why not have a monument to peace?''

A nice thought. But peace is the last thing Nelson's proposed memorial has achieved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-27 03:20pm

It's often been said that during Vietnam, Canada sent us her best* while the US sent Canada her worst.

Somehow I don't think those draft doging assholes would appreciate that statement.

*a number of Canadians enlisted in the US military in order to go fight

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-09-27 03:52pm

Out of Curiosity, how many?

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-09-27 04:45pm

30,000 to 40, 000 according to this site
http://spidersweb.stormpages.com/history.htm

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-09-27 07:00pm

prolly good reason to show a modern draft = bad.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-28 07:43am

Glocksman wrote:It's often been said that during Vietnam, Canada sent us her best* while the US sent Canada her worst.

Perhaps they can please both sides by including that line on a monument...

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-09-28 01:49pm

CJvR wrote:
Glocksman wrote:It's often been said that during Vietnam, Canada sent us her best* while the US sent Canada her worst.
Perhaps they can please both sides by including that line on a monument...

If by "please both sides" you mean "piss off both sides", then you're right.

How is it being cowardly to run away from being forced to serve in a war you don't support over some violent little country in southeast Asia?

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-09-28 03:41pm

sketerpot wrote:
CJvR wrote:
Glocksman wrote:It's often been said that during Vietnam, Canada sent us her best* while the US sent Canada her worst.
Perhaps they can please both sides by including that line on a monument...
If by "please both sides" you mean "piss off both sides", then you're right.

How is it being cowardly to run away from being forced to serve in a war you don't support over some violent little country in southeast Asia?

Because if you were really willing to stand up for your principles rather than just wanting to save your own ass, you'd stay in the US, refuse to serve and do your prison time.

Now, I got no real problems with a man saving his own ass, but I wouldn't build a momument for him.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 07:22pm

Korvan wrote: Because if you were really willing to stand up for your principles rather than just wanting to save your own ass, you'd stay in the US, refuse to serve and do your prison time.

Now, I got no real problems with a man saving his own ass, but I wouldn't build a momument for him.

Exactly, these people deserve nothing. If they really believed that strongly about it they should have gone to jail for it. It's pathetic that 30,000-40,000 Canadians partcipated in Vietnam, a war that had nothing to do with us. Yet over 125,00 Yanks tucked their tails between their legs and ran.

Here is a related news article from CBC.CA

CBC.CA wrote: NELSON, B.C. - The leader of a British Columbia group planning a monument in honour of U.S. draft dodgers who fled to Canada says the controversial statue may not be located in the city of Nelson after all.

Isaac Romano and his group, called Our Way Home, had been planning to erect the monument in Nelson, B.C., during a July 2006 two-day festival in honour of U.S. conscientious objectors.

Roughly 125,000 Americans crossed the border into Canada during the 1960s and 1970s because of their opposition to the Vietnam War. Many settled in the Nelson area.

The planned statue depicts two Canadians reaching out to help a U.S. draft dodger.

The plan got the attention of FOX-TV News in the U.S. and has come under fire from Americans, veterans groups and some Canadian politicians.

On Monday night, Blair Suffredine, Liberal member for the provincial riding of Nelson, and Jim Gouk, Tory MP for federal B.C. riding of Southern Interior, both said they opposed the monument, calling it inappropriate and offensive to many Americans.

Jerry Newberry, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the oldest veterans' advocacy group in the U.S., said his organization was shocked by the idea.

"We're astounded and saddened and appalled...to think that someone would build a memorial and pay tribute to a group of people who saw fit to cut and run," said Newberry.

As a result of the criticism, the city of Nelson, afraid of alienating U.S. tourists, has distanced itself from the proposal.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Romano said the group plans to go ahead with the statue, but may have to find another place to put it.

"The Our Way Home National Reunion organizing group will be looking broadly for the appropriate setting for the peace monument," said Romano.

"It may or may not be located in Nelson."

Nelson Mayor Dave Elliott, who says the proposed monument is dividing the community, says the city has no official role in deciding whether the group goes ahead with the project or not.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-09-28 07:27pm

I have a friend who served in Vietnam. He said the draft dodgers were the bravest people he ever knew. They bucked the system rather then meekly accept it and didn't care about the labels or threats society might throw at them.

Just something to think about. Was it cowardice, or bravery that encouraged people to dodge the draft? Some times what the person is fighting gives us a hint. Some might have ran because they were scared. Others might have gone to Canada because they had no intention of supporting a loosing cause.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 07:40pm

Alyeska wrote:I have a friend who served in Vietnam. He said the draft dodgers were the bravest people he ever knew. They bucked the system rather then meekly accept it and didn't care about the labels or threats society might throw at them.

Just something to think about. Was it cowardice, or bravery that encouraged people to dodge the draft? Some times what the person is fighting gives us a hint. Some might have ran because they were scared. Others might have gone to Canada because they had no intention of supporting a loosing cause.

I assume that it's because of the Vietnam draft dodgers that the conceintus objector clause was input into the system. I have personally always thought that if your not willing to defend your country than you shouldn't live there. But Vietnam wasn't exactly defending your country was it? I have served in uniform and understand that not everyone is cut out for it.

In retrospect I should be less rigid in my thinking.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-09-28 07:44pm

Basicaly none of this is clear cut and labels can not be used because people dodged the draft for a variety of reasons.

I've read some stories from people who didn't dodge the draft but came very close and its interesting to see what was going through their minds. After they got back they had wished they did because the social consequences were far less then what they had to contend with in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a shitty situation all around and I refuse to label anyone for what they did because of that war. I will not insult those who became nutjobs in Vietnam enjoying killing. I will not insult Kerry for what he said. I won't insult people who spat on US Army nurses when the nurses returned home. I won't even insult Jane Fonda. Vietnam was a shitty situation flat out.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 07:49pm

I hate the kind of macho militarist chest-beating bullshit that leads people to say that he who heedlessly rushes off to war is an example of the "best" of humanity while he who avoids an involuntary draft to go fight in a war he does not believe in is the "worst" of humanity.

Canada took on America's slaves when they tried to escape servitude they never agreed to, and Canada took on America's refugees when they tried to escape a war they never agreed to. I see the two situations as being very similar.

The modern American military is a volunteer army, and that's the way it should be. I have no sympathy for those who sign up of their own free will and then refuse to go. But the draft is an entirely different situation.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 07:54pm

Darth Wong wrote: The modern American military is a volunteer army, and that's the way it should be. I have no sympathy for those who sign up of their own free will and then refuse to go. But the draft is an entirely different situation.

So as I understand it, there was no other recourse for those who didn't want to fight to avoid it, but to flee to Canada. Why wasn't their an opt-out for them?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-28 07:56pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: The modern American military is a volunteer army, and that's the way it should be. I have no sympathy for those who sign up of their own free will and then refuse to go. But the draft is an entirely different situation.
So as I understand it, there was no other recourse for those who didn't want to fight to avoid it, but to flee to Canada. Why wasn't their an opt-out for them?

Because that defeats the purpose of a draft.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 07:58pm

Rogue 9 wrote: Because that defeats the purpose of a draft.

So if it defeats the purpose of a draft, then why do they have the concientus objector clause for a military where everyone voluntered to fight? Neither of these ideas make any sense.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-28 07:59pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Because that defeats the purpose of a draft.
So if it defeats the purpose of a draft, then why do they have the concientus objector clause for a military where everyone voluntered to fight? Neither of these ideas make any sense.

Precisely. Whoever said the government had to make sense?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-28 07:59pm

The Greek city state philosophy would analyze the draft avoidance issue in this manner: The city clothes you, feeds you, provides you with the oppurtunity to live a full life and in response you are at her beck and call when the call to war comes and defend your city and its way of life. If you don't agree to those terms then you have no right to live in the city.

Socrates spoke of this and keep in mind he was not some guy in a white togo hanging out, he actually fought in several wars for Athens and was a war hero in his youth so he sort of knew the ugly face of war.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 08:00pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Because that defeats the purpose of a draft.
So if it defeats the purpose of a draft, then why do they have the concientus objector clause for a military where everyone voluntered to fight? Neither of these ideas make any sense.

Because religions get special treatment by the military. No one said it was fair.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 08:01pm

Stravo wrote:The Greek city state philosophy would analyze the draft avoidance issue in this manner: The city clothes you, feeds you, provides you with the oppurtunity to live a full life and in response you are at her beck and call when the call to war comes and defend your city and its way of life. If you don't agree to those terms then you have no right to live in the city.

Too bad this argument falls apart when the city is not actually under attack, and you are being told to go off and defend some other city based on some byzantine ideological justification.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-28 08:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stravo wrote:The Greek city state philosophy would analyze the draft avoidance issue in this manner: The city clothes you, feeds you, provides you with the oppurtunity to live a full life and in response you are at her beck and call when the call to war comes and defend your city and its way of life. If you don't agree to those terms then you have no right to live in the city.
Too bad this argument falls apart when the city is not actually under attack, and you are being told to go off and defend some other city based on some byzantine ideological justification.

Classic philosophy usually does not survive contact with 20th century idealogy.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-28 08:06pm

The Draft was supremly unfair. You could buy your way out, step around it by going to college and goofing off for 4 years, have Daddy pull strings if you knew the right people...

Meanwhile you tell those that don't have those options that it's part of their civic duty to subject themselves to the draft.

I don't insult the draft dodgers. However I do rountily insult those who spat on returning troops and personnal who did nothing more than what their nation asked of them. Vietnam was a shitty deal and they got the worst of it, those men and women did not need to be subjected to that. Meanwhile the guys who were responible for the situation got off scot free.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 08:11pm

Darth Wong wrote: Because religions get special treatment by the military. No one said it was fair.

So this clause is only for those people who belong to a religion that forbids military service? What are they doing in the military in the first place?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-28 08:14pm

Sucking up your tax dollars.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 08:14pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Because religions get special treatment by the military. No one said it was fair.
So this clause is only for those people who belong to a religion that forbids military service? What are they doing in the military in the first place?

Getting free university tuition. There were quite a few news articles and interviews about people who admitted straight-up that they signed up for free schooling and didn't really expect to actually go fight, so they were looking for ways out of it.