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

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

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 45 text:

RILEY ' S FISH le I jRiley was just a mediocre man. Nothing spe¬ cial. Just an ordinary man. He was not hand¬ some, but in the same way he was not ugly. He 2is not fat, but he was not thin. He was des- isRed to be a clerk all his life. He had lived a sheltered life. He was ashamed of nothing in his past, mainly because he had never done anything in his life of which he need be ashamed. In fact, the only fisherman, but true to his character, - he was not a good one. He had spent a small fortune on lures. With these he had some suc¬ cess. However, Riley, as all fishermen do, attri¬ buted his skill to his own ability. Riley had a girlfriend, Maria. She was eurva- cious, nice looking, well-groomed, but she was not very bright. Riley wanted to marry her but he could never bring himself to ask her. He had tried many times, and she, unable to see what he was trying to say, could not help him. In this manner their relationship continued for many months. Each Saturday evening Riley would finger the engagement ring in his pocket, take a deep breath, say two words, and then falter. I And this is Riley. As the story opens, Riley is on his way to tell Maria of his vacation which was starting that day. He planned to give the fish up north some exercise for a week. This idea did not appeal to Maria one bit. She could not appreciate the glory of fighting the catch of a lifetime on the other end of the line. In fact, she was dead set against it. Finally, after Riley had spent a good hour arguing with her. she finally agreed to allow him to go and fight the denizens of the deep at the edge of some stream in some far away north wood. I Three days later Riley was deep in a forest, beside a fast moving stream, setting up his tent. It was the old familiar tent which Riley had used so often. He was used to it. He could put it up in the dark. However, this time the tent would not co-operate. Riley noticed that the ientre pole was not straight up and down. He reached out to put it in place and found the folds of the tent around him. Again he put up the tent. Again the centre pole was crooked. Again the tent fell down. Finally the tent was put up. Riley regarded it with what he thought |was the eye of a woodsman. That night Riley ate be ans. He had brought the beans as a mere precaution for he knew that the fish were as good as caught when he arose in the morning. ■ On the first day, Riley cast in his line and started on his strategic plan for catching his breakfast. Things did not fare well. Not only jdid he not get a bite on his line, but the poor, unsuspecting fish were not even hungry enough to try to nibble a bit. Undaunted, Riley went to bed after dining on pork and beans, feeling that the next day would prove quite disastrous for his finny friends. But the next day did not go as he thought it should have; in fact, he did not catch anything that day either. Undaunted, he went to bed again that night thinking that the fish would be hungry the next day. He was soon to realize that it was not so at all. He threw away all his lures and resorted to worms. His luck changed. He got a nibble that day. On the fourth day he became panicky when he found that the fish had seemed to desert him. On the fifth day he remembered Maria’s con¬ cession and the fish that he owed her in return for her belief in him. When he could no longer stay in order to get back by Sunday morning to meet Maria at her boarding house at the time which she had specified, he loaded all his gear into his ancient coupe and drove furiously back to the city. On the way, he pondered the fact that he had no fish to prove his sincerity. Maria would not believe him when he told her that he had not caught anything. He had bragged too much of his ability as a fisherman. He had to have a fish. Where? Then it hit him — the fish market! He bent over the steering wheel in a frenzy to get back into the city. He arrived about six o’clock Saturday night. He pulled up to the fish store that he passed all the time on his way to work. Many times he had driven past it and laughed. He would feel sorry for those people who had to buy their fish. Now he was there and he was thankful for its existence. He leaped out of his coupe and up to the door. Too late! The owner was just locking up the shop. Riley hurried up to the man and implored him to re-open the shop for the sale of just one more fish. It was no use. The owner, a small person, exercised his only prerogative and remained steadfast in his right to keep his shop closed. Pushing a beaten Riley aside, the man walked past him and drove away in a prewar Ford. Riley just stood there watching the car drive away. What could he do? Break into the store? Was one fish worth all the trouble? Better still, was Maria worth all the danger entailed in this robbery? Riley firmly decided that she was not. With this final decision still in his mind, he walked around to the back of the store and pro¬ ceeded to jimmy open the door with a jack-knife. Once inside, he had no trouble finding what he wanted. A fish caught his eye and Riley pick¬ ed it up. A second one, thought Riley, just for insurance. The moment he put his hand on this second fish, he felt that something or someone was watching him. He straightened up and