United College Collegiate - Tric Tics Yearbook (Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)

Page 43 text:

2nd Prize WAR OR PEACE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ■Tf someone asked us whether we consider our- gmves guilty of war we would surely answer: “But of course not”. We probably would argue tiat as we are neither politicians who determine policy, nor industrialists who produce war imple¬ ments, nor subscribers to any totalitarian doc¬ trine (political or otherwise ), nor members of any other group which might profit from war¬ fare, it is absurd to suggest any guilt on our part for wars of the recent past or the imme¬ diate future. ■ Although those “interest groups” do exist on both sides of the “Iron Curtain and have existed almost as far back as history has been recorded, they can only be accused of furthering and ex¬ ploiting an existing trend — not of creating this trend. I Just as the grouping of individuals was neces¬ sary to form nations so the ignorant or malad¬ justed minds of individuals are necessary for the leaders of nations to sow the seeds which will bring about the willingness of the mass of individuals (called a nation) to go to war. Those leaders do not have to be at the government level, nor does the nation have to be a totali¬ tarian state. Neither do the seeds have to be those of direct hatred, but can be and in most cases are the more subtle ones of nationalism and patriotism. | Who will not submit willingly to sacrificial servitude (for what else is war service?), who will not go to kill or be killed when the “inspira¬ tions of nationalism and patriotism” make him feel righteous about it? ] But — does he have any right to feel right¬ eous? Let us take a closer look at the meaning of nationalism and patriotism. The dictionary ' lescribes nationalism as “devotion to one’s own lation” (W.) and patriotism as “love and ad- niration for one’s own country.” (L.) Both ■xplanations make it clear that this devotion ind love is directed towards the group of which ;he one who directs these feelings is a member, thus he directs them towards his extended self. ■ Now let us reduce these feelings from the level of nations to the level of individuals. Among a ; number of similar words three stand out as most resembling both nationalism and patriotism. They are egoism, narcissism, and selflove. Not that the words themselves look identical -— no not at all — but if we turn again to the dic¬ tionary explanations and interchange to words “self” or “one’s own person” with “one’s own country” any one of those dictionary explana¬ tions would describe any of the five words. To show this more clearly let us list all five below —they will speak for themselves. NATIONALISM— “devotion to one’s own nation.” (W.) EGOISM— “a passionate love of self, selfishness.” (L.) PATRIOTISM— “love” and “admiration for one’s own country.” (L. W.) NARCISSISM— “a morbid love and admiration of self.” (L.) SELFLOVE— “love for one’s own person and happiness.” (L.) Comparing these dictionary explanations it is plain that the words are not only similar but almost identical. But do we not regard egoism, narcissism and selflove as undesirable charac¬ teristics in an individual? How then can we re¬ gard the very same characteristics as desirable and good in a nation (a group of individuals) ? This reflection on the guilt of the individual in the question of WAR or PEACE is not meant to expound a doctrine of absolute pacifism nor is it an attempt to force the writer’s opinions on the reader. It is meant to provoke — yes, to provoke the thoughts of those who at some time or other really read their yearbook. That we think about this question (and many others) is important for two major reasons: firstly, we ARE individuals and as such will have to do both, take our stand on the issues of life and suffer the consequences of the stand taken by the mass of individuals (be that just our nation or the people of the world at large) ; secondly, we are students and thus many of us will to¬ morrow be leaders of nations in one way or an¬ other, in that case we will carry the responsi¬ bility that the seeds we sow will not be weeds. As conclusion let us consider a thought-pro¬ voking and perhaps controversial quotation on the subject from an anonymous mystic. “Creed of Peace” (A Practical Approach) am guilty of war when I proudly exercise my intelligence to disadvantage of my fellow man. I am guilty of ivar when I distort others’ opin¬ ions which differ from my own. I am guilty of war when I show disregard for the rights and properties of others. I am guilty of war when I covet what another has honestly acquired, I am guilty of ivar when I seek to maintain my superiority of position, by depriving others of their opportunity of advancement. am guilty of war if I imagine my kin and my¬ self to be a privileged people. I am guilty of war if I believe a heritage entitles me to monopolize resources of nature. I am guilty of war when I believe other people must think and live as I do. 41

Page 42 text:

1st Prize JANE AUSTEN AND MR. HARDY Whenever, in the course of the school year, I have had occasion to discuss the Prose course with some of my fellow male students, I have, almost invariably received the following state¬ ment, preserved in the vernacular: “Oh yeah. Mike, like that Pride and Prejudice is the dull¬ est. About as interesting and exciting as the Bobbsey Twins. But that Return of the Native . . . you’ll like that. I mean, this Hardy is a bit morbid and all, but there’s lots of action, like people drowning, and lots of poetic descrip¬ tions and oh yeah . . .” (At this point the speaker would usually interrupt himself to give me a little nudge with an elbow or wink with an eye, and then continue) “there’s that Eustacia Vye.” After being subjected to speeches like this a number of times I realized that Hardy’s novel was much more popular with these people be¬ cause it had a certain degree of physical action and also a quality which one can describe as a sort of tousled, wild-eyed romanticism coupled with a depressing, but always poetically-express¬ ed morbidity. These qualities seemed to rest in the minds of my colleagues as some of the most desirable of literary virtues. It never seemed to enter their minds that anyone would disagree with them on this point, but — oh well, I might as well come out and say it — I’ll take Pride and Prejudice any day. Concerning the aspect of comedy someone is always talking about how amusing Hardy’s rus¬ tic bumpkins are, but I prefer Miss Austen’s ability to bring out the inherent absurdity of the action of pompous snobs and fools, with a revealing quote or a wry turn of phrase. In¬ deed, Hardy reveals his basic humourlessness in the fact that he uses for objects of humour only the ignorant heath people, and never any of the more educated characters. As a result, although some of Eustacia’s wild romantic activities reach such a point of melodrama that one almost expects her to bound up to Wildeve with a rose clenched firmly between her teeth and propel him into a wild tango right there on the heath, Hardy sets them down instead with an almost reverent grimness. When Hardy treats his main characters as above humour, and for comic re¬ lief marches on his heath characters with their a: ignorance that he equates with humour, he shows f: a narrow sense of humour, and possibly a lack P of sensitivity. d Both Miss Austen’s and Hardy’s main char- acters are motivated by romantic impulses but Miss Austen, possibly because she’s a woman, has her characters behave much more sensibly, 1 indeed, more realistically than Hardy’s. And | when Lydia and Wickham hurry off into the woods of immorality Miss Austen does not in¬ culcate philosophical overtones, such as Fate, 1 the malignant First Cause, etc., as Hardy does, but makes it quite clear that it happened be¬ cause Lydia was an empty-headed and eager young thing, and Wickham was a callous lout, j A similar incident in Hardy’s novel is put forth as a result of the action of some malignant Fate against a woman whom Hardy says is a sort of a Goddess, a woman who should have been i destined for better things, who deserved a Great 1 Love, a woman capable of greatness. Yet one finds it difficult to discern how Hardy reached this conclusion. She has none of the noble im¬ pulses that, put into action, produce exceptional people. Indeed, the shallowness of her mind is shown when, after Yeobright has harmed his sight in a desperate effort to please her, she weeps despairing tears. But not in compassion for Yeobright, but rather because this misfor¬ tune ruins her idealistic dream of going to Paris. The only exceptional qualities Eustacia Vye seems to possess are an almost hypnotic physical appearance and a complete inability to adjust to her circumstances. Maybe Hardy thinks this rates a place for Eustacia in the Pantheon but I somehow admire Jane Austen’s good sense much more. She reduces Wickham and Lydia, who are different from Wildeve and Eustacia not in kind, but only in intensity, to their pro¬ per dimensions as a pair of rather silly, pathetic people. In these areas of comedy and romance, which are, after all, two very important parts of novel-writing, Jane Austen’s eye ranges more steady and true than Thomas Hardy’s. —M. Kostelnuk, 12-3 40 S’S £

Page 44 text:

I am guilty of ivar when I make success in life solely dependent upon power, fame, and riches. I am guilty of war when I think the minds of people should be regulated by force, rather than by reason. I am guilty of war when I believe the God I con¬ ceive is the one others must accept. 7 am guilty of war when I think that a land of a man’s birth must necessarily be the place of his livelihood. —Anonymous —W. G. Goetze, 12-2 (W.)—Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary. (L.)—Library of Universal Knowledge (consolidated Webster) She says things with her eyelashes that others waste time putting into words. The amount you study is directly proportional to the amount you kno w; and inversely to the mark you get. He’s going to have a rabbit tattooed above his waist so he can have hare on his chest. She has an easy solution for an algebra prob¬ lem, — short, neat, and wrong. I can resist anything but temptation. DRAMA 60 P: “Carolyne’s coming off right now! Her hair’s got to be styled; make - up completely changed and her dress changed!” J: “Help! Help! Carolyne’s on in one minute. Pat! Help me get her dress off. Where in heav¬ en’s name are those dress snaps?” C; “Calm down, girls. We’ll get it all done on time.” G: “Fifteen seconds! Hand me the flashlight. Have to get her lipstick on. How can anyone possibly find anything behind these curtains?” J: “Pat! The snaps, the snaps! Why didn’t they invent good solid zippers in the sixteenth century?” C: (quite calm) “That’s my cue—got to go!” G: “But Carolyne!-Carolyne! Oh no; she forgot her shoes!” That was a scene from behind .the stage. As you see, reader, there was a complete contrast to the calm natural-looking actors in the lime¬ light of the “Ugly Duckling” presented this year by the Collegiate Drama Society in February. Ever heard of preparing a skit and putting on the performance two to three days later? Hail to the students who participated in the skit “Car Pool Capers” presented at the beginning of the year. It proved to be a hilarious success! The set was a school jalopy, and the members of the car pool were portrayed by Caroline Tab- erner, Sherry Godfrey, Susan Freedman, Susan Averback, Brenda Dennis, Irene Boehm, Pat Hamilton, Barb Hamwee, Nelson Rudelier, Ar¬ thur Donin, and Judy Maclver. The car stop¬ ping was shown by the occupants of the car leaning (?) forward and scenery was displayed by cards carried by girls across the stage; for example “hydrant” followed by “dog”. Each new member of the car pool was introduced with a suitable song. This, the audience loved especially since the songs were presented off- key. In February, the Collegiate Drama Society offered its next presentation. This time the “Ugly Duckling”, a comedy in Shakespearean style. The characters of the play were: Bob Bour- geault as King, Susan Freedman as Queen, Car¬ oline Taberner as princess, Ralph Westbrook as prince charming, Kathy Peterson as the maid, Nelson Rudelier as footman and Dave McLen¬ nan as the chancellor. The play was presented so well that it won first prize on Theatre Night. Much credit is due to the supervision of Miss Bennett and Miss Schroeder, whose hard work helped make these productions possible, and also to Nancy Creighton, the theatre chairman, for her assistance throughout the year. The success of this play indicates the interest in drama in Collegiate during 1959-60. —Judy Maclver