By PHYLLIS CLARKE

ee DEBATE pervaded the
: ees of the Political
Teeently ee Association held
Of the ‘i Charlottetown as part
lee €etings of the Learned
“s. For those members of
Parti “arxist Study Centre who
Mie. 4 in the gathering,
Cause oa great interest be-
Umber the emphasis on a
Marist Of questions which
have. S like most Canadians,
the oy; “en discussing, such as
SIS of Confederation.

I
; the whole first day was
olny with four papers, two deal-
stat the economy in a fede-
of feq ©, and two on concepts
Cludeq lism. Participants  in-
tities Cfessors from the uni-
to ay of Montreal and Toron-
‘the paras not surprising that
Deech png banquet included a
Temp Y Frank R. Scott, a
t er o th

_~ ©Ommission) .

ole
the, yessor Jacques Parizeau of
Pattiousy sity of Montreal was
fits oad interesting in the
tal Sa He stated, “A fede-
i © Provides another out-
en peck divergencies (be-
Ments) €ntral and local govern-
y reh ifferent governments
Matic aa very different dog-
No, io tons with respect to
Nomio © OF Social thought. Eco-:
be j ee cies may then either
Tents pce by the larger govern-
th Ox 6 the weaker and unor-
Reo 3 nes or they may become
: be ee half-baked compromise
all of them. .

- a of analysis has very
sity Mplications to the pre-
pon in Canada. In this
‘the fo am not thinking of
Tmer socialist govern-

* askatchewan, because
a was never ene,
Ss enough to be a
hindrance to national una-
Sa 7a Situation in Quebec
‘Ct thay Ore difficult one. The
It 1S populated by a
Nic group has well-
Tepercussions. One of
ime tCUssions, possibly the
ortant, springs from the

Quebec nearly all the
at lead to power, ex-
ee .. This state
@S bound to impl

Sooner or later,. oiinics
M Quebec would be
re to the left than any

licies which would:
ol Wa» om the atmosphere of

; large
a, tai

veg
ch mo

t]
ie

Tela;: :
“lation to future fiscal po-

1 Canada ‘Mr. Parizeau

ad 4,
4 this to say:

0
feng as all provinces
aS go € same economic poli-
Positign are still in a finan-
atran n where a cost-shar-
sen perment is considered
‘al outside help rather
a hindrance, the solu-
aad reached can only be
Nowy Mise, :
tor fo” if Quebec opted
d Was arly every joint program
Swe alone to do so, if opting
‘ts a tied to strict agree-
Ms; ig h respect to the use of
_’ iurthermore, the final

€ Bilingual and Bi-~

fiscal arrangements were parti-
cularly generous for the provin-
ces, then the scheme according
to which Canada could be com-
posed of two associated nations
would find its first economic
foundation.”

From a somewhat different
angle, the theme of the two na-
tions was approached by Profes-
sor J: R. Mallory of McGill Uni-
versity. In a paper entitled, “The
five faces of federalism”, he

tion which protects not only the
rights.of government organs, but
also the rights of individuals and
of minorities.”

Further he states, “It needs to
be said that the crisis is real.
One cannot turn one’s back on
two centuries of history. French
Canadians have survived as a
distinctive group by a series of
overt and tacit acts. Canada is
in fact a country based on the
co-existence of these two cul-

classes altogether.”

He pointed out that when
looking at Canadian historiogra-
phy there is no one (with the
exception of the Marxists who
get a-“chilly reception”) who
deals with the Canadian class
structure.

A. B. C. professor cited as an
example of class analysis Stan-
a Ryerson’s “Founding of Can-
ada”: but he disagreed with the
use of the concept of social class

100 years after the Charlottetown conference which began
the move to Canadian statehood, the city was again the scene of

probing discussions into many of the same, and some totally new,

questions of our national life. —

said, “It’ is not improbable that
the practical advantage of cen-
tralization, which English-speak-
ing Canadians would probably
accept, would have led, as it had
done in the United States and
Australia, to the growing obso-
lence of federalism.

“But Canada is not the same:

kind of federal state as the Uni-
ted States or Australia, where
the growing homogeneity of the
population is likely to lead in-

- evitably to national integration.

The difference is what is usually
described as the French Cana-
dian fact.”

Pointing out that the BNA act
recognizes that Quebec is not a
province like others he suggests
that there will perhaps be a
need to reconsider our present
judicial structure to “ensure ade-

quate machinery for a constitu--

tures, and is the better for it.
“There has been a delayed re-
volution within the social struc-
ture of French Canada, and this
social revolution has political im-
plications. There will have to be
some readjustment of the ma-
chinery of the constitution. We

may even have to modify some

of our out-of-date symbolism be-
cause symbolic gestures are im-
portant as an earnest of good
faith.”

At another session of the con-
ference a paper was delivered
‘on “The concept of Social Class
in Canadian historical analysis.”
The author, S. R. Mealing of
Carlton University, divided his-
torians into three categories,

those (mainly Marxists) who see
classes and class struggle as the
motivating force in history, those
who assign some role to classes
and those historians who ignore ~

3

(after all, people in Canada
“own their own homes”!). The
discussion that followed indicat-
ed critical concern at the ten-
dency of most Canadian histo-
rians to evade basic social is-

sues.

As an instance of the fruit-
fulness of the Marxist, class ap-
proach, S. Ryerson dealt briefly
with the national and social fac-
tors in the Confederation crisis;
and emphasized the need for
more discussions of such issues
of fundamental theory as Meal-
ing’s paper raised.

The problem of automation al-
so came in for its share of the
discussion. David M. Winch of
Alberta, presented a paper in
which he proposed that now is
the time to consider the effects
of automation.

“It might not happen for 50

Learned Societies meetings
emphasize Confederation crisis

years. But it might happen in
10. If I’m right, and ‘we simply
try to retain our free market —
system without modification, the ~
whole system might collapse.”

He proposed a minimum al-
Jowance for everybody instead

‘of unemployment insurance or

welfare payments. Those that
would be employed would pay
taxes on the allowance as well
as their wages. This he feels:
would be a proper way to re-
distribute income in an automa-
ted economy.

One, of the. highlights of the
sessions was the Presidential ad-
dress of Professor C. B. Mac-
pherson, of the University of To-
ronto..He stated that we are
faced with the challenge of an
era of peaceful coexistence in
which debate between liberal-
democratic theory and Marxist
theory must take place. ;

In relation to the former he
suggested that there has been
a retreat ever further back and —
that for its continued existence
liberal-democratic theory must
be first restored before it could
move ahead.

Marxist theory, he felt, was’
also undergoing change and
would also develop so that even-
tually that which is best in these
theories could emerge, which
would-be in the best interest of
peace in the world and of man-
kind. :

It is to be hoped that the air
of earnestness, of probing, of air-
ing of all points of views which

_ pervaded the sessions in Char-
‘lottetown is an auger of future

discussions on all these ques-
tions which are of concern to

all Canadians.

TWO CHILDHOODS

By BEN LEVINE

r71WO CHILDHOODS were
‘portrayed on a U.S. Chan-
_ nel 5 documentary recently.

One, the reminiscences by Sen.
Hubert Humphrey, could be call-
ed the American Dream.

The other, by U.S. Negro au-
thor James Baldwin, was the
American Nightmare.

Both men are now playing
their part in the civil rights
struggle, Humphrey in the Sen-
ate and Baldwin in the street,
continuing in their differing tac-
tics that vivid contrast between
the white Senator’s happy life
on a South Dakota farm and
the Negro novelist’s bitter early
days in Harlem.

Humphrey’s song of his happy
childhood was like “The House
I Live In.” He lived, from the
age of 3 till he was 18, in a
rambling farmhouse in Doland,
S.D., population 500, where, he
told us, “we knew everybody
and everybody knew us,” the
small town was one big family,

caves os ems HF THT

and every baby was welcomed
with festivities.

He had lots to eat, beginning
with oatmeal and brown sugar
in the morning. His father was
“more than a parent, he was
a friend.” He was also an em-
ployer, for little Huber served
the customers in his father’s

- drugstore and sold hog and

sheep vaccine to the neighboring
farmers, from whom he learned

his politics.

Hubert also studied hard and
went to church, where his father
was the Sunday school teacher,
and he delivered newspapers and
even had his own money in the
bank, and in the evening his
father read him poems by Long-
fellow, Edgar Guest and Walt
Whitman, and _ inspirational
pieces by Emerson, and stories
about our great Presidents, yet
in all this activity, said the re-
miniscing Senator, he had time
“to dream a little,” to listen to
the trains hooting by, and to
think about far off places, like
Washington.

He was 15 in 1927 when the

two banks of Doland crashed
and his childhood ended.

James Baldwin’s account of
his childhood in the “invincible
and indescribable squalor of Har-
lem” also began with memories
of his father.

_ “My father,” he said, ‘died a
defeated man because in the bot-
tom of his heart he believed
what white people said about
him, that he was a n----,”

Young Baldwin did not have
to wait till he was 16 to know
the depression. He was born into
a depression that began cen-
turies ago. He said about his
Harlem birthplace, “Here I was
born and here it was intended
by my countrymen that I should
live and perish. It was spelled
out to me in every possible way
that I was a worthless human
being.”

He could share no thoughts
with his father, who “lived in
an intolerable bitterness of
spirit,” because he could not
feed his children.

At the age of 14 James Bald-
win determined to be a writer,
It was his only way to fight for
the love that was denied him.

When his father died, James
Baldwin was 19, with a hostile
world before him.

Hé hated the whites, he said,
but this did not mean he loved
the blacks. Rather he despised
them for staying in their ghetto.
The result, he concluded, was

that ”I hated and feared the

world, and this gave the world
a murderous power over me.”

The documentary presented
the words of the white Senator
and the black novelist, and made
no comment.

It was obvious that we saw
before us two different worlds
in the American nation.

Also obvious was another con-
trast, between the politician and
the poet.

Humphrey’s words were every
one of them a cry for votes.

Baldwin’s words were a cry
for justice.

July 10, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5