Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Resisting the war in "little brother country" : Vietnam War exiles, identity crisis and Canadianization John, Henry Richard Lawrence 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_spring_john_henry.pdf [ 1.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0073739.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073739-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073739-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073739-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073739-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073739-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073739-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0073739-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0073739.ris

Full Text

   RESISTING THE WAR IN “LITTLE BROTHER COUNTRY”: VIETNAM WAR EXILES, IDENTITY CRISIS AND CANADIANIZATION  by   Henry Richard Lawrence John  B.A., Durham University, 2011   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in  The Faculty of Graduate Studies  (History)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April, 2013       ©Henry Richard Lawrence John, 2013   ii  Abstract  The object of this research project is to analyze the cultural, political and social integration of draft resisters and deserters living in Vancouver within the Canadian radical protest scene of the 1960s. In particular, it will investigate how refugees’ national and cultural identity, their own preconceptions of Canadian life and their own emotional response to their new environment either helped or hindered their attempts to engage in radical politics. War evaders involved the groups The Vancouver American Deserters Committee and Vancouver Yippie! showed divergent degrees of willingness to adapt their national and political identity to their new surroundings, and this had a direct impact on their ability to interact with the various political scenes springing up around the city. Using sociological theory and primary material (including letters, pamphlets, audio-visual material, newspaper articles and interviews) this study will prove that the maintenance of a solely American draft exile identity was in fact detrimental to an individual’s ability to engage in radical protest, and that a process of Canadianization was crucial to retaining some semblance of political relevance.             iii  Preface This study uses first-hand interviews, and as such has received approval from UBC Behavioural Research Board. This is in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2: CORE). UBC BREB NUMBER: H12-00976  iv  Contents Abstract.....................................................................................................................ii Preface.....................................................................................................................iii Table of Contents.....................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements..................................................................................................v  1 Introduction...........................................................................................................1 2 The Ironies of Exile...............................................................................................13 3 The Vancouver American Deserters Committee.................................................28 4 War Exiles in Vancouver Yippie!..........................................................................39 5 Concluding Chapter.............................................................................................49  Bibliography............................................................................................................51             v  Acknowledgements I could not have asked for better supervisors to help me complete this project. Hugest thanks must go to Profs Tamara Myers and Tina Loo for their endless patience, for pushing me to get my act together and for providing me with sound advice and prudent scholarly suggestions.  Thanks as well to Profs Bob MacDonald, Coll Thrush and Michel Ducharme of UBC History Department, and to Prof. Lara Campbell of SFU History Department, for their recommendations and counsel. Also to the amazingly helpful people at UBC Library Archives and Special Collections for their tireless help in tracking down endless documents.  This project would not have been possible without the willing participation of my interviewees, including those who were not included due to reasons of space, or due to the shifting nature of my topic. As such, I thank Bob Mercer, Bev Davies, Bob Sarti, Peter Prontzos, Rick Ayers, Korky Day, Mark Satin, Bob Keller, Patricia Karlberg, Bill White and Paul Dorpat.  Finally, thanks and love must go out to my family for their close support, encouragement and proof-reading.        1  1 Introduction ‘Exile’, claimed literary theorist Edward Said in his 1983 essay Reflections on Exile, ‘is the unbearable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home: its essential sadness can never be surmounted’.1 For Said, a Palestinian native residing in New York, a life in exile, whilst affording moments of creativity and social insight, represented a life dislocated from one’s innate personal and cultural identity. Indeed, this intrinsic dislocation, and the subsequent struggle to construct a personal identity without recourse to familiar homeland roots and social mores, is perhaps the single greatest challenge facing any migrant in their attempt to establish both individual and collective meaning in their new country of origin. Thus, social scientist Henry P. David, in an exhaustive study considering Jewish Hungarian refugees coming to New York in the post-war period, Southern Europeans relocating to Australia, Dutch-Indonesian refugees in the Netherlands and new immigrants in Israel, has pinpointed the desocializing experience common to all of his case studies. This desocializing effect of migration revolves, according to David, around ‘an interruption and frustration of natural life expectation’ and a ‘complete disorganization of the individual’s role system’, leading to the ‘disturbance of social identity and self-image’.2 The cultural dislocation inherent in migration and exile is clearly evident in cases where the racial and cultural, indeed even the geographical, difference prompted by the experience of transplantation is, upon first glance, not as clear-cut as with a Palestinian relocating to New York, or an Indonesian resettling in the Netherlands. In particular, evidence suggests Americans  1  Edward Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 173. 2  Henry P. David, “Involuntary International Migration: Adaption of Refugees” in Eugene B. Brody (ed.), Behaviour in New Environments: Adaption of Migrant Populations (Beverley Hills: Sage Publications, 1970), p. 79.  2  fleeing to Canada to avoid compulsive military service in the Vietnam War during the late 60s and early 70s experienced a near identical sense of rootlessness and identity crisis that subsequently informed the manner in which they engaged and integrated with wider Canadian society.3 During the American military campaign in Vietnam, thousands of young Americans fled their country of birth, many choosing to resettle in Canada rather than be drafted to fight in an imperial campaign which they did not support. As Lyndon B. Johnston widened the scope of draft calls in 1967, and as troops committed to the ground offensive increased annually to a peak of 543,482 in April 1969, the possibility of fighting began to engage an increasing number of draft-age Americans.4 An escalating casualty rate, and the dissemination of accounts of both ground and air atrocities throughout the American media, most notably the 1968 massacre of Mai Lai, undoubtedly convinced many that responding to the draft was an act of both extreme danger and grossly dubious morality. Equally, the destabilization of American society and the violent repression of the emergent peace movement by the U.S. government no doubt played a role in the decision to cross the border.5 The brutal police riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, the use of firearms in the forced closure of the People’s Park in Berkeley in 1969, and the fatal shooting of four protesting students at Kent State University in 1970 were undoubtedly influential in persuading increasing numbers of American youth that the myth of  3  Saul V. Levine, “Draft Dodgers: Coping With Stress, Adapting to Exile”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42.3 (April, 1972), pp. 431-440. 4  Vincent H. Demma, “The US Army in Vietnam”, in John Elsberg (ed.), American Military History (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1989), p. 638. 5  Aisling Murphy, “Journeys to the “North Country Fair”: Exploring the American Vietnam War Migration to Vancouver”, MA Thesis (Simon Fraser University, 2010), pp. 34 + 38.  3  freedom promulgated by the American government was unworthy of killing, or being killed, for.6 There has been a raft of previous scholarship exploring the failures and successes of American exiles in their efforts to integrate with Canadian society.7 Several studies have focussed on the role of the Canadian state, represented by politicians, immigration officials and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, positing that integration was ultimately decided by the treatment of exiles by these bodies.8 Many of these studies have emphasized that successful integration was largely decided by whether the Americans concerned were draft resisters or military deserters, and have made class allusions along these lines.9 Thus Renée Kassinsky, in her 1976 book Refugees from Militarism, has emphasized that both the immigration system and potential employers ‘discriminated in favour of the educated, skilled draft dodger and against the working-class, unskilled, uneducated deserter’.10 All of these interpretations have thus  6  There is an abundant supply of historiography regarding the radical events sweeping the United States during the 1960s. In particular, see James. J. Farrell, The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism (New York: Routledge, 1997); Tom Wells, The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Maurice Isserman and Michael Kazin, America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Terry H. Anderson, The Movement and the Sixties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (Toronto: Bantham Books, 1987). 7  These have included compilations of firsthand accounts by war exiles in Canada. See, for example, Alan Haig- Brown and Pierre Berton (eds.) Hell No, We Won’t Go: Vietnam Draft Resisters in Canada (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 1996); Sherry Gershon, Hell No, We Won’t Go: Resisting the Draft During the Vietnam War (New York: Viking, 1991); Jim Christy (ed.), The New Refugees: American Voices in Canada (Toronto: Peter Marin Associates, 1972). 8  Joseph Jones, Happenstance and Misquotation: Canadian Immigration Policy, 1966-1974, The Arrival of U.S. Vietnam War Resisters, and the Views of Pierre Trudeau (Vancouver: Quarter Sheaf, 2008); Victor Levant, Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1986), p. 206. David S. Churchill, “An Ambiguous Welcome: Vietnam Draft Resistance, the Canadian State, and Cold War Containment”, Histoire Sociale / Social History, Vol. 37 No. 73 (2004), pp. 1-26; Jessica Squires, “A Refuge from Militarism? The Canadian Movement to Support Vietnam Era American War Resisters, and Government Responses, 1965-1973” (Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 2009). 9  “Military deserter” refers to an individual who, upon enlistment in the army, had gone AWOL, either from training or from active service. “Draft resister” refers to an individual who moved to Canada prior to enlistment, normally upon receiving a draft call from their local draft board. 10  Renee G. Kassinsky, Refugees From Militarism: Draft-Age Americans in Canada (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1976), p. 6. See also David Sterling, “The Assimilation of Vietnam Era Draft Dodgers and Deserters into  4  solely been based on the view that integration almost purely revolved around the ability to find employment and housing, and thus engage successfully and productively in the Canadian economy. From this perspective, the model of Canadian integration can be found in Pierre Berton’s 1967: The Last Good Year, where the author describes a successfully assimilated resister Dale Hayman ‘living in a fifty-five-dollar-a-month, share-a-bath apartment, making about seventy dollars a week, and beginning to think like a Canadian’.11 This category of analysing integration is perfectly applicable to a large proportion of American exiles: those described by Roger Neville Williams as being ‘completely absorbed into the Canadian life stream, most of the time quite successfully’.12 This group has largely been characterized by their apolitical nature, their unwillingness to engage in radical movement work, and their “straight” lack of contact with Canada’s counterculture.13 Consequently, those Americans with radical political and cultural aspirations have been depicted as experiencing the most difficulty in adapting to life in Canada. According to Kassinsky, two groups faced the most trouble in assimilating: “cultural innovators” (referring to drop-outs and counterculturalists) and “underground exiles” (referring to those forming American exile groups and organizations).14 Equally, Frank Kusch has emphasized that it was only ‘the most vocal and most radical of the exile community’ that faced any serious difficulty engaging with life in Canada.15  Canada: A Matter of Class” (Ph.D. thesis, New School for Social Research, New York City, 1980); David S. Surrey, Choice of Conscience: Vietnam Era Military and Draft Resisters in Canada (South Hadley: J. F. Bergin Publishers, 1982), pp. 3-5; Murphy, “Journeys to the “North Country Fair””, p. 15. 11  Pierre Berton, 1967: The Last Good Year (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1997), p. 202. 12  Roger Neville Williams, The New Exiles: American War Resisters in Canada (New York, Liveright Publishers, 1971), p. 49. See also: Myrna Kostash, Long Way From Home: The Story of the Sixties Generation in Canada (Toronto: J. Lorimer, 1980), p. 59. 13  Frank Kusch, All American Boys: Draft Dodgers in Canada from the Vietnam War (Westport: Praeger, 2001), p. 97; Kassinsky, Refugees from Militarism, pp. 148-149. 14  Kassinsky, Refugees from Militarism, pp. 149-150. 15  Kusch, All American Boys, p. 91.  5  Politically radical American exiles have been depicted as both unable to integrate into Canadian life, but also equally unwilling to engage in specifically Canadian politics. This view largely stems from contemporary criticisms made of exiles by a plethora of Canadian New-Left nationalist academics, mainly focussed around Toronto and Ottawa. In 1970 Robin Matthews, a Carleton University professor primarily concerned with the Americanization of Canadian universities, condemned American émigrés for ‘turning discussion among groups in Canada to the morality of immorality of U.S. internal and external policy’.16  Similarly, James Laxer, a doctoral student in history at the University of Toronto and a founding member of the left-wing nationalistic Waffle party, opined that Vietnam exiles had been ‘unable to formulate a political strategy relevant to Canada’.17 Laxer would later specify in 2003 that his position was formulated in opposition to American expatriates ‘believing they would make natural leaders for the anti-war movement in Canada’.18 As a result of the voracity and indeed high-profile nature of these criticisms, historiographical representations of war resisters engaging in political action in Canada have mainly emphasized their inability and unwillingness to successfully merge with the Canadian radical movement. These representations are, expectedly, common place in historical works explaining Canadian anti-American outbursts, however they have also come to be common-  16  Robin Mathews, “Opinion: On Draft Dodging and U.S. Imperialism in Canada”, Canadian Dimension, 6.7 (February/March, 1970), pp. 10-11. See also: Robin Matthews and James Steele, The Struggle for Canadian Universities: A Dossier (Toronto: New Press, 1969). 17  James Laxer, “The Americanization of the Canadian Student Movement”, in Ian Lumsden (ed.), Close the 49 th  Parallel, etc.: The Americanization of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970), p. 277. 18  James Laxer, The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49 th  Parallel (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2003), pp. 127-128.  6  place in studies particularly relating to Vietnam era exiles.19 As such, Myrna Kostash has detailed the tension caused by what was perceived as ‘American imperialism of the left’, which primarily revolved around ‘looking at the struggle in Canada as inconsequential’.20 Equally, Lawrence Baskir and William Strauss have emphasized that when ‘they (American exiles) began to voice counterculture philosophies, they were looked upon as cultural imperialists’, leading to their alienation from Canadian radical groups.21 It is important to note that almost all of the nationalistic critiques of draft resister “imperialism”, such those from Mathews and Laxer, originated from Ontario. Their characterizations of elitist Americans concerned only with their own country’s issues may indeed have been applicable in central Canada, particularly Toronto, where several studies, both contemporary and historical, have emphasized the isolated and introspective nature of war resister communities there. John Sandman, a draft resisting teacher from New Jersey interviewed by Jim Christy who passed through Toronto described exiles in the city as ‘hopelessly professional Americans who are detached from the mother country in name only, and do nothing to assimilate themselves into Canada: remaining closed to everyone except a small coterie of other draft dodgers and deserters’.22 Equally, psychologist Saul Levine, in a 1972 study published in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry which was largely based on participants located in Toronto, observed how ‘American draft dodgers tend to associate with  19  J. L. Granatstein, Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 171; Paul Hollander, Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 416; Robert Bothwell, Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992), p. 99. 20  Kostash, Long War from Home, p. 67. 21  Larence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss, Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation (New York: Knopf, 1978), p. 190. 22  Quoted in Christy (ed.), The New Refugees, p. 109.  7  each other... and live in enclaves of draft dodger communes where most of their close associations are with individuals in the same situation.’23 Such was the density and homogenously American nature of these enclaves that historian John Hagan has characterized them as constituting a ‘countercultural American ghetto in the heart of the city’, while David S. Churchill has emphasized that Americans intentionally formed communities based around ‘shared sensibility, political conviction, and affinity’.24 The problems experienced by central Canadian draft resisters and deserters in forming meaningful links with both Canadian society and its budding radical Left are far less evident in Vancouver B.C., the third most popular destination for American exiles to settle after Toronto and Montreal. Vancouver was in many ways the perfect haven for Vietnam War evaders. Geographic proximity to countercultural centres in California, a temperate climate and the existence of what Ron Stone, a draft resister settling in the city and interviewed by sociologist Sherry Gottlieb, referred to as ‘an underground railway system to help people get established by providing them with food and shelter in one-week intervals’.25 The provisions in place throughout the city to aid draft resisters and deserters, organized not only through groups such as the Committee to Aid American War Objectors (VCAAWO) but also through religious organizations such as the Unitarian Church, were arguably the most resourceful in Canada.26  23  Levine, “Draft Dodgers: Coping With Stress, Adapting to Exile”, p. 435. 24  John Hagan, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 66; David S. Churchill, “American Expatriates and the Building of Alternative Social Space in Toronto, 1965-1977, Urban History Review, 39.1 (2010), p. 31. Other studies have focussed on various political projects instigated by Toronto-based exiles. See Jay Young, “Defining a Community in Exile: Vietnam War Resister Communication and Identity in AMEX, 1968-1973”, Histoire Sociale / Social History, Volume 44 Number 87 (May, 2011), pp. 115-146; Matthew McKenzie Bryant Roth, “Crossing Borders: The Toronto Anti-Draft Programme and the Canadian Anti-Vietnam War Movement” (MA Thesis: University of Waterloo, 2008). 25  Quoted in Gottlieb, Hell No, We Won’t Go, p. 10. 26  Indeed, religious groups (notably Unitarians, Quakers, and Mennonites) provided some of the most organized American refugee settlement networks across the entirety of Canada. One of the earliest books written on the  8  Settled in a string of guest houses, basements and hostels, located mainly in the Kitsilano area but also scattered across the city in North Vancouver and Chinatown, it is difficult to accurately gauge the size of the refugee population in the city due to its transient nature. However, the fact that in 1971 the VCAAWO informed sociologist Roger Neville Williams that they were processing 75-100 new persons per week, and claimed to have already settled 7000 American immigrants throughout the city, gives some indication as to the scale of the operation.27 Another analysis of American exiles published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, this time based in Vancouver, stressed that, in contrast to émigrés in Toronto, resisters in the west coast city were ‘becoming absorbed in the Canadian culture... they express a feeling of responsibility to participate in the affairs of their new country’.28 This study will investigate how “politicized” draft resisters and deserters in Vancouver successfully formed links and participated in the city’s countercultural protest scene. It will largely focus on how exiles involved in two different Vancouver-based political groups, the American Deserter Committee and the Vancouver Yippie faction, expressed their identity as both Americans and as military exiles, and how these different expressions either inhibited or facilitated each groups ability to inspire and engage in radical politics and social unrest. It will argue that both groups acted as differential means through which their American members could resolve the identity crisis provoked by expatriation, and will further demonstrate that the extent to which each group chose to “Canadianize” their identities largely decided their ability  subject of war resisters in Canada was compiled by members of the Mennonite church providing explanations for why religious organizations should feel compelled to aid draft resisters and deserters. Frank H. Epp (ed.), I Would Like to Dodge the Draft-Dodgers But... (Waterloo: Conrad Press, 1970). 27  Roger Neville Williams, The New Exiles, p. 359. 28  Carl. L. Kline, M.D., Katherine Rider, M.S.W., Karen Berry and J. McRee Elrod, “The Young American Expatriates in Canada: Alienated or Self-Defined?”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41.1 (January, 1971), p. 83.  9  to provoke and inspire radical politics. The study will therefore explore an interpretation of integration and “Canadianization” fundamentally different to previous analyses, which have regarded the process purely along the lines of immersion in the Canadian economy. Previous scholarship has downplayed the extent to which some draft resisters and deserters, particularly the more politicized of the exiles, were willing to compromise their American identities to maintain their political activism. Notably, Frank Kusch’s claim that, due to the fact that ‘they realized that they were free to live “The American Dream” in Canada’, war resisters in Canada represented and remained ‘quintessential Americans’ is extremely problematic due to its total negation of any process of cultural adaption.29 A similar accusation, in a different context, can be levelled against Lawrence Aronsen’s City of Love and Revolution, the most complete study to date of Vancouver’s radical politics and culture in the sixties. While Aronsen consistently refers to the Americanization of the city’s counterculture, emphasizing ‘the influence Californian culture had on the Vancouver scene’ and that social change in the city was ‘fuelled in part by flower children fleeing San Francisco’, there is next to no consideration given to the ways in which radical Americans in Vancouver were also culturally inspired by the local specifics of their new city and country of residence.30  This study, therefore, although not going so far as to deny the process of Americanization present throughout Vancouver’s radical culture at the time, will place more emphasis and consideration on the complimentary process of Canadianization which was also at play. Indeed, it will emphasize that the maintenance of a solely American draft exile identity  29  Kusch, All American Boys, p. 3. 30  Lawrence Aronsen, City of Love and Revolution: Vancouver in the Sixties (Vancouver: New Star Books, 2010), pp. 7 + 19.  10  in fact constituted a political, social and personal weakness. In order to successfully contribute to the city’s radical political culture, thus resolving the contradictions and difficulties caused by being a politicized exile, draft resisters and deserters needed to go through a process of altering the way they viewed and expressed their national identity. The two main groups examined constitute two radically different methods of identity and role system construction. Whilst the Vancouver American Deserters Committee, who provided aid to military deserters by running a hostel and providing legal and emotional aid between 1968 and 1969, made some effort to engage with Canadian radicals throughout their time in existence, their group identity primarily revolved around being American exiles. Alternatively, draft resisters and deserters involved in Vancouver Yippie!, an anarchic protest group committed to inspiring street actions in the city after 1970, completely subverted their American identity, instead presenting their collective image as Canadian internationalists through their publication The Yellow Journal. The American Deserters Committee clung to a cognitive map that was still anchored to the United States, its societal upheavals and the war resistance movement underway there. Their response to migration reflected Edward Said’s proposed solution to political and national dislocation: the need to ‘reassemble an identity out of the refractions and discontinuities of exile’.31 Although this method allowed the group to maintain a strong, cohesive group identity, this identity never transcended that of being an exile. As a result, the Deserters Committee were unable to construct an identity that afforded them a legitimate, long-term role as politically minded individuals in their new country of origin.  31  Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 179.  11  Sociologist Peter David has posited that, crucial to successfully overcoming the “desocializing” effects of migration already discussed, a migrant should ‘change his familiar images and build a new cognitive map’.32 Equally, British social theorist Stuart Hall has noted, in his study of Caribbean immigrants living in Britain from the 1950s onward, that immigrant communities, in order to maintain an active, constituent and effective political voice with direct relevance to their new country of residence, had to go through a process of ‘imaginary political re-identification, re-territorialization and national re-identification without which a counter- politics could not have been constructed’.33 Evidence of this can be seen in the successful integration of Americans involved in Vancouver Yippie! within the radical political milieu of Vancouver’s youth scene. By reconstructing their identity maps and creating a web of meaning rooted in Canada and Vancouver, American Yippies were able to play a far more active part in the Canadian youth movement, while also resolving the identity crisis of a politicized exile. Thus, this study moves beyond a depiction of the process of “Canadianization” purely representing, as Franca Iacovetta posits in her book Gatekeepers, a method of ‘maintaining the consensus of Cold War political unity and social stability’ through the suppression of both radical politics and sexual deviance amongst new immigrant communities.34 Instead it will suggest aspects of “Canadianization” that in fact augmented access to radical political resources, thus moving away from the simple binary formula that equates “Americanization”  32  David, “Involuntary International Migration’, p. 79. 33  Stuart Hall, “Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities”, in Anthony King (ed.) Culture, Globalization and World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (Binghamton: Dept. of Art and Art History, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1991), pp. 52-53. 34  Franca Iacovetta, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines; 2006), p. 171.  12  with radicalization and “Canadianization” with normalization, a binary popularized both in the sixties and in studies since. Instead, this analysis of the identity changes undergone by Vietnam war resisters living in Vancouver speaks to the new understanding of the 1960s called for by Scott Rutherford, Sean Mills, Susan Lord, Catherine Krull and Karen Dubinsky in their introduction to the essay collection New World Coming, in which political and cultural movements of the era were a result of ‘the many ways in which a global consciousness emerged’, and more particularly in the way that ‘transnational ideas and culture interacted with particular local conditions, generating diverse meanings’.35 Thus, the various failures or successes experienced by war exiles in their efforts to engage in Vancouver’s youth politics depended not on their ability to transmit American culture to their Canadian brethren, but in their ability to take an American consciousness, an English-Canadian consciousness, a French-Canadian consciousness, a Native American consciousness, even a Cuban or Algerian consciousness, and fit them to the local specifics of their new city and country of residency.36      35  Scott Rutherford, Sean Mills, Susan Lord, Catherine Krull, and Karen Dubinsky, “Introduction: The Global Sixties”, in Karen Dubinsky, Catherine Krull, Susan Lord, Sean Mills and Scott Rutherford (ed.), New World Coming: The Sixties and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2009), pp. 3-4. 36  Of course, this process could often cause as many problems, contradictions and ironies as it resolved. For example, Sean Mills has analyzed the contradictions inherent in the adoption of an internationalist language and mentality of “decolonization” in sixties Montreal, while Bryan Palmer has emphasized that the plurality of voices adopted by Canadian nationalists during the long sixties ultimately resulted in a lack of cohesive national identity. Sean Mills, The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montreal (Montreal: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2010); Bryan Palmer, Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).  13  2 The Ironies of Exile: Identity Crisis and Cultural Dislocation Even the least political of American exiles relocating to Vancouver during the late sixties and early seventies evidently faced clear disruptions in their personal and social lifestyle. Despite the similarities between American and Canadian culture, there were distinct differences that, for most, would have been somewhat jarring upon first arriving in their new country of residency. These differences would not have posed too many challenges to the self- constructed identity of Vietnam draft resisters and deserters, whether or not they wished to engage with the youth movements of the long decade. However, those exiles wishing to maintain an identity that revolved around political relevance and an ability to contribute to the protest movement faced a far more intrinsic challenge to their perception of their self and their role in Canadian society which extended beyond the slight differences between Canadian and American cultural patterns. The cultural differences between the United States and Canadian society are clearly evident in the autobiography of Jack Todd, a deserter from Nebraska who arrived in Vancouver in 1969 and who went on to write for both the Vancouver Sun and the Montreal Gazette. Throughout the description of his arrival in Vancouver, Todd illustrates the superficial differences that initially caused difficulties with his lifestyle. These difficulties with differences ranged from his inability to purchase recognizable cigarette brands, due to there being ‘no Marlboros, no Winstons, nothing familiar’, to the alien nature of the Canadian currency, which Todd describes as ‘Monopoly money’.37 Todd also reflected upon his confusion at the slight differences in social and cultural practises. These ranged from differences in speech patterns,  37  Jack Todd, Desertion: In the Time of Vietnam (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), pp. 158-159.  14  notably commenting ‘if I ever start saying “eh” it’s time to go home’, and in food practises, for example exclaiming ‘Canadians put vinegar on French fries. What next? Tomato juice in beer?’38 Further, he also notes that these slight differences in consumption patterns and cultural practises also reflected an underlying dissimilarity between the natures of Canadian and American society, and subsequently between Americans and Canadians themselves. In an interview with the author, Rick Ayers, one of the founding members of the Vancouver American Deserters Association, emphasized his shock, surprise and feeling “out of place” in the “gentleness” of a Canadian city.39 Equally, in a different interview, Bob Sarti, a draft resisting member of Yippie! and a journalist with the Vancouver Sun, further emphasized that he found in Vancouver a ‘British style reserve’ which contrasted greatly with his previous residence in Phoenix Arizona, which he described as ‘very friendly, outgoing and welcoming, despite being such a right wing place’.40 Further, although perhaps rooted in stereotype and generalization, the difference between Americans and Canadians was also noted by Jack Todd, primarily with ‘the Americans noisy and rude and boisterous and sloppy, the Canadian(s)... soft- spoken and neat and polite’. This difference is one that evidently caused friction, particularly for exiles being billeted by Canadians.41 An undated pamphlet distributed to potential Canadian hosts by the Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience, a Vancouver group headed by Unitarian minister J. McRee Elrod which worked in tandem with the Committee to Aid American War Objectors to aid exiles finding employment and housing, warned against the potential conflict in personalities. In particular it emphasized that ‘Canadians like Southerners  38  Ibid, p. 160-163. 39  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6, 2013. 40  Interview with Bob Sarti, Vancouver BC, February 22, 2013. 41  Todd, Desertion, p. 196.  15  tend to be less direct in making their feelings known in social situations than most Americans; the signals sent by hosts are sometimes not received by guests through no fault of either’.42 The aid group considered the cultural differences to be great enough to issue another pamphlet in 1971 to arriving Americans, providing exiles with advice on how not to insult hosts and thus remain a “kept person”. This advice included attempting to synchronize with the sleep patterns of the host family, not smoking indoors, and helping with household chores. The pamphlet also detailed incidents that had caused friction between Americans and their hosts. It instructed: ‘no fraternization with teenage daughters’, emphasizing that ‘it’s been tried’, and advised that ‘a mother of five may not appreciate advice on child rearing nor will parents of older children be receptive to having their offspring counselled on ways and means of subverting parental authority’, detailing ‘it’s been done’.43 Although these documents are perhaps not direct evidence of conflicts between national identities, also potentially explainable as the arrogance and masculine prerogative of young men, they clearly indicate that there was often an apparent disparity between the cultural and social mores of exiles and their hosts. While the social and cultural differences between Canada and America would have been somewhat disruptive to the process of exile integration, where perhaps the greatest disparity, and subsequent identity confusion, lay was in the dissimilarity between American preconceptions of Canadian and Vancouver society, and its reality. Many resisters arrived with little, if any, prior knowledge of their destination. The observation made by John H. Redekop, a  42  Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience, “So You Are Having a War Objector”, J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 9. 43  Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience, “On Being a Kept Person” (1971), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 9.  16  Canadian nationalist amongst the anti-American cohort associated with Robin Matthews and James Laxer, of ‘inexplicable and unexcusable (sic) ignorance’ displayed by Americans with regard to their new country of residence is one that is reflected in a number of sources.44 Notably Fred Reed, an American refugee interviewed in Alan Haig-Brown’s compilation of Vietnam draft-resister accounts, didactically declared ‘there is no ignorance like an American ignorance of Canada’.45 Equally, J. McRee Elrod, the prime mover behind the support group Immigration Aid to Refugees to Conscience, emphasized in a letter to the director of operations of the Canadian Department of Manpower and Immigration that ‘it is difficult to overstate American ignorance concerning Canada. We find young Americans who came in parkas and boots expecting the wilderness if not the ice cap to begin at the 49th (parallel).’46 Whilst ignorance and assumptions regarding the under-civilized nature of Canadian society could be easily remedied without causing conflict to an exiles individual perception of his role as an American exile in Canada, perhaps the most damaging assumption made by Vietnam era refugees travelling to Vancouver revolved around the promulgated myth of a “tolerant Canada”, where war was bitterly opposed, all races were equal, diversity and difference were encouraged, and tolerance and judicial sanity were the foundations of society.47 Several letters written to draft resister and deserter aid groups in Vancouver by  44  John H. Redekop, “Some of my Best Friends are Americans”, in in John H. Redekop (ed.), The Star-Spangled Beaver (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates Limited, 1971), p. 213. 45  Quoted in Alan Haig-Brown and Pierre Berton, Hell No We Won’t Go: Vietnam Draft Resisters in Canada (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 1996), p. 38. 46  Letter to Mr Lyle C. Hawkins from J. McRee Elrod (February 10, 1970), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 4. 47  Several works have explored the formation of the “tolerant Canada” myth and its role as a national Canadian ideology. Eva Mackey, The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002); Miriam Verena Richter, Creating the National Mosaic: Multiculturalism in Canadian Children’s Literature from 1950 to 1994 (New York: Rodopi, 2011); Kogila Moodley, “Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6.3 (July, 1983), pp. 320-331.  17  Americans hoping to immigrate to the city reflected this assumption. A letter from an Ohio couple to Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience emphasized the viewpoint that ‘the fierce competitiveness which energizes America’s massive world-wide aggressiveness and promotes a violence-ridden way of life is not in evidence among Canadians.’48 Another letter from one John W. Perry to the Vancouver Committee to Aid American War Objectors described how, in contrast to the ‘repressive... militaristic, violent society’ of America, Canada represented to him ‘a beautiful, majestic country, with none of the arrogant pride of the United States. She has spaces to explore, she represents new ideas and new ways of life to discover. She is at once romantic and dynamic’.49 It must be emphasized that these kinds of overtly romanticized and gendered images of tolerance and open-mindedness were not simply rooted in a general ignorance of Canadian social issues.50 The image of Vancouver as a liberal utopia dominated letters, information pamphlets and bulletins produced by Vancouver organizations that were sent south in order to encourage the war exile migration to Canada. Several letters were distributed to specific centres of the U.S. military. For example, an undated pamphlet sent to the crew of the U.S.S. Ingersoll (a Fletcher class destroyer stationed in Vietnam) from an unidentified group of ‘U.S. deserters, Draft Resisters and Political Refugees’ located in Vancouver promised ‘most Canadians are  48  Letter to J. McRee Elrod from M. Gregory St. John and Patricia A. St. John (April 15, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3. 49  Letter to VCAAWO from John W. Perry (1969), Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 2. 50  Indeed, although it is largely overlooked in this study, the all permeating role of gender in draft resister and deserter experiences should not be forgotten. For an extended study of both the effect on masculinity caused by draft resisting, and the role of wives and girlfriends in the lives and political decisions of exile, see Lara Campbell, “Women United Against the War: Gender Politics, Feminism, and Vietnam Draft Resistance in Canada”, in Karen Dubinsky, Catherine Krull, Susan Lord, Sean Mills and Scott Rutherford, New World Coming: The Sixties and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2009), pp. 339-346.  18  against the war and we can live here in relative freedom’.51 Equally, a plethora of open letters, distributed throughout the United States, made similar claims. In particular, a letter from an author identified only as “Petrokosky” addressed to any young Americans considering moving to Canada emphasized that ‘there is more cultural differentiation in Canada than in the United States, and at the same time, less pressure to conform, more tolerance, more sanity, and in some ways, more freedom’.52 Indeed, the most consistent of these kinds of representations can be found in the personal correspondence of J. McRee Elrod, who sent letters to individuals seeking information about Canada as well as to American publications, such Playboy, Esquire, The Saturday Review, Christian Century, and the New York Review of Books, in order to encourage migration. Notably, in his letter to Christian Century in January 1968, Elrod promised that Americans in Canada had the chance to ‘become involved in one of the few countries trying to create the conditions of peace on earth’.53 Equally, as with most depictions distributed throughout the States, Elrod emphasized both the racial and political tolerance apparently abundant in Canadian society. Thus, in a letter to the editors of The Saturday Review, he highlighted the fact that ‘in Canada even avowed Communists may run for public office’, whilst a statement that appeared in almost all documented letters sent to American publications claimed ‘here we have found the  51  Letter to the Sailors of the U.S.S. Ingersoll from U.S. Deserters, Draft Resisters and Political Refugees, Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3. 52  Petrokosky, “Going North Young Man? A Letter from Canada”, Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3. 53  Letter to Christian Century from J. McRee Elrod (11 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.  19  greatest freedom from ethnic and racial prejudices’ providing the fact that ‘we have a Negro adopted child’ as evidence of this assertion.54 From the fact that a number of letters sent to Elrod beseeching him for information regarding Canada directly referred to his contributions to the aforementioned publications, the suggestion that, as well as being widely distributed, Elrod’s descriptions of a “tolerant Canada” were clearly persuasive in convincing young Americans to view moving to Canada as an alternative to being drafted is a valid one.55 Utopic images of Canadian tolerance were indeed so widespread that they were not simply limited to correspondence sources, and were also evident throughout North American popular culture. Most famously, The Flying Burrito Brothers song “My Uncle”, from the 1969 album Gilded Palace of Sin, described the plight of a young American receiving his notice from his local draft-board, and subsequently deciding ‘Vancouver may be my kind of town, ‘cause they don’t need the kind of law and order that tends to keep a good man underground’.56 As a result, the preconception that Canadian society resembled a paradise of tolerance and acceptance was largely influenced by a range of promises from a variety of both Canadian and countercultural sources.  54  Letter to New York Review of Books from J. McRee Elrod (9 January, 1967), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1; Letter to The Saturday Review from J. McRee Elrod (4 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1; Letter to Playboy from J. McRee Elrod (4 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1. Karen Dubinsky has claimed that the adoption of ‘Hybrid Babies’ (i.e. black children adopted by white families) during this period was often a reflection of “a measure of the superior social values of Canadians, who believed themselves to be in those years at the forefront of domestic interracial adoption”. See Karen Dubinsky, “Babies Without Borders: Rescue, Kidnap, and the Symbolic Child”, Journal of Women’s History, 19.1 (March, 2007), p. 143. 55  Letter to J. McRee Elrod from Debbie Bremian (13 March, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 2;  Letter to J. McRee Elrod from M. Gregory St. John and Patricia A. St. John (April 15, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3. 56  Gram Parsons and Chris Hillman, “My Uncle”, Gilded Palace of Sin (Hollywood: A&M Records, 1969), SP 4175-LP; Murphy, “Journeys to the “North Country Fair”, p. 66  20  Whilst, to an extent, some of these images were indeed rooted in some semblance of reality, an American exile arriving in Vancouver expecting the full extent of these promises of total liberalism was bound to be disappointed. Throughout the period, the police in Vancouver, fully supported and encouraged by the city’s politicians, mounted an extensive campaign against alternative and radical elements within the city’s youth culture. The city’s underground “hip” publication, The Georgia Straight, published a weekly “Heads Captured” column, which detailed persons appearing in court that week alone on charges for narcotics possession and vagrancy, which often reached figures of above ninety persons.57 Equally, The Straight regularly reported on such matters as the harassment of their vendors by police officers, unwarranted stop and searches on young persons in the city, the overtly punitive treatment of student protestors at Simon Fraser University and general excess of police violence, particularly during protests.58 The underground publication also provided numerous details concerning the abuse and discrimination suffered by counterculturalists at the hands of the wider population of the city.59 Judicial discrimination was often applied to the American exiles themselves, with raids on draft resister houses and hostels becoming a regular occurrence. Notably, The Georgia Straight accused the ‘local fuzz’ (police) of ‘acting as a form of brown-nose adjunct to the FBI’, especially in photographing everyone entering or leaving a war-objector’s Committee house at  57  See for example, “Heads Captured”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 53 (April 11, 1967), p. 12. 58  “Straight Vendor Beats Rap”, Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 5 (September 8, 1967); “Letters to Elmore”, Georgia Straight, Vol. 2 No. 14 (March 22, 1968), p. 2; “Police Repression Escalates”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 50 (March 21, 1969), p. 7; “Pigs Help Out Jericho People”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 5 No. 132 (October 21, 1970), p. 5. 59  For example, the vandalism suffered by psychedelic shops such as The Mattress was regularly reported. See “”Who’s Kidding Who?”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 5, 1967), p. 3.  21  3090 W. Sixth Avenue in 1969.60 The assumption behind the article was that the RCMP were providing information concerning draft resister locations to their southern law enforcement neighbours, an accusation that does not seem completely implausible given the Vancouver police department’s treatment of American refugees. A similar accusation dominated a report of a police raid on a Committee home at 1368 E. Second Avenue in December of the same year. Steve Watters, the house’s organizer, claimed ‘they must have been doing it for the pigs down south’ due to their primary intention of finding ‘names, not dope’ in searching the files, letters and documents held by the house. Watters expressed that such attention was a fairly regular occurrence, emphasising that police had raided the same house some ‘five or six times’, each time coming up empty handed in terms of prosecutable offences.61 The accusation of complicity with the military interests of the American state was indeed further justified by Vancouver Mayor Tom Campbell’s fervent support of the war in Vietnam, perhaps most symbolically demonstrated by the Mayor’s decision to send Canadian flags to fly in a U.S. marine bunker overlooking the Gulf of Tonkin.62 Indeed, Campbell’s enthusiastic backing reflected an undeniable complicity on the part of the Canadian state in the Vietnam War. Although no Canadian troops were officially deployed in Vietnam, the Canadian military economy benefitted hugely from the conflict.63 The fact that Canadian industrial companies, such as Dow Chemical of Canada, exported vast quantities of military supplies, including chemical components of napalm, to the U.S.A. implies a complicity that did not go unnoticed by anti-war sources at the time.64 It has subsequently been claimed that as early as  60  “Draft Evaders Hustled”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 80 (October 22, 1969), p. 20. 61  “Cops Raid Deserters’ Homes”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 87 (December 10, 1969), p. 9.  22  1966 U.S. annual defence expenditure in Canada had increased from $25 million in 1964 to $317 million.65 The disparity between the myths disseminated throughout the United States of Canadian tolerance and the reality of an oppressive police force and a national complicity in the Vietnam War was the central feature of complaints levelled by politicized draft resisters against their new location. The Yankee Refugee, a DiY newsletter produced by the Vancouver American Deserters Committee between 1968 and 1969, provides a key insight into these feelings of disappointment. In the first edition of the newsletter, one Terry V. Boyce expressed his frustration at: How little the difference is, we find the economy here is controlled almost exclusively by U.S. interests, that Canada supports and aids the Vietnam war and that the ill-fated Law and Order plague is rapidly winning support among the same class of people here as at home.  Boyce finished his critique with a claim that ‘as the nation now exists, it is little more than a U.S. colony’, an accusation made on numerous occasions throughout the Yankee Refugee’s time in print.66 In a similar vein, an autobiographical statement from Janiel Jolly, the wife of a draft resister settled in Canada, published in the second edition of the Yankee Refugee confessed to ‘naivete (sic) in thinking it is possible to escape the prison walls by crossing a border’. Jolly goes on to claim ‘we have found in Vancouver... the same kind of inflexible thinking that drove us out of Utah, eventually out of the U.S., and is now driving us out of our  62  “Tom Stands on Guard in Vietnam”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 2 No. 23 (July 26, 1968), p. 4. 63  Although the country was officially non-belligerent, tens of thousands of Canadians served in the United States army during the conflict. Fred Gaffen, Unknown Warriors: Canadians in Vietnam (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1990). 64  “Safeway Restocks Dow Products”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 9 (December, 1967), p. 4. 65  Kostash, Long Way From Home, p. 42. See also Levant, Quiet Complicity. 66  Terry V. Boyce, “Why Yankee Refugee?”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1  (November 10, 1968), p. 1. See also: “Repression in the Neo Colony”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 6 (March, 1969), p. 3.  23  minds’.67 The claim that Vancouver was no different in mind-set to the U.S. was also a frequent topic discussed by exiles in sociological interviews, notably with one Linden Blake, a deserter and escapee from the Presidio stockade in San Francisco interviewed by Roger Williams, stated ‘I thought that when I got to Vancouver there would be happy people there, that it would be a completely different trip... and it isn’t. It’s really just the same thing.’68 Meanwhile, an unattributed article in the March 1969 Yankee Refugee went so far as to claim that, if anything, the Canadian justice system was even more punitive than its U.S. counterpart due to it being, as evidenced by the excessive fines handed down to S.F.U. demonstrators, ‘far more directly reposive (sic) to pressures from the political and corporate elites than are the American courts’.69 The realization of the similarities between the United States and Canada, and indeed of Canadian complicity in both American economic and military ventures, was particularly perturbing for politicized war resisters in Canada as it potentially undermined any claim of draft evasion constituting both a personally and politically relevant action. Several articles questioned the personal benefits that relocation offered. Notably a December 1968 article from Lancelot Greers opining that ‘we never had an alternative in North America to the pathetic racist culture we left behind’.70 Equally, the view expressed by Terry Boyce, namely that Vietnam exiles relocating to Canada in the hope of living in a better society had ‘given up a great deal for very little’, was a recurring motif in Vietnam exile accounts during the period.71  67  Janiel Jolly, “Autobiographical Statement #2”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 2 (November 25, 1968), p. 3. 68  Quoted in Williams, New Exiles, p. 231. 69  “Repression in the Neo Colony”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 6 (March, 1969), p. 3. 70  Lancelot Greers, “An Article”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 3 (December 18, 1968), p. 1. 71  Terry V. Boyce, “Why Yankee Refugee?”, p. 1.  24  However, while the doubt surrounding the personal benefits of relocation would have certainly been troubling on an individual level, questions regarding the political legitimacy or effectiveness of the draft resistance movement as a whole attacked the fundamental pillar of politicized exiles’ identity.  Important figures in the American counterculture, such as folk-singer Joan Baez and Students for a Democratic Society leader Tom Hayden, famously questioned the political effect of the Canadian exodus throughout the period, and these opinions also dominated the pages of the Yankee Refugee.72 Notably, in February 1969, Melody Killian confessed ‘we understand that being in Canada does not affect the size of the U.S. military machine, and that our men’s places are simply filled by others who cannot enter Canada’, finally coming to the conclusion that ‘being here or helping others to come here is NOT anti-war work’.73 Equally, an earlier article from Kilian emphasized a common emotion that came to dominate the psyche of many politicized war exiles: that of ‘looking back to the old country, feeling guilty that we are not with our friends who are resisting’.74 Not only was the political irrelevance of exile in itself a commonly expressed observation in draft resister circles, but there was even an argument to be made that, if anything, by relocating to Canada, American war resisters served as a cover for Canadian complicity in the War. In an interview with the author, Mark Satin, the editor of the Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada and director of the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme in 1967, who also ran a draft-dodger hostel in Vancouver throughout the period, emphasized the contemporary draft resister and deserter fear that they were being used ‘as tokens’ by the  72  Hagan, Northern Passage, p. 111. 73  Melody Kilian, “Oh, Canada!”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 4 (February 6, 1969), p. 1. 74  Melody Kilian, “A Statement of Purpose”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1968),  p. 2.  25  Canadian government and that they ‘were the excuse and cover for Canadian involvement in the war’.75 Thus, with the political and personal legitimacy of their decision to move north of the border challenged and undermined, politicized draft resisters came to see active engagement in radical politics as a possible, and indeed only, means to fully contribute to the anti-war effort. Reflecting this viewpoint, the aforementioned Lancelot Greers commented that, in order to remain politically relevant, war exiles in Canada should resolve themselves to ‘seeing our new home for what it is- like the U.S., badly in need of sudden radical change’.76 However, draft resisters and deserters attempting to instigate radical change faced further frustrations and limitations caused by their status as American immigrants. For any exile engaging in movement work, the threat of deportation from Canada served as a political inhibitor that undeniably restrained full engagement in radical action. This political inhibition is particularly clear in several accounts throughout the Yankee Refugee. Reporting on the fallout of the arrest of sixteen demonstrators protesting against the docking of a U.S. naval submarine in Victoria, B.C., an unattributed article in March 1969 emphasized that the three American exiles amongst the arrestees ‘have been told that if convicted, they will face deportation orders after serving prison sentences’.77 In a similar vein, Melody Kilian, reporting on the involvement of American exiles in a 1968 “sit-in” at Simon Fraser University, which remonstrated against the university administration’s perceived discrimination against ‘working-class Canadians, people from certain high schools, and  75  Phone interview with Mark Satin, 22 March 2013. 76  Lancelot Greers, “An Article”, p. 1. 77  “Repression in the Neo-Colony”, p. 3.  26  American exiles’, emphasized that Americans present were unable to adequately engage in the political action due to the fear of deportation.78 Upon the arrival of the police at the “sit-in”, all American exiles present left in order to avoid arrest and deportation. Killian subsequently expressed her frustration at ‘protecting myself whilst others fought... I had to go for no other reason than that I was born in the U.S.’79 American expatriates who did not wish to involve themselves in movements to inspire radical social change did not need to undergo the process described by Henry David as ‘build(ing) a new cognitive map’, as the central landmarks of their cognitive map in the United States, namely employment and engagement in capitalist economy, could be reconstructed in Canada with, in general, little trouble.80 Whilst all American immigrants to Canada during the late sixties and early seventies would have experienced some level of personal and cultural disruption to their lives, the crisis of identity experienced by politicized Vietnam exiles was more integral, and more difficult to remedy. With their ipseity as politically relevant bodies undermined by both questions regarding their social significance as exiles and by limitations placed on their ability to engage in the protest culture of the era, politicized draft resisters and deserters faced a far greater challenge in constituting a relevant identity than apolitical American émigrés. Success in resolving these issues would largely be determined by the extent to which politicized exiles were willing to adapt both the way they projected their national identity and the way they related it to their new country of residency. Whether they chose to see  78  Melody Kilian, “American Political Refugees”, Yankee Refugee!, No.2 (November 25, 1968), pp. 1-2. 79  Melody Killian, “American Students in the Sit-In”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 2 (November 25, 1968), p. 3. 80  David, “Involuntary International Migration”, p. 79.  27  themselves as American exiles or “New Canadian” immigrants would largely determine their ability to maintain some self-conception of political relevance and thus resolve their crisis in identity, as the two contrasting strategies employed by the Vancouver American Deserters Association and by Vancouver Yippie! clearly demonstrate.                     28  3 The Vancouver American Deserters Committee: Self-Isolation, Elitism and Cultural Rigidity Founded in 1968, the American Deserters Committee was a collection of deserters, draft resisters and other American political exiles who grouped together to provide aid for military deserters arriving in Vancouver during the end of the 1960s. The group ran a deserter hostel in the Kitsilano neighbourhood (providing free housing for between 8 and 20 deserters at any given time), published the newsletter the Yankee Refugee, obtained fake I.D. for deserters unable to get landed immigrant status and organized meetings for deserters and draft resisters alike in order to aid their adaption to life in Canada.81 According to the first edition of their newsletter, whilst the Committee to Aid American War Objectors was largely responsible for facilitating the initial immigration of draft-age Americans, the Deserters Committee would focus more on ‘keeping those who have gotten into Canada from going mad and help to formulate political attitudes and actions’.82 The group thus resembled, in several ways, the collections of persons briefly described by Reneé Kasinsky in her book Refugees from Militarism as ‘those individuals who spent more than half their time working for the aid and exile groups’.83 As previously mentioned, the Yankee Refugee reflected an underlying discontent on the part of its authors at their political situation as war exiles wishing to engage in movement work. The response of the Deserters Association to this situation mirrored Edward Said’s prescribed solution to the identity crisis of exile: to ‘reassemble an identity out of the refractions and discontinuity of exile’ particularly by ‘choosing to see themselves as part of a triumphant  81  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6 th  2013. 82  Rick Ayers, “Opening Statement”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1968), p. 1. 83  Kasinsky, Refugees from Militarism, p. 168.  29  ideology or a restored people’.84 Their identity, as prescribed throughout the articles submitted to the Yankee Refugee, was almost purely constructed around their situation as American exiles. This strategy, although successful in formulating a cohesive and resilient group consciousness, inhibited the group’s attempts to engage in Vancouver’s wider radical culture, and proved to be a short term solution to the crisis of relocation. Rick Ayers’ opening statement for the Yankee Refugee is clear evidence of the Deserters Committee’s desire to group together with other exiles, rather than with fellow radicals in the Canadian scene. The newsletter was explicitly ‘published by Americans, for Americans’, and was grounded in the claim that ‘as Americans in Canada, we share a common experience and similar needs’.85 The emphasis on the need to make political and personal associations in a mainly American socio-political network was also advocated in other articles in the opening edition of the newsletter. Thus, Terry Boyce maintained ‘basically, Yankee Refugee is founded on the premise that we must become a united group’, that ‘once we have gathered ourselves into a group we may be able to significantly develop direction politically and morally for ourselves’ and therefore ‘we must group together to create an identity for ourselves’.86 The implication was thus that it was only through association with other Americans that a politically relevant individual identity could be formulated. The desire to associate mainly with other American exiles was clearly a prominent one that was born out in the actions and events organized by the American Deserters Committee. Indeed, the mere existence of purely American groups such as the Deserters Committee and  84  Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 177-179. 85  Rick Ayers, “Opening Statement”, p. 1. 86  Terry V. Boyce, “Why Yankee Refugee?”, p. 1.  30  the Vancouver American Exiles Association, as opposed to the Vancouver Committee to Aid American War objectors being a joint effort by Canadians and Americans, is evidence that these calls for American exile solidarity were put into action. Equally, the existence of strictly “American only” communal dinners, as advertised in both the Georgia Straight and the Yankee Refugee, is further evidence of the clear policy of maintaining a purely American group consciousness.87 This policy went hand in hand with maintaining American social and cultural habits. For example, in 1969 the American Deserters Committee organized a July 4th picnic, in order for draft resisters and deserters to celebrate the American Independence Day and to ‘show them that they are not alone in their struggle’.88 Further, Rick Ayers closed his opening mission statement with the insinuation that ‘we must maintain the consciousness he have acquired in the States’, insinuating that the only way to remain politically relevant was to cling to a political understanding that was only possible to reach south of the border.89 This sense of American radical elitism never reached the heights of other exiles’ publications. For example, the Toronto based AMEX (American Expatriate in Canada) declared in 1970 ‘Canadians will have to start getting used to us. Maybe with a bit of luck they’ll listen seriously to a bit of what we’re trying to tell them’, and made several similarly didactic statements throughout its time in publication.90 Rick Ayers has subsequently insisted that the Yankee Refugee made a conscious effort not to ‘project a know-it-all sense of American  87  “All American Refugees Dinner”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 48 (March 7, 1968), p. 19. 88  Barry and Duncan, “Our Fourth of July”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 8 (July, 1969), p. 2. 89  Rick Ayers, “Opening Statement”, p. 1. 90  Quoted in Baskir and Strauss, Chance and Circumstance, p. 190.  31  entitlement into every question’, however, due to multiplicity of contributors submitting articles, this aspect wasn’t completely absent from the newsletter.91 An opinionated “autobiographical statement” by one T. L. Blunt, for example, claimed that Canadian youth were less politically active than their southern neighbours ‘due solely to the fact that Canadians are not a great power fighting a war’, and thus, in absence of enforced conscription, ‘the people here (especially the young) are not therefore confronted with a need for sudden despair or drastic change’. Blunt ended his critique with the condescending characterization that ‘Canadians envy Big Brother to the south, admiringly wishing they could conjure such an awesome identity for themselves’ and indicated a stereotypically America- centric view of North American politics in claiming ‘we suspect realistically that events in Washington effect (sic) us more in the long run than policy decisions in Ottawa or our province’.92 Although the full extent of this viewpoint may not have been shared by the majority of the members of the Deserters Committee, it is undeniable that, verbalized or not, U.S.-centric political ambitions influenced the majority of their political actions.   This is not to claim that the group paid no attention to Canadian politics and provincial issues. The Yankee Refugee promoted a variety of specifically Canadian struggles, particularly those concerning Quebecois independence and the rights of Canada’s indigenous peoples. In particular, the Deserters Committee regularly attended meeting of the Vancouver based NARP (Native Alliance for Red Power) and published the group’s “Eight-Point Program” in their April 1969 edition.93 Equally, the American Deserters Committee Program, published in the Yankee  91  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6 th  2013. 92  T. L. Blunt, “Autobiographical Statement #1”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1969), p. 3. 93  “NARP Eight Point Program”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 7 (April, 1969), p. 2.  32  Refugee in July 1969, promised in its fifth point to ‘support Canadian and Quebec struggles’. Specifically, the program declared: We lend our urgent support to the struggles of Canadian workers and students and native Indian peoples for self-determination and socialism. We also feel that our brother exiles in Quebec must lend total and unequivocal support to the national struggle of the Quebecois... Everywhere our deserter collectives must carry out education on Canadian racism, the situation of the native peoples, the struggles of the Canadian workers, and the Canadian student movement.94  As such, the American Deserters Committee and the Yankee Refugee did not live up to the full extent of the charges laid against American exiles by Canadian nationalists such as Robin Matthews, namely that they failed to ask  ‘what they can do for Canada, for Canada’s primary problems’.95 However, whilst in word the group pledged its support to home-grown Canadian movements, in deed, in the political actions they chose to engage in, they largely failed to subvert their concerns with American domestic and foreign policy in favour of a Canadian perspective on events. Actions and protests engaged in by the Deserters Committee almost all revolved around the Vietnam War and its implication for them as Americans in Canada. Reflecting this, an Easter Saturday anti-war mobilization advertised in the fifth Yankee Refugee, was largely described as an attempt to ‘support the G.I.s in their fight to stop the U.S. war machine and the atrocities forced upon the soldier by the advocates of U.S. imperialism’.96 Equally, the group engaged in various actions around both Vancouver and Victoria’s docks in an attempt to persuade the crews of docking U.S. navy vessels to desert their posts. In particular, the distribution of Deserter Committee literature and pamphlets to the crews of the USS Picking, USS Somers and  94  “American Deserters Committee Program”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 8 (July, 1969), p. 2. 95  Robin Matthews, “Opinion”, p. 11. 96  “Easter Saturday Mobilisation”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 5 (February/March, 1969), p. 5.  33  the USS Turner Joy in July 1969  was characterized as a great success solely on the grounds that ‘those leaflets are on their way to Pearl Harbour and then to Long Beach’.97 This preoccupation with the plight of American military personnel was also clearly evident in the group’s attempts to engage in radical actions organized by Canadian movements.  The single most prominent involvement of the Deserters Committee in a home-grown Canadian direct action mobilisation relayed through the Yankee Refugee came during the November 1969 student occupation of the Simon Fraser University Administration Building. The sit-in, co-ordinated by the Canadian organizations Students for a Democratic University and the Canadian Union of Students, was largely a response to the university administration’s rejection of demands for greater equity and student involvement in the admissions process, greater transparency in the general administration of the university and an increase in funding for educational resources on campus.98 However, in a speech delivered during the sit-in, and reprinted in the Yankee Refugee, Deserters Committee representative Melody Kilian fell short of discussing ramifications of the university’s policies for Canadians, instead highlighting that, of all the groups apparently being discriminated against, draft resisters were by far the greatest victims of Simon Fraser’s admissions policy. Kilian went so far as to claim ‘Canadian young men do not know how oppressive the university system can be when it is coupled with the compulsion of military service... A bad semester can mean that you will have to kill someone’.99 Thus, although the American Deserters Committee expressed solidarity with Canadian  97  “Ships Again”, Yankee Refugee! No. 8 (July, 1969), p. 3. 98  Ian Milligan, “Coming Off the Mountain: Forging an Outward-Looking New Left at Simon Fraser University”, BC Studies, Issue 171 (Autumn, 2011), p. 77. 99  Melody Kilian, “American Political Refugees”, p. 1.  34  movements and advocated involvement in Canadian issues, they largely engaged in these movements solely as American refugees, and largely with the benefit of fellow exiles in mind. This attitude of pre-empting Canadian concerns with a total focus on the plight of American exiles did not draw the same kind of criticisms from New-Left nationalists as were dominating the radical intellectual scene to the east at the turn of the decade. However, the oftentimes highly vocal and visible projection of a thoroughly American identity ended up causing tension with other draft resisters, and distanced the group from the support network of the Committee to Aid American War Objectors. On this note, in the February/March 1969 edition of the Yankee Refugee the American Deserters Committee published a disclaimer which announced:  Seeing as how our modest publication has not been universally well-received, we feel we need to disassociate ourselves publically from the Committee to Aid American War Objectors so that certain well-off individuals (not necessarily Americans) don’t become alienated from the latter-named organization and cause a financial crisis.100  The implication throughout the disclaimer, that the vocality of the Deserters Committee had disaffected the Committee to Aid American War Objectors’ financial support base, who according to the disclaimer ‘recoil at the prospect of rocking the ol’ boat’, was confirmed by Rick Ayers in our interview.101 According to Ayers the disclaimer came at the request of Mark Satin, of the Committee to Aid American War Objectors, following a rash of television interviews with the Deserters Committee in response to an RCMP raid on their hostel. Ayers elaborated: We were on television saying “we’re going to defy the law and keep bringing in deserters”. I think Mark got very upset with us and felt we were bringing heat down on  100  “Disclaimer”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 5 (February/March, 1969), p. 4. 101  Ibid, p. 4.  35  the exile community. I think he was afraid that his fundraising and his liberal support would be shook up.102  It was thus the combination of a promulgated American exile identity with a vocally anti-establishment, socialist ideology that alienated the group from other Vietnam exile groups. J. McRee Elrod, the Unitarian minister behind Immigration Aid to Refugees of Consciousness, had already indicated, in a letter to the director of the Unitarian Conscientious Objector Program in Boston Massachusetts, that his group would attempt to ‘exclude those bent on the violent overthrow of the Canadian government’.103 It is clear to see why the link between exile groups and radical socialist politics would be so unsettling for those exiles seeking to facilitate a quiet and effortless immigration for American exiles. However, what also cannot be forgotten is that many draft resisters and deserters found the idea of any exile group attempting to maintain both their Americanness and an American perspective disquieting. Proof of this can be found in the reception given to the foundation of a group named the Vancouver American Exiles Association. The group, founded by Edward Starkins in January 1971, aimed, according to its 1973 Constitution, to ‘counsel Vietnam war resisters in exile on repatriation’ and thus to ‘educate and inform war resisters and the community on the issues of amnesty’.104 However, in 1975 Starkins admitted, in a biographical account included in the Exiles Association’s records, that ‘because of a pervasive desire to forget about the American past, many exiles were immediately turned off by a group such as the VAEA’.105  102  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6 th  2013. 103  Letter to Dean A. Mitchell from J. McRee Elrod (April 30, 1970), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Archives, Box 1 Folder 2. 104  American Exiles Association, “Constitution and Bylaws of the Vancouver American Exiles Association” (1973), Edward Starkins Fonds, University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 10, p. 1. 105  E. L. Starkins, “Biographical Information” (August 12, 1975), Edward Starkins Fonds, University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1, p. 2.  36  As a result, it is understandable that the maintenance of both a radically socialist political outlook with a singularly American identity by the Deserters Committee would have been doubly unattractive to the core groups committed to aiding American refugees in Vancouver and the rest of Canada. Equally, vociferous proclamations of American superiority and a dominant focus on solely draft exile concerns, as well as the legal limitations of being a recently landed immigrant, prohibited the Deserters Committee from openly working with and integrating with the Canadian left-wing protest movements throughout the city. However, this is not to say that the group was totally ignorant of the need to Canadianize, and to focus on Canadian issues. In the first edition of the Yankee Refugee Melody Kilian proclaimed that ‘if exile is not to mean depoliticization, disengagement and a retreat into bourgeois individualism, me must... gain a Canadian perspective on our political lives’.106 However, the inability of key members of the group to turn their backs on their American nationality, and to shift their political focus away from the United States, resulted in a political identity  that was, in the long term, untenable in their new country of origin. Rick Ayers and Melody Kilian returned to the United States in the summer of 1969. According to Ayers, this decision was reached due to the realization that ‘we either needed to go all into Canadian politics and become Canadian or we needed to go back’. He subsequently entered the U.S. army, and became active in the active duty G.I. resistance network.107 With their departure the American Deserters Committee folded, and the Yankee Refugee discontinued. In 1970, the remaining staff of the newsletter released a final pamphlet in which they described how their previous identities had contributed to ‘the estrangement between the  106  Melody Kilian, “A Statement of Purpose”, p. 2. 107  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6 th  2013.  37  American community and the Canadian left’. The remaining authors went to great lengths to consistently point out throughout the pamphlet that this matter had changed. Thus, they openly identified themselves as ‘new Canadians’, declared ‘we are in fact no longer Americans, we are Canadians’ and pledged ‘we will join Canadians in making life untenable for the rulers’.108 Clearly then, the members of the Deserters Committee came to realize that an identity that purely revolved around being an American exile was untenable in their new country of origin. For those who could not divorce themselves from their American roots and from their American political consciousness, such as Ayers and Kilian, an end to exile and a return to the United States helped resolve the contradictions of their political identity. Those who felt they could compromise on their national identity remained in Canada, publicly denouncing and severing themselves from their American past. Thus, the Yankee Refugee ended publication, and the Deserters Committee ceased to be an active organization in Vancouver. Due to the political limitations of life as American exiles, and due to the sensitivity of both draft-aid network groups and New-Left Canadian groups to overt displays of American radicalism, the conclusion was reached that it was impossible to actively contribute to the Canadian resistance movement as a group identified purely as American exiles. The example of draft resisters and deserters involved in the Northwest Lunatic Fringe of the Youth International Party (Vancouver Yippie!) serve as a clear counter-example, where the submersion of an American identity in favour of an international Canadian identity resulted in these American exiles contributing to  108  The Yankee Refugee Staff, “Americans in Canada” (Undated pamphlet), Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 6 Folder 3, pp. 2-3. Although this pamphlet was undated, the reference to recent U.S. bombing runs in Cambodia suggests it was written in 1970.  38  one of the most successful and well-received protest groups in Vancouver’s long history of radical action.                      39  4 War Exiles in Vancouver Yippie!: The Formation of a Dual Canadian- American Identity The Vancouver Yippie! faction (otherwise known as the Northern Lunatic Fringe) was formed after a meeting of Simon Fraser students associated with the left-wing group Industrial Workers of the World, the countercultural protest group the Vancouver Liberation Front, and a politicised group of draft dodgers located in East Vancouver and Kitsilano.109 Throughout the early 1970s the collective engaged in numerous political actions and protests, sometimes against American imperialism and Canadian complicity in the Vietnam War, but more often for local causes that related directly to the youth culture in Vancouver. The Yippie! philosophy undeniably had its roots in the American countercultural anti-war movement of the late 1960s and was particularly associated with the youth protest superstars Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. Answering Hoffman’s call to use ‘theatre in the streets’ in resisting capitalist domination, the Yippies placed central emphasis on symbolic action as the key to social change.110 Subsequently, in the U.S.A. they became renowned for guerrilla actions such as invading the New York stock exchange in 1967 and burning money in front of eager journalists.111 Due to the high profile nature of the American Yippies, previous accounts have depicted the Vancouver group simply as an offshoot of the American counterculture. In particular, Lawrence Aronsen has claimed that ‘Vancouver’s Yippies are of some note because they highlight the cross-border transfer of American popular culture’, reflecting a central motif in his  109  Red Lion Publishing, “Vancouver Yippie!”, viewed at http://vcmtalk.com/vancouver_yippie (12/11/2012) 110  Abbie Hoffmann, Revolution for the Hell of It, by Free (New York: Dial Press, 1968), p. 27. 111  Susanne Elizabeth Shawyer, “Radical Street Theatre and the Yippie Legacy: A Performance History of the Youth International Party, 1967-1968”, PhD Dissertation (University of Texas, 2008).  40  book City of Love and Revolution in which the social movements sweeping the city throughout the decade are simply written off as extensions of America’s countercultural events.112 However, to view Vancouver Yippies purely as a product of Americanization is to overlook the way in which American members, who in the main were war exiles, compromised their national identities and embraced a process of Canadianization in order to contribute to the group. The manner in which the Yippies represented themselves throughout The Yellow Journal provides a valuable insight into an identity within which it becomes impossible to separate American and Canadian elements. Although at least five out of the twenty-five core members of Vancouver Yippie! were American exiles, they totally shied away from publically identifying themselves as such. Instead, in the October 1970 edition of The Yellow Journals they professed themselves to be ‘a rag-tag band of bad asses from around the city and further out’, who were as much aligned with ‘Arab guerrillas, sneaky-ass mothers who rip off airplanes just to piss the imperialists off’ as with ‘Panthers, dodgers, deserters, and all those mean Yanks that alarm the mayor’.113 This publically professed identity reflected the inner dynamics of the group. According to Bob Mercer, the Canadian editor-in-chief of The Yellow Journal, the war exiles involved in Yippie! ‘were not overwhelmingly identifying themselves as Americans... there was at least one guy I can think of that I didn’t even know he was a draft resister or American until years later’.114 Indeed, the Yellow Journal even went so far as to accuse groups of American exiles who made elitist statements professing their political superiority as ‘American chauvinists’. In  112  Aronsen, City of Love and Revolution, p. 108. 113  “Editorial”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 8 (October 9, 1970), p. 2. 114  Interview with Bob Mercer, Vancouver BC, February 15 2013.  41  particular, in June 1970, the newsletter announced the expulsion of three members from the Vancouver Liberation Front due to their formation of a new Deserters Committee, nicknamed the Amerikong Deserters Committee, which was proposing the foundation of an underground revolutionary army purely made up of American exiles. In particular, the Yellow Journal criticized these Americans for ‘declaring themselves the vanguard of the Canadian movement’, a move that would both alienate Canadians in the youth movement but would also ‘bring down repression on their fellow exiles’.115 Throughout the statement released by The Yellow Journal the implication was clear that the isolationist and elitist war exile politics espoused by the Amerikong Deserters Committee directly contrasted with the approach favoured by Americans involved in Vancouver Yippie! As such, the new Committee was accused of showing ‘no respect for those persons attempting to integrate the struggle of deserters into the Canadian revolutionary movement’.116 This commitment to integrating Canadian and American perspectives is clearly evident in both the form and content of The Yellow Journal. Central elements in the style and content of the publication had undeniable influences borrowed from the United States. The political discursive strategy of misspelling ‘Vankouver’ and ‘Kanada’ throughout its issues was heavily influenced by the American youth movement’s depiction of the U.S. establishment as ‘Amerika’.117 Indeed, it is certainly arguable that the publications’ accusations of U.S. fascism and imperialism (expressed through post-colonial rhetoric), its use of stock phrases such as ‘power to the people’ and describing members of the police force as ‘pigs’, and indeed the  115  “American National Chauvinism”, The Yellow Journal, No. 6 (July 16, 1970), p. 4. 116  Ibid, p. 5. 117  Julian Benedict, “Radical Yellow: Exploring Vancouver’s “Guerrilla” Newspaper”, West Coast Line, 40.4 (2007), p. 54.  42  entire Yippie! philosophy were all ideas, concepts and techniques imported from the United States.118 Equally, The Yellow Journal dedicated a significant chunk of its content to political and cultural events occurring south of the 49th Parallel. For example, the first issue featured a three- page interview with Eldridge Cleaver, Minister of Information for the Black Panthers, ruminating on the nature of the ‘Amerikan Dream’, and U.S. society in general.119 The publication also dedicated an extended spread to an analysis of the Kent State Massacre, and its political reverberations throughout the U.S.A. in the form of protests in Seattle, San Francisco and New York.120 However, in keeping with the integrationist strategy espoused by the Vancouver Yippies, The Yellow Journal reported as much, if not more, on Canadian events than American.  As such, the publication provided in depth analysis of events that specifically concerned Canadians. The Quebecois separatist movement was frequently analyzed in terms of being both a national and international issue of central importance.121 Indeed, such was the importance attributed to this movement by The Yellow Journal, that the entirety of the publication’s final edition (titled ‘Le Journal Jaune’) was dedicated to the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec, with the journal’s authors advocating that a ‘free Quebec’ was equivalent to a ‘free Canada’.122 Furthermore, articles concerning diverse strands of specifically Canadian political radicalism, from the 1970 ‘Abortion  118  “American National Chauvinism”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 6 (July 16, 1970), pp. 4-5; “Amerikan Youth”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4 (June 11, 1970), p. 9; “Pig Returns”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4 (June 11, 1970), p. 1; “Public Servant No. 1”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1 (April 23, 1970), p. 5; “May Fourth Movement”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 5 (June 25, 1970), p. 16. 119  “Cleaver and the Amerikan Dream”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1 (April 23, 1970), pp. 12-14. 120  “International News of the Kent State Protests”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 3. 121  “Quebec: A Police State in Your Back Yard”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1 (April 23, 1970), p. 8; “Quebec Elections”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 7. 122  “Front Cover: Le Journal Jaune”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 9 (October 29, 1970), p. 1; “Free Quebec, Free Canada”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 9 (October 29, 1970), p. 7.  43  Caravan to Ottawa’, which demanded the abolishment of all of the nation’s abortion laws, to the posthumous analysis of the occupation of Montreal’s Sir George Williams University by black students in 1969, meant that the publication spoke to broad segments and strands of the Canadian radical movement.123 Unlike the American Deserters Committee who failed to translate verbal support of local movements into direct action, protests and social unrest instigated by the Vancouver Yippies truly reflected a total engagement with and immersion in Vancouverite and Canadian specifics. The war in Vietnam certainly figured largely in a number of events. For example both the invasion of Blaine, where around 500 Canadians crossed the U.S. border and “invaded” the nearby border town of Blaine, and the assault on Vancouver’s U.S. consulate, both occurring over the same weekend in May 1970, were direct responses to the extension of U.S. military engagement into Cambodia.124 However, other engagements demonstrate that the war in Vietnam was just one of a number of issues that the Yippies engaged with, the majority of which were specifically local issues. For example, the May 8th occupation of the Hudson Bay Company Store, on the corner of Georgia and Granville, was a response to the store’s ban on ‘long-hairs’, whilst was also being justified as a ‘celebration of 300 years of institutional racism at The Bay’.125 Equally, the July 1970 Oakalla “Be-Out”, a protest outside of the Burnaby prison objecting to the dismal living conditions of inmates, and the “Grasstown Riot” of 1971, which was organized by the Yippies Ken Lester and Eric Summer to demonstrate in favour of Canadian  123  “Women on Move to Ottawa”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 5; “Snow White Melts”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 17. 124  For footage of the Blaine Invasion, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDhsBRi1sI  (viewed 18/12/2012); see also “Canadian Forces Withdraw from Blaine”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 4 No. 109 (May 13, 1970), p. 3; “Do It”, The Yellow Journal, No. 3 (May 28, 1970), p. 1. 125  “Yippies Trip To Sip-In”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7 1970), p. 9.  44  marijuana decriminalization, exhibit the focus on Canadian specifics that characterized much of the work of the Vancouver Yippies.126 As with other American exiles, draft resisters and deserters attempting to engage in social unrest organized by Vancouver Yippie! still faced limitations caused by their political status as war resisters. Of the two American Yippies interviewed, neither took part in the May 1970 Blaine invasion. Notably, Peter Prontzos, a Marine Corps deserter originally hailing from San Francisco, described how he was ‘too paranoid to go back to the States, especially for something that would have probably resulted in some kind of law enforcement’.127 Equally, Bob Mercer, a Canadian Yippie, recalled how one draft resister named Herb White ‘was arrested at something and had to shed his address and his name and disappear underground due to fear of deportation’. This is not to say that Canadian Yippies did not also face any limitations to their ability to engage in protest work due to their political status. Mercer himself was unable to attend the 1971 “Grasstown Riot” due to the fact that he was ‘already on charges and going through the legal process for participation in another demonstration’.128 Equally, due to the collective nature of Vancouver Yippie!, the political status of individual members was not critical to the ability of the group to engage in social unrest. The success of the group did not revolve around which members were present at events, but in their ability to have the media report that Yippie!, a specifically Vancouverite organization, was behind the unrest.  126  “Oakalla Be-Out”, The Yellow Journal, No. 6 (July 16, 1970), p. 1; “Be Out”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 4 No. 117 (July 7, 1970), p. 2; “Oakalla Fence Breached in Yippie Demonstration”, Vancouver Sun (July 13, 1970), p. 2; “Smoke-In”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 5 No. 190 (August 6, 1971), pp. 3-4. For an extended analysis of the causes and events surrounding the “Grasstown Riot”, see Michael Boudreau, “’The Struggle for a Different World’: The 1971 Gastown Riot in Vancouver”, in Lara Campbell, Dominique Clément and Gregory S. Kealey (eds.), Debating Dissent: Canada and the Sixties (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. 117-134. 127  Interview with Peter Prontzos, Vancouver BC, February 26, 2013. 128  Interview with Bob Mercer, Vancouver BS, February 15, 2013.  45  Indeed, where the individual identity of Yippie! war resisters had the most telling impact on the success of the group was in the ability of the established press and politicians to take this individual identity and thus characterize the entire group as “outside agitators” through it. For example, Vancouver Mayor Tom Campbell placed sole blame for the 1970 English Bay Riots on ‘the hippies, draft dodgers and deserters that cause this sort of thing’. The Mayor employed similar rhetoric on numerous times to explain away the social implications of youth unrest during his time on office. Thus, in May 1968, in an interview given to CBC concerning the recent arrest of a number of individuals for “loitering”, Campbell claimed that the countercultural community springing up in Vancouver was largely the work of ‘American draft dodgers who won’t even fight for their country, who are up here for protection’.129 Equally, in July 1970 Campbell virulently objected to the conversion of the Beatty Street Armoury into a youth hostel by the federally funded National Hostel Task Force due to concern at it becoming ‘a draft dodger, deserter or hippie haven’.130 This was in spite of a report by the Vancouver Committee to Aid American War Objectors in which it stated that there were no Americans staying at the hostel in question.131 The attempt to portray Vancouver Yippie!, and other radical movements throughout the period, solely as the work of American draft resisters should be interpreted as an attempt to both gain support from pro-Vietnam War Canadians (who J. L. Granatstein claims made up 61% of the population in 1967) and to devalue the legitimate social implications of youth disorder.132  129  CBC Digital Archives, “Vancouver Politicians Averse to Hippies (May, 1968), http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/society/youth/hippie-society-the-youth-rebellion/city-politicians-averse- to-hippies.html (accessed 28 th  March, 2013). 130  “Mayor Fears Draft Dodger ‘Haven’”, Vancouver Sun (July 10, 1970), pp. 1+3. 131  “Get Out, Mayor Tells Hippies”, Vancouver Sun (July 11, 1970), pp. 1-2. 132  Granatstein, Yankee Go Home?, p. 171.  46  Bob Mercer subsequently opined that these accusations were ‘just a fantasist way to explain away social unrest’ that ‘had been flying around since the McCarthy era’.133 As such, The Yellow Journal responded to their being depicted as “outside agitators” with the statement ‘they can’t believe that their children hate them... it fucks them up and they try to create conspiracy theories’, noting a parallel with the manner in which ‘Hitler blamed all of the rebellions of German workers on ‘alien Jews’”.134 As such, in order to maintain their political relevance as a locally empowered protest group, a conscious effort was made by Vancouver Yippie to underplay the Americaness of their membership. This war of representation, which ran parallel to Yippie! street battles throughout the era, also provides a clear example where the integration of draft resisters in the mainstream of Canadian life served as a politically empowering asset for the group. While the American Deserters Committee denigrated exiles being employed and immersed in the Canadian economy as examples of ‘depoliticization, disengagement and a retreat into bourgeois individualism’, Yippie! draft resister Bob Sarti’s employment as a journalist for the Vancouver Sun served as a crucial advantage for the group in their war of representation.135 This becomes particularly clear when comparing Sarti’s reporting with that of other mainstream news outlets. While the Vancouver Express depicted the 1970 invasion of Blaine as the work of an unidentified ‘Canadian mob’, and the Hudson Bay “Sip-In” as inspired by a ‘hoodlum element taking advantage of every situation to run rampant, destroy public and private property’, Sarti’s employment as a journalist afforded him the opportunity not only to  133  Interview with Bob Mercer, Vancouver BC, February 15, 2013. 134  “Outside Agitators”, The Yellow Journal, No. 3 (May 28, 1970), p. 3. 135  Melody Kilian, “A Statement of Purpose”, p. 2.  47  fully attribute Vancouver Yippie! for its role in any social unrest, but also to emphasize the local influences and objectives of the group.136 As such, in a June 1970 article in the Sun, he described Yippie! actions over the previous two months as ‘a true renaissance of radicalism in Vancouver’, depicting the formation of the group as being rooted in specifically local events such as the March 1970 March Against Repression, and emphasizing that ‘the spirit of Yippie is local, immediate and spontaneous’. Crucially, Sarti was keen to emphasize that ‘although Vancouver Yippies have drawn inspiration and ideas from their American counterparts, there are no formal links across the border’.137 As a result, then, of his integration into mainstream Canadian life, Bob Sarti was able to, in his own words, occupy ‘a very strategic place to be, with so much power there’.138 His example serves as the perfect micro-cosmic example of why the exiles enjoyed so much success through Vancouver Yippie!. By subverting their American identity and by immersing themselves in the local milieu of Vancouver’s radical culture, American Yippies were able to overcome the identity crisis of being politicized exiles. The American influences present in both the strategy and methods of the group do not necessarily purely reflect the authority of exiles in the group; these elements could have equally come from general cultural diffusion through the media as well as from other Canadian members of the group. For example, Ontarian Yippie Bev Davies probably had as much, if not more, experience within the American counterculture as any of the war exiles in the group. Her experiences, first in Toronto’s Yorkville as an associate of Neil Young and then in New York and San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury as a member of the radical  136  “Canadian Mob Invades Blaine”, Vancouver Express, Vol. 1 No. 35 (May 12, 1970), p. 1; “Near-Riots Spur New Police Request”, Vancouver Express, Vol. 1 No. 35, May 12 1970. 137  Robert Sarti, “Yippies Behind Rash of Street Actions Here”, Vancouver Sun (June 16, 1970), p. 23. 138  Interview with Bob Sarti, Vancouver BC, February 22, 2013.   48  Digger Collective, were just as likely sources of the political and cultural identity of the Vancouver Yippies as the experiences of American refugees in the group.139 Indeed, rather than asking what war exiles could do for Vancouver Yippie!, it is perhaps more fruitful to ask what Vancouver Yippie! did for American refugees involved in the group. Bob Sarti’s assertion that ‘none of our group went back because the Yippies, and the counterculture, gave them an existence in a whole lifestyle and a community that welcomed in anyone’ clearly indicates the extent to which the group aided American war exiles integrate into Canadian radical culture, whilst subsequently remaining politically relevant and active.140               139  Interview with Bev Davies, Vancouver BC, February 13, 2013. For an extended analysis of the role of the Diggers in the North American counterculture, see Michael William Doyle, “The Haight-Ashbury Diggers and the Cultural Politics of Utopia, 1965-1968”, PhD Dissertation (Cornell University, 1997). 140  Interview with Bob Sarti, Vancouver BC, February 22, 2013.  49  5 Conclusion: Cultural Adaption, Cultural Integration and National Re- Identification Whilst The Yellow Journal managed to last just one issue longer than The Yankee Refugee!, folding due to the financial repercussions of a theft of all the paper’s liquid assets in October 1970, the Yippie! publication, and the group behind it, was undeniably more successful in its stated aim of provoking radical political attitudes and actions in the city.141 Due to maintaining a singularly American identity, and due to its isolationist and elitist rhetoric and its denigration of the Canadian protest scene, The American Deserters Committee cut itself off from the support of both Canadian radicals and fellow draft resisters in the Vancouver Committee to Aid American War Objectors. As a result, despite professing a mission statement intent on inspiring radical action in the city, contributors to the monthly newsletter were unable to either provoke protests within the city or to even successfully join those organized by other groups. Neither, indeed did the political and cultural identity formulated by the Deserters Committee provide its members with an adequate means of overcoming the ironies of living life as a politicized exile. It must be considered that the Deserters Committee and the Yippies were in many ways remarkably similar in both their political rhetoric, their ideological beliefs and in many of their stated aims and objectives. Both groups were professed radical socialists, drawing inspiration from Marxist-Leninist political philosophies while expressing solidarity with global decolonization, and were committed to inspiring social change, even revolution. The political orientation of both groups could not find an output in the mainstream of Canadian political culture. Thus, Rick Ayers explained how the Deserters Committee ‘thought it was cool that  141  “Editorial”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 8 (October 9, 1970), p. 2.  50  Canada had the New Democratic Party, it was much more socialist than anything in America... however we didn’t aspire to be NDP activists; we were way more to the Left than that’.142 In a similar, if not slightly more extreme, fashion, Bob Mercer, one of the central Yippies, commented on how the group had ‘laughed at the New Democratics for being hopelessly anal retentive’.143 In addition to ideological similarities, both groups placed central emphasis on their role in formulating a sense of community for its members.  Indeed, both the Vancouver Deserters Committee and Vancouver Yippie! provided war exiles with the opportunity to construct a political identity for themselves, through which they could negotiate the political limitations of exile. However, it is the differences between these constructed identities that go some way to explain the two groups’ differential success in both inspiring political action and also in providing American émigrés with an individual sense of belonging and political relevance in their new country of residence. Edward Said’s observation that ‘the achievements of exile are permanently undermined by the loss of something left behind forever’ is clearly evident in the inability of the American Deserters Committee to forge meaningful cultural and political links with both the local and national radical protest culture emerging in Canada throughout the period.144 By clinging to the identities they formed prior to their repatriation, and by dwelling more on what they had lost rather than gained through their exile, the American Deserters Committee failed to undergo the ‘imaginary political re-identification, re-territorialization and  142  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6, 2013. 143  Interview with Bob Mercer, Vancouver BC, February 15, 2013. 144  Said, Reflections on Exile, p. 173.  51  national re-identification’ prescribed by Stuart Hall as integral to the process of retaining political significance following national relocation.145 Alternatively, the Yippie! identity afforded its draft resister and deserter members a sense of belonging in Canadian society, allowing them avenues through which they could engage in both anti-war activism as well as, possibly more crucially, local struggles which had direct ramifications for Vancouver and Canada. Indeed, the challenge posed by Vancouver Yippie! to the established authorities revolved around their being perceived as a manifestation and representation of specifically local factors. In order to successfully maintain this representation, American members of Vancouver Yippie! deliberately subdued the American aspects of their identity, and cut their cultural links to their homeland. In short, they presented themselves as “New Canadians” rather than “ex-Americans”, as socially adaptive immigrants rather than political exiles. This is not to say that political and national re-orientation was the sole factor determining the ability of even the most politicized of draft resisters and deserters to adapt to their new country of origin. For example, Peter Prontzos, a deserter member of Yippie!, emphasized that, on top of the ability to engage in relevant political action afforded by his work with the Vancouver Yippies, the birth of his daughter in 1971 was a crucial factor in his decision to remain in Canada.146 However, even with regard to this socio-personal adaption, Vancouver Yippie! provided its American members with a social arena through which they could forge meaningful personal bonds with their Canadian counterparts. All interviews, with both Canadian and American Yippies, emphasized the long-lasting cross-cultural friendships  145  Hall, “Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities”, pp. 52-53. 146  Interview with Peter Prontzos, Vancouver BC, February 22, 2013.  52  facilitated through the group’s social engagement. Thus, while the contributors to The Yankee Refugee! constantly yearned to return to their land of origin, war resister Yippies instead fully immersed themselves in a specifically Canadian radical culture, and indeed began to take pride in Vancouver’s radical underground. Following the Blaine Invasion, The Yellow Journal’s declaration that ‘it’s happening here, and it’s happening now’ fully pays testament to this pride and cultural integration.147                               147  “Do It!”, The Yellow Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 1.  53  Bibliography  Primary Sources:  Contemporary Journal Articles and Book Chapters: Kline, Carl. L., Katherine Rider, Karen Berry and J. McRee Elrod, “The Young American Expatriates in Canada: Alienated or Self-Defined?”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41.1 (January, 1971).  Laxer, James, “The Americanization of the Canadian Student Movement”, in Ian Lumsden (ed.), Close the 49th Parallel, etc.: The Americanization of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970).  Levine, Saul V., “Draft Dodgers: Coping With Stress, Adapting to Exile”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42.3 (April, 1972).  Mathews, Robin, “Opinion: On Draft Dodging and U.S. Imperialism in Canada”, Canadian Dimension, 6.7 (February/March, 1970).  Redekop, John H., “Some of my Best Friends are Americans”, in John H. Redekop (ed.), The Star- Spangled Beaver (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates Limited, 1971).   First-Hand Account Compilations and Autobiographies: Christy, Jim (ed.), The New Refugees: American Voices in Canada (Toronto: Peter Marin Associates, 1972).  Epp, Frank H., (ed.), I Would Like to Dodge the Draft-Dodgers But... (Waterloo: Conrad Press, 1970).  Gershon, Sherry, Hell No, We Won’t Go: Resisting the Draft During the Vietnam War (New York: Viking, 1991).  Haig-Brown, Alan and Berton, Pierre, (eds.) Hell No, We Won’t Go: Vietnam Draft Resisters in Canada (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 1996)  Hoffmann, Abbie, Revolution for the Hell of It, by Free (New York: Dial Press, 1968).  Starkins, E. L., “Biographical Information” (August 12, 1975), Edward Starkins Fonds, University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.  Todd, Jack, Desertion: In the Time of Vietnam (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001).    54     Participant Based Interviews: Interview with Bev Davies, Vancouver BC, February 13, 2013.  Interview with Bob Mercer, Vancouver BC, February 15, 2013.  Interview with Bob Sarti, Vancouver BC, February 22, 2013.  Interview with Peter Prontzos, Vancouver BC, February 26, 2013.  Skype Interview with Rick Ayers, March 6, 2013.  Phone interview with Mark Satin, March 22, 2013.   Archival Material: Pamphlets: American Exiles Association, “Constitution and Bylaws of the Vancouver American Exiles Association” (1973), Edward Starkins Fonds, University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 10.  Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience, “So You Are Having a War Objector”, J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 9.  Immigration Aid to Refugees of Conscience, “On Being a Kept Person” (1971), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 9.  Petrokosky, “Going North Young Man? A Letter from Canada”, Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3.  The Yankee Refugee Staff, “Americans in Canada” (Undated pamphlet), Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 6 Folder 3.   Letters: Bremian. Debbie to J. McRee Elrod (13 March, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 2.  Elrod, J. McRee to The Saturday Review from (4 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.   55  Elrod, J. McRee to New York Review of Books (9 January, 1967), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.  Elrod, J. McRee to Playboy (4 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.  Elrod, J. McRee to Christian Century (11 January, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 1.  Elrod, J. McRee to Lyle C. Hawkins (February 10, 1970), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 4.  Elrod, J. McRee to Dean A. Mitchell (April 30, 1970), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Archives, Box 1 Folder 2.  Perry, John W. to VCAAWO (1969), Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 2.  St. John, M. Gregory and Patricia A. St. John to J. McRee Elrod (April 15, 1968), J. McRee Elrod Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3.  U.S. Deserters, Draft Resisters and Political Refugees to the Sailors of the U.S.S. Ingersoll, Renée Goldsmith Kasinsky Fonds, UBC Special Collections, Box 1 Folder 3.     Contemporary Print-Media Publications: The Georgia Straight: “Straight Vendor Beats Rap”, Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 5 (September 8, 1967), p. 4. “Who’s Kidding Who?”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 2 (May 5, 1967), p. 3. “Safeway Restocks Dow Products”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 1 No. 9 (December, 1967), p. 4 “All American Refugees Dinner”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 48 (March 7, 1968), p. 19. “Letters to Elmore”, Georgia Straight, Vol. 2 No. 14 (March 22, 1968), p. 2. “Tom Stands on Guard in Vietnam”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 2 No. 23 (July 26, 1968), p. 4. “Police Repression Escalates”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 50 (March 21, 1969), p. 7.  “Heads Captured”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 53 (April 11, 1969), p. 12. “Draft Evaders Hustled”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 80 (October 22, 1969), p. 20. “Cops Raid Deserters’ Homes”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 3 No. 87 (December 10, 1969), p. 9 “Canadian Forces Withdraw from Blaine”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 4 No. 109 (May 13, 1970), p. 3 “Be Out”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 4 No. 117 (July 7, 1970), p. 2 “Pigs Help Out Jericho People”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 5 No. 132 (October 21, 1970), p. 5 “Smoke-In”, The Georgia Straight, Vol. 5 No. 190 (August 6, 1971), pp. 3-4.  56   The Yankee Refugee! Ayers, Rick, “Opening Statement”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1968). Barry and Duncan, “Our Fourth of July”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 8 (July, 1969). Blunt, T. L., “Autobiographical Statement #1”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1969). Boyce, Terry V., “Why Yankee Refugee?”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1  (November 10, 1968). Greers, Lancelot, “An Article”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 3 (December 18, 1968). Jolly, Janiel, “Autobiographical Statement #2”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 2 (November 25, 1968). Kilian, Melody, “A Statement of Purpose”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 1 (November 10, 1968). Kilian, Melody, “Oh, Canada!”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 4 (February 6, 1969). Kilian, Melody, “American Political Refugees”, Yankee Refugee!, No.2 (November 25, 1968). Killian, Melody, “American Students in the Sit-In”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 2 (November 25, 1968). “Disclaimer”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 5 (February/March, 1969), p. 4. “Easter Saturday Mobilisation”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 5 (February/March, 1969), p. 5. “NARP Eight Point Program”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 7 (April, 1969), p. 2. “American Deserters Committee Program”, Yankee Refugee!, No. 8 (July, 1969), p. 2. “Ships Again”, Yankee Refugee! No. 8 (July, 1969), p. 3.  The Yellow Journal: “Public Servant No. 1”, The Yellow Journal, No. 1 (April 23, 1970), p. 5. “Quebec: A Police State in Your Back Yard”, The Yellow Journal, No. 1 (April 23, 1970), p. 8. “Cleaver and the Amerikan Dream”, The Yellow Journal, No. 1 (April 23, 1970), pp. 12-14. “International News of the Kent State Protests”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 3. “Women on Move to Ottawa”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 5. “Quebec Elections”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 7. “Yippies Trip To Sip-In”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 9. “Snow White Melts”, The Yellow Journal, No. 2 (May 7, 1970), p. 17. “Do It”, The Yellow Journal, No. 3 (May 28, 1970), p. 1. “Outside Agitators”, The Yellow Journal, No. 3 (May 28, 1970), p. 3.  “Pig Returns”, The Yellow Journal, No. 4 (June 11, 1970), p. 1. “Amerikan Youth”, The Yellow Journal, No. 4 (June 11, 1970), p. 9. “May Fourth Movement”, The Yellow Journal, No. 5 (June 25, 1970), p. 16. “Oakalla Be-Out”, The Yellow Journal, No. 6 (July 16, 1970), p. 1. “American National Chauvinism”, The Yellow Journal, No. 6 (July 16, 1970), pp. 4-5. “Editorial”, The Yellow Journal, No. 8 (October 9, 1970), p. 2. “Front Cover: Le Journal Jaune”, The Yellow Journal, No. 9 (October 29, 1970), p. 1 “Free Quebec, Free Canada”, The Yellow Journal, No. 9 (October 29, 1970), p. 7.  Mainstream Newspaper Articles: “Canadian Mob Invades Blaine”, Vancouver Express, Vol. 1 No. 35 (May 12, 1970), p. 1. “Near-Riots Spur New Police Request”, Vancouver Express, Vol. 1 No. 35, (May 12 1970), p. 2 Robert Sarti, “Yippies Behind Rash of Street Actions Here”, Vancouver Sun (June 16, 1970), p. 23. “Oakalla Fence Breached in Yippie Demonstration”, Vancouver Sun (July 13, 1970), p. 2.  57  “Mayor Fears Draft Dodger ‘Haven’”, Vancouver Sun (July 10, 1970), pp. 1+3. “Get Out, Mayor Tells Hippies”, Vancouver Sun (July 11, 1970), pp. 1-2.    Audio/Visual Evidence and Other Online Sources: Parsons, Gram and Chris Hillman, “My Uncle”, Gilded Palace of Sin (Hollywood: A&M Records, 1969), SP 4175-LP.  Red Lion Publishing, “Vancouver Yippie!”, viewed at http://vcmtalk.com/vancouver_yippie (accessed 12/11/2012)  Blaine Invasion Footage, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDhsBRi1sI  (accessed 18/12/2012).  CBC Digital Archives, “Vancouver Politicians Averse to Hippies (May, 1968), http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/society/youth/hippie-society-the-youth-rebellion/city- politicians-averse-to-hippies.html (accessed 28th March, 2013).   Secondary Material:  Books: Anderson, Terry H., The Movement and the Sixties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)  Aronsen, Lawrence, City of Love and Revolution: Vancouver in the Sixties (Vancouver: New Star Books, 2010).  Baskir, Larence M., and Strauss, William A., Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation (New York: Knopf, 1978).  Berton, Pierre, 1967: The Last Good Year (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1997).  Bothwell, Robert, Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992).  Hagan, John, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).  Farrell, James. J., The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism (New York: Routledge, 1997).   58  Gaffen, Fred, Unknown Warriors: Canadians in Vietnam (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1990).  Gitlin, Todd The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (Toronto: Bantham Books, 1987).  Granatstein, J. L., Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1997).  Iacovetta, Franca, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines; 2006).  Isserman, Maurice and Kazin, Michael, America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).  Hollander, Paul, Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).  Jones, Joseph, Happenstance and Misquotation: Canadian Immigration Policy, 1966-1974, The Arrival of U.S. Vietnam War Resisters, and the Views of Pierre Trudeau (Vancouver: Quarter Sheaf, 2008).  Kassinsky, Renee G., Refugees From Militarism: Draft-Age Americans in Canada (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1976).  Kostash, Myrna, Long Way From Home: The Story of the Sixties Generation in Canada (Toronto: J. Lorimer, 1980).  Kusch, Frank, All American Boys: Draft Dodgers in Canada from the Vietnam War (Westport: Praeger, 2001).  Laxer, James, The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2003).  Levant, Victor, Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1986).  Mackey, Eva, The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002).  Matthews, Robin and Steele, James, The Struggle for Canadian Universities: A Dossier (Toronto: New Press, 1969).  Mills, Sean, The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montreal (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010).   59  Palmer, Bryan, Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).  Richter, Miriam Verena, Creating the National Mosaic: Multiculturalism in Canadian Children’s Literature from 1950 to 1994 (New York: Rodopi, 2011).  Said, Edward, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000).  Surrey, David S., Choice of Conscience: Vietnam Era Military and Draft Resisters in Canada (South Hadley: J. F. Bergin Publishers, 1982).  Wells, Tom, The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).  Williams, Roger Neville, The New Exiles: American War Resisters in Canada (New York, Liveright Publishers, 1971).   Journal Articles and Book Chapters: Benedict, Julian, “Radical Yellow: Exploring Vancouver’s “Guerrilla” Newspaper”, West Coast Line, 40.4 (2007).  Boudreau, Michael, “’The Struggle for a Different World’: The 1971 Gastown Riot in Vancouver”, in Lara Campbell, Dominique Clément and Gregory S. Kealey (eds.), Debating Dissent: Canada and the Sixties (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012).  Churchill, David S., “An Ambiguous Welcome: Vietnam Draft Resistance, the Canadian State, and Cold War Containment”, Histoire Sociale / Social History, Vol. 37 No. 73 (2004).  Churchill, David S., “American Expatriates and the Building of Alternative Social Space in Toronto, 1965-1977, Urban History Review, 39.1 (2010)  David, Henry P., “Involuntary International Migration: Adaption of Refugees” in Eugene B. Brody (ed.), Behaviour in New Environments: Adaption of Migrant Populations (Beverley Hills: Sage Publications, 1970).  Demma, Vincent H., “The US Army in Vietnam”, in John Elsberg (ed.), American Military History (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1989).  Dubinsky, Karen, “Babies Without Borders: Rescue, Kidnap, and the Symbolic Child”, Journal of Women’s History, 19.1 (March, 2007).   60  Hall, Stuart, “Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities”, in Anthony King (ed.) Culture, Globalization and World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (Binghamton: Dept. of Art and Art History, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1991).  Milligan, Ian, “Coming Off the Mountain: Forging an Outward-Looking New Left at Simon Fraser University”, BC Studies, Issue 171 (Autumn, 2011).  Moodley, Kogila, “Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6.3 (July, 1983).  Rutherford, Scott, Sean Mills, Susan Lord, Catherine Krull, and Karen Dubinsky, “Introduction: The Global Sixties”, in Karen Dubinsky, Catherine Krull, Susan Lord, Sean Mills and Scott Rutherford (eds.), New World Coming: The Sixties and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2009).  Young, Jay, “Defining a Community in Exile: Vietnam War Resister Communication and Identity in AMEX, 1968-1973”, Histoire Sociale / Social History, Volume 44 Number 87 (May, 2011).   MA Theses and PhD Dissertations: Doyle, Michael William, “The Haight-Ashbury Diggers and the Cultural Politics of Utopia, 1965- 1968”, PhD Dissertation (Cornell University, 1997).  Murphy, Aisling, “Journeys to the “North Country Fair”: Exploring the American Vietnam War Migration to  Vancouver”, MA Thesis (Simon Fraser University, 2010).  Roth, Matthew McKenzie Bryant, “Crossing Borders: The Toronto Anti-Draft Programme and the Canadian Anti-Vietnam War Movement” (MA Thesis: University of Waterloo, 2008).  Shawyer, Susanne Elizabeth, “Radical Street Theatre and the Yippie Legacy: A Performance History of the Youth International Party, 1967-1968”, PhD Dissertation (University of Texas, 2008).  Squires, Jessica, “A Refuge from Militarism? The Canadian Movement to Support Vietnam Era American War Resisters, and Government Responses, 1965-1973” (Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 2009).  Sterling, David, “The Assimilation of Vietnam Era Draft Dodgers and Deserters into Canada: A Matter of Class” (Ph.D. thesis, New School for Social Research, New York City, 1980).   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0073739/manifest

Comment

Related Items