Archival Mentalities and the Development of the Canadian-Jewish Community’S Archival Landscape During the Nineteen Seventies

The Past is not a Foreign Country: Archival Mentalities and the Development of the Canadian-Jewish Community’s Archival Landscape During the Nineteen Seventies

Amir Lavie

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies University of Toronto

The Past is not a Foreign Country: Archival Mentalities and the Development of the Canadian-Jewish Community’s Archival Landscape During the Nineteen Seventies

Amir Lavie Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies University of Toronto 2019

Abstract

Through an analysis of a plethora of contemporary published and archival materials, this dissertation examines the processes of creation, growth, consolidation, and professionalization of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival programs during the 1970s. Exploring the debates, decisions, and struggles that stimulated the emergence and accompanied and determined the direction of the community’s archival landscape, the research positions archival history as part of community members’ negotiation with internal generational and demographic transitions and as part of their responses to the socio-political transformations that reshaped contemporary Canadian public life. The dissertation thus offers a case study that proves just how embedded is the archival domain within the social realities that surround it and how the overarching goal of any archival repository, to accurately document and represent the organization or group that mandates its activities, is also manifested in its own historical processes of creation, growth, and professionalization.

In order to better position archival history as part of a broader social history, the dissertation also offers an analysis of the ‘archival mentalities’ of the individuals who directed these archival programs – defining the term as the ways in which broader ideas and worldviews about Canadian Jewry, its past, present, and future, were manifested in approaches towards questions of archival governance and infrastructure. Assumptions

concerning the nature of a Jewish records, ownership rights, archival provenance, regulation of access to the records, and about the relationship between the repository and the historiographical product it aimed to encourage and direct – were all elements that determined the directions taken by the archival programs that were developed by each of the local Jewish communities across Canada. An exploration of these differing archival mentalities thus contributes to a broader theoretical understanding of the place of archival programs within non-formal group settings, helps capture the emotional and symbolic power of archives as both practical and perceived agents in promoting community memory and history, and reveals how the challenges posed by non-formal, community archival practices and ideas to mainstream archival principles contributed to the paradigm shift that began to take shape within the archival profession during the 1970s.

iii

Acknowledgments

This dissertation is dedicated to my family members, across the generations, those who are with me in person and those who are with me in spirit. To my wife, Laura, its been more than twenty years since we met on a rainy Jerusalem night. For all that you have given me since that day and throughout our journey so far, toda. You are the best thing that happened to me and without you this work would have never come to be. To my grandparents Zvi, Rachel, Hanan and Ruth who gathered from different places yet offered me the deepest of roots and whose memory and spirit will always remain a part of me.

To my Parents, Eitan and Zipi, who were – and still are – always there for me. To my children, Alon, Eyal and Oren, the future is all yours.

I want to also thank my supervisor, Professor Seamus Ross and to the other members of my doctoral committee – Professors Wendy Duff, Hesh Troper and David Koffman who were always ready to offer me advice, attention and encouragement. I couldn’t have asked for a better team and I am proud to have fulfilled their expectations of me. Thank you also to all the other people whom I met along the way and who offered me their time and support. They are too numerous to acknowledge by name but they all contributed to this research and for that, I am indebted to them all.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1, Introduction ...... 1 Overview...... 1 Reach Contribution ...... 4 Dissertation Outline ...... 7 Chapter 2, Research Design and Methodology ...... 14 Research Questions ...... 14 Overview of Historical Method ...... 16 Setting the Parameters: Identifying a Topic and Locating the Sources ...... 19 Source Analysis and Research Decisions ...... 25 Focus on the 1970’s ...... 25 Geographic Units of Analysis ...... 28 The Concept of Archival Mentalities ...... 32 Writing History of Archives ...... 34 Chapter 3, Conceptual Backgrounds ...... 40 Community Archives ...... 40 Ethnic Archives...... 47 Jewish Archives and Archival Work ...... 53 Conclusion ...... 63 Chapter 4, Historical Settings ...... 65 Canadian Jews and The Canadian Jewish Congress ...... 66 Multiculturalism in The Archives: The Public Archives of Canada ...... 77 Multiculturalism in the Archives: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario ...... 86 Conclusion ...... 92 Chapter 5, Montreal, the Canadian Jewish Archives, Saul Hayes and David Rome, and the Comprehensive, ‘National Archives’ Approach to the Community’s Archives...... 95 Introduction ...... 95 The CJA’s Early Days, 1934 to 1945 ...... 97 Stand Still at the CJA: 1945-1959 ...... 103 The CJA, 1959-1970: Planning Ahead ...... 106 Saul Hayes and David Rome, Worldviews and Archival Mentalities ...... 110 Hayes and Rome on the Canadian Jewish Community ...... 113 Hayes and Rome on Canadian Jewish History and Historiography ...... 120

The CJA, 1970-1981: Competition with PAC and Inability to Professionalize ...... 128 The Challenge of Maintaining the CJA’s Position as a ‘National Archive’ ...... 143 The CJA as a Marker of Maturity and Dignity and its Relationship with Canadian Jewish Historiography ...... 149 Conclusion: Jewish Community Archival Work in Montreal ...... 157 Chapter 6, Toronto, the Ontario Jewish Archives, Stephen Speisman and the Autonomous Approach to the Community’s Archives ...... 161 Introduction ...... 161 Archival Work in Toronto: The Creation of the OJA ...... 164 The OJA’s Early Years, Priorities and Policies ...... 171 Speisman’s Historiographical Worldviews ...... 176 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Archivist and Historian Combined ...... 182 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Relations with the MHSO ...... 184 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Ownership as a Matter of Principle ...... 191 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Community Ownership as a Natural Right...... 197 Conclusion: Speisman’s Autonomous Approach to Community Archives ...... 202 Chapter 7, Winnipeg, the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, Abe Arnold and the Integrative Approach to Community Archives ...... 206 Introduction ...... 206 The JHSWC’s Inauguration ...... 208 The JHSWC and the Archives of Manitoba ...... 213 The JHSWC: Early Priorities and Working Practices ...... 216 Arnold on “the Mystique of Western Judaism”...... 219 Arnold on Canadian Multiculturalism ...... 223 Arnold on Canadian Jewish Historiography ...... 226 Arnold’s Archival Mentality: Canadian Jewish Community and the Official State Archives .. 232 Arnold On Archival Work and Community Politics ...... 238 Conclusion ...... 242 Chapter 8, Comparative Perspectives ...... 246 The Motivational Forces behind the Canadian Jewish Community’s Archival Endeavours ... 247 Archival Mentalities and Jewish Archives ...... 255 Chapter 9, Conclusion ...... 272 Possible Directions for Future Research ...... 274 List of Abbreviations ...... 278 Bibliography ...... 279

Chapter 1: Introduction

“It would be an interesting story to investigate the efforts to assemble and study the records of Canadian Jewry” (David Rome).1

The opening panel of the 1979, fourth annual conference of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society (CJHS) was dedicated to a discussion on the “importance of Jewish Archival Programs”.2 The key speaker on that panel was Robert Harney, a History professor at the University of Toronto and the executive director of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario (MHSO). In his address, Harney asked his audience to envision and develop a more coherent, mature vision for the community’s archival programs. The current community archival landscape, Harney argued, did not amount to much more than “an eclectic system…[where] many competing groups collect Jewish materials”. This led to a pitiful situation in which “competition overcomes all sensible questions of provenance and contextual validity”.3 The representative bodies of Canadian, Harney contended, needed to reach a decision. If they wished to continue independent archival pursuits, then they had to commit to doing so in a professional and rigorous manner and stop regarding the community’s archival program as a “form of mitzvah” originating from “some self-protective reason born out of a memory of the Holocaust”.4 Consequently, Harney continued, if they were to realize that they were not able to adequately fulfill these archival tasks, then the community’s representative bodies had the responsibility to actively encourage Canadian Jews - citizens of an open and democratic society - to deposit their historical records within the able and willing hands of formal, state-backed, archival agencies.

1 David Rome, “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews: a study by David Rome, issued April 1939 by the Archives Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress”, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 2 “Canadian Jewish Historical Society Annual Conference 1979 Program”, (ADCJA, JHS box). 3 Robert Harney, “A talk Before the Delegates Attending the Conference of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society in Saskatoon”. A copy of the speech was sent to me by Dr. Dominique Daniel who referenced it in her article ”The Politics of Ethnic Heritage Preservation in Canada: The Case of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, Information & Culture, 47,2 (2012), Pp. 206-232. 4 Ibid.

1 2

Harney’s speech, directly implying to the deficiencies of the community’s contemporary archival programs and questioning the need to maintain them, stirred a heated debate that raged not just during the duration of the conference, but also during the following weeks. David Rome, the acting archivist of Montreal’s Canadian Jewish Archives (CJA) wondered how come “ill-informed competitors” were given a voice at a meeting that was supposed to help consolidate Jewish archival efforts from across Canada and cynically suggested that the name of the CJHS should be changed into the “anti-Jewish Canadian Historical Society”.5 Stephen Speisman, the archivist of the Ontario Jewish Archives (OJA) also pondered the reasons why Harney, whom he deemed as having “no conception of our need to be sensitive”6 was chosen to speak in what was supposed to be an internal community meeting. Why should community members lend their ears to people who competed with the community’s own archival mechanisms? And especially after they embarked on “systematic efforts…to denigrate the work of Congress and of other Jewish archival programs” and by doing so displayed a “patronizing encroachment on a legitimate function of the Jewish community”.7 On the other hand, Abe Arnold, the conference organizer and director of the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada (JHSWC) published an op-ed in the community’s leading newspaper in which he endorsed Harney’s appeal and claimed that the community’s archival endeavours must become “organized just as rationally as other resources...of Jewish community life in Canada”.8 In a personal letter to Victor Sefton, the CJHS’ president at the time, Arnold added that Rome and Speisman’s responses to Harney’s speech served as a proof to the unfortunate fact that those who were in charge of providing Canadian Jews with a proper and professional archival program were simply not up for the task.9

5 David Rome to Abe Arnold, June 27th, 1979, (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 2). 6 Stephan Speisman to Victor Sefton, June 21st, 1979, (OJA, Sol Edell fonds (SE), 4, 10, 13). 7 Ibid. 8 Abe Arnold, “Future of Archives is Conference Topic”, Canadian Jewish News, June 21st, 1979. P. 3. 9 Abe Arnold to Victor Sefton, July 25th, 1979, (OJA, Victor Sefton fonds (VS), 70-7-2).

However, this heated debate did not begin, nor end, during the conference. Rather, it was another stage within an ongoing discussion over the value and purpose of maintaining independent Canadian-Jewish archival programs and over the preferred structures for the community’s archival landscape. This dissertation is dedicated to exploring and analyzing this discussion, its roots and its outcomes, and to do so by plugging the archival-related debates into broader contemporary deliberations over Canadian Jewish identity, memory and the limits of community governance.

Sustainable and organized Jewish presence in Canada dates back to the mid-eighteenth century. As a natural by-product, a significant number of records and documents were created by, about and in relation to the individuals, families, and organizations who made up the Canadian Jewish community. Most of these documents, naturally, were of transitory value and as a result, were lost through time and neglect; yet some, either intentionally or accidentally, were preserved and eventually became the evidentiary foundation for the understanding and the interpretation of Canadian-Jewish history. Should the Jewish community maintain its own independent archival infrastructure in order to collect, preserve, and own these records? If so, should this task be done on a national basis or as separate regional efforts? How should Canadian Jews and Canadian Jewish organizations respond to the efforts of governmental agencies to collect Jewish records? And what would be the impact of such decisions for the future of Canadian- Jewish historiography, collective memory, and group identity? These questions occupied the minds of several community leaders, archivists, journalists, historians, and cultural activists during the nineteen seventies. The range of answers that they offered to these questions reflected their diverse attitudes towards broader issues of Jewish identity, history, and the preferred structures of the community’s governance mechanisms. It is the purpose of this dissertation to explore these attitudes and approaches, and by doing so, to situate archival work and archival thought as an integral part of the broader socio- cultural and intellectual challenges that preoccupied contemporary Canadian Jewry.

When archivist and historian David Rome, was asked for the reasons for his antipathy towards the efforts of the Public Archives of Canada (PAC) to collect Canadian Jewish archival materials, he answered that rather than a technical question of capability, the archival question represented “a conflict of ideas” about Jewish identity, continuity, and independence.10 Hence, the framework that guides this dissertation positions archival work as a pro-active effort to maintain physical and symbolic control over historical materials and as a tool in the effort to shape distinct Canadian-Jewish frameworks of identity and historical consciousness. As a result, this dissertation does not focus on the practical elements of archival work as conducted within and inside the repository’s walls, nor with the actual role of archives as agents in the process of shaping collective memories. Rather, this study is concerned with people’s perceptions of the need to create and maintain community archival institutions and of the kinds of roles such institutions were expected to play for, and within, the community that initiated and maintained them.

1.2 Research Contribution

This research aims to bridge two distinct, multidisciplinary fields: Information Studies and Canadian-Jewish Studies. As a result, before turning to introduce the structure of this dissertation, the following section offers a brief review of the ways in which the study could contribute to both of these fields of research and knowledge.

The revolutionary effects of digital media transformed the scope, focus and overall direction of Information Studies. Nevertheless, the discipline remains grounded by its commitment to ‘memory institutions’ - archives, libraries and museums - both as subjects and as objects of research, as well as the primary vocational destination for graduating students. Still, if in the past attention of scholars within Information Science focused on the ways in which memory institutions operated within formal frameworks, be it

10 David Rome to M. Husid, September 7th, 1979, (ADCJA, DA 3, 1).

5 governmental, academic, business or any other formally funded and controlled environment, this dissertation joins a growing body of research that turns its attention to the unique elements of information-related work conducted within a non-formal environment. The voluntary nature of such work, the fact that it is many times initiated and conducted by non, or semi-professionals, and the lack of a legal framework to guide organizational mandates and structures, also helps to point the inherent relationships between information-related initiatives and the contemporary cultural and identity- related value systems that guide those who conduct such work. As a result, the findings of this dissertation could serve to strengthen the understanding of the relationships between the emergence and evolution of archival work and broader political and cultural developments and by doing so, support the core vision of offering in-depth insights into the many possible intersections between individuals, information and society.

Furthermore, this dissertation employs historical research - a methodology that is somewhat underutilized within the field of Information Studies. Although research into various manifestations of ‘the history of information’ certainly exists, Information Studies are clearly, and naturally, geared towards explorations of current engagements with information technologies and services.11 Nevertheless, rigorous information-related historical research could offer much value to the field by expanding its scope and by grounding the profound roots of information-related work across time and place. While scholarship within the field is stimulated by the constant evolvement of information technologies and information management capabilities and their impacts on individuals, organizations and social relations, such developments are also, in many ways, confusing, ambiguous and relatively hard to pin down. Historical perspectives help to establish deeper contexts for some of the practical challenges faced by information-related professionals, as well as provide insights into longer-term processes that manifest

11 For a review of the genre and for examples of research conducted in it see Toni Weller, Information History: An Introduction, Exploring an Emergent Field, (Oxford: Chandos, 2008); James, W. Cortada, “Shaping Information History as an Intellectual Discipline”, Information & Culture: A Journal of History, 47, 2, (2012), Pp. 119-144.

6 themselves only when one is able to look back at social phenomena while enjoying a perspective that was not available to contemporaries. Works of scholars such as Headrick, Black, Burke, Weller, and Brown and Duguid – each of whom developed and employed their own perspectives and jargon towards their topic of enquiry - are some of the more skilled examples for the value of such scholarship.12

Within the framework of Jewish Studies, a distinction needs to be made between Jewish Studies as a branch within the humanities, incorporating interdisciplinary scholarly enquiries from disciplines such as religion, literature or history into manifestations of Jewish cultures across time and space, and the more distinctive and specific field of Canadian Jewish Studies. Within the broader field of Jewish Studies, the analysis of archival work, or more generally, of the efforts to document, collect, preserve and own historical materials as markers of interest in local experiences and as a form of social activity, has not received, to date, much scholarly attention. Although there exists an extensive literature dedicated to ‘Jewish memory’, the sources for this literature are, for the most part, derived from examinations of published historiographical works or of liturgical and religious aspects embedded in daily practices associated with Jewish cultures. Even if one can question the degree to which archival institutions affect collective memories or whether the existence of an independent Jewish archive matters to the ordinary community member – archival work is still a voluntary act of cultural activism, initiated and performed by committed and knowledgeable individuals and as such, constitutes an integral part of the community’s public sphere. Furthermore, it reflects a sense of belonging, stability and local pride, as well as a rational, positivist effort to deal with Jewish historical experiences. Set upon the transitory and migratory

12 Daniel R. Headrick, When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700-1850, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Alistair Black, A New History of the English Public Library: Social and Intellectual Contexts, 1850-1914, (London, New York: Leicester University Press, 1996); Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot, (Cambridge, Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000); Toni Weller, The Victorians and Information: A Social and Cultural History, (Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2009); John S. Brown and Paul Duguid, The Social Life of Information, (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000).

7 background that defines the modern Jewish experience, explorations of archival work could offer useful and valuable tools to deepen understandings of Jewish perceptions and attitudes towards their countries of residence, towards their immediate and local pasts, and towards the challenging presents and desired futures of their individual and communal experiences. This dissertation aims to provide the tools, as well as a specific case study, for such potential future analysis.

Since Canada was never a major Jewish demographic or cultural centre, the history of Canadian Jews does not occupy a centre stage within the broader field of Jewish Studies. Nevertheless, Canadian Jewish history offers a unique case study of a Jewish community responding to the first direct and concrete governmental policy that aimed to shape a national ethos of a multicultural society (as distinct from dealing with multiculturalism, or cultural pluralism, as a social reality). The manifestation of multicultural policies within the Canadian archival realm and the state intervention in the collection of Jewish archival materials meant that Canadian Jewry had to respond to a challenge that was not shared by any other Jewish diaspora community. As a result, the internal debates over the collection, preservation and ownership of the community’s historical materials were conducted without the ability to rely on any direct precedents or previous models that could be copied or imported from other places and periods in Jewish history. As such, this dissertation offers valuable insights into the fears, hopes, and expectations that were all part of the ways in which a modern Jewish community faced, and responded, to the challenges of integration into a democratic, and gradually open and multicultural society.

1.3 Dissertation Outline

This introduction is followed by a chapter dedicated to a review of the dissertation’s methodological framework. After presenting the research questions that guide this study, it turns to a discussion of the various stages associated with historical

8 research. The explanation of each stage is accompanied by a discussion on its manifestation within the concrete considerations of this dissertation and by a detailed account on the choices that were made regarding the sources, period, institutions, people and geographical areas that were included in the research. The chapter also introduces the key concept of ‘archival mentality’, as well as reviews previous research dedicated to the history of archives, in search of concrete methodological insights that research conducted within this field might be able to offer this dissertation.

The two subsequent chapters provide the necessary theoretical and historical backgrounds in order to set the stage for this research. The third chapter is dedicated to the conceptual background and begins with a review of the scholarship on non-formal, community archives. It then turns to the more specific case study of ethnic archives - endeavours to collect and preserve historical materials that aim to answer the needs of specific ethno-cultural minority groups. The second section of the chapter focuses on the literature that dealt with other instances of archival work conducted by and within Jewish community environments. The chapter’s overall goal is to identify any similar characteristics displayed in other manifestations of archival work that were conducted within socio-cultural environments that resembled the one explored by this dissertation.

The fourth chapter, titled ‘historical settings’, is dedicated to a review of the contemporary socio-historical setting in which the growth of the Canadian-Jewish archival landscape took place. The chapter begins with a review of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) – the organization under whose aegis Canadian Jewish archival endeavours were initiated and consolidated during the period covered by this dissertation. The CJC provides an axis through which to note several contemporary generational, demographic, and cultural changes that took place within Canadian Jewry at the time, changes that were, as this dissertation claims, all reflected in the archival domain. The second part of the chapter turns to review the ways in which official Canadian multicultural policies, promoted at both federal and provincial levels, were adopted by official archival agencies

9 and manifested through projects that aimed to collect ‘ethnic archives’. Since these programs offered a significant boost, in both direct and indirect ways, to the Jewish community’s own archival initiatives, it is imperative to understand the roots, implementations and lasting effects of these projects. Together, the third and fourth chapters provide an essential background on which the rest of the research is built.

The next three chapters are dedicated to the archival endeavours that were conducted in each of the three largest centres of Canadian Jewry: Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. The reasons for the decision to divide the discussion according to geographic units are further explained in the methodological chapter, but overall relate to the differences in the working models that were developed in each city. These differences were largely the result of the unique character of the individuals who led these initiatives: David Rome and Saul Hayes in Montreal, Stephen Speisman in Toronto and Abraham Arnold in Winnipeg. Each member of this group of cultural activists produced a body of published and unpublished work on Canadian-Jewish history and identity, as well as developed a different approach towards the community’s archival endeavor. As a result, the three chapters that deal with their work are structured in a similar fashion: each chapter begins with a review of the establishment and early years of activity of the local community archival institutions, before turning to introduce the broader set of worldviews and belief systems of these individuals. The last section of each chapter synthesises the findings in order to present their archival mentalities: the ways in which these broader belief systems concerning Jewish identity, history, and community governance were manifested in the archival landscape that was created in each city.13 Each of these three chapters therefore looks at archival work not just as a sociological phenomenon, but also as an intellectual endeavour that was influenced by specific ideas and positions regarding Canadian-Jewish history and identity.

13 For a fuller definition and discussion of this concept see the methodological chapter, Pp. 32-33.

The fifth chapter is dedicated to Montreal and to the work of the Canadian Jewish Archives (CJA), a community repository that operated as a unit within the national office of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). The CJA was established in 1934 and was designated as Canadian Jewry’s national archive. After a relatively short period of activity that lasted for approximately five years, the CJA remained mostly dormant until 1970, the year in which it relocated into the newly built CJC headquarters. Although the repository did not employ a professional archivist until 1981, it was at the centre of a lively, ongoing discussion concerning its desired mandate, structure, and overall roles. David Rome, who was employed as the CJA’s historian-archivist during the period, and Saul Hayes, the CJC’s long-serving executive director, played a crucial part in the efforts to turn the CJA into a functional archival repository during these years. The two struggled on several fronts: against the efforts of governmental archives – mainly the Public Archives of Canada (PAC) – to acquire Canadian Jewish historical materials; against the questions that were raised concerning the need for a nationally-focused Jewish archival program; and against what they considered as apathy displayed by most other CJC officers towards the community’s archival program and the need to maintain it. Hayes and Rome’s insistence on the need for a viable and independent national Jewish archival program, as well as their efforts to acquire the major historical collections of Canadian Jewry, to build a national Jewish museum, and to control the newly established CJHS, would all be explored and contextualized as part of their concern for the continuation of confident and clearly identifiable Jewish presence - in Quebec and in the looming multicultural Canadian society. The couple’s concern for the future shapes of Canadian Jewish identity also motivated their struggle against the diminishing role of the CJC as an agreed upon national community representative within the community’s political power mechanisms. Although their opinions differed over several issues, the many similarities in their archival mentalities offer an approach that could be named as the ‘national approach’ to the community’s archives.

The sixth chapter is dedicated to archival work in Toronto. The Ontario Jewish archives (OJA) began operating in 1973, with a mandate to collect Jewish historical records from across the province of Ontario. The OJA was directed by Stephen Speisman, an historian- turned-archivist, who fiercely opposed the efforts of the provincial government-funded MHSO to acquire Jewish archival materials. Speisman strongly believed in the responsibility of the organized community mechanisms to independently perform their archival duties and developed a unique approach towards the notion of ownership over Jewish records. These ideas grew in close association to his broader historiographical worldviews on Jewish history, as well as reflected his desire to prepare Toronto Jewry to attain its emerging role as the leading centre of Canadian Jewry. Speisman’s archival mentality is therefore designated as the ‘autonomous approach’ to community archives.

The seventh chapter is dedicated to the archival initiatives in Winnipeg, and to Abe Arnold, the first executive director of the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada (JHSWC). The unique elements that constituted the framework of Western Canada’s Jewish identity, the closer relationships with the non-Jewish surroundings, Arnold’s deep commitment to the multicultural ethos and his belief that Canadian Jewish history could play a significant role in the promotion of this ethos, were all manifested in his approach towards the community’s archival governance. Arnold believed that the optimal solution for Winnipeg’s Jewish community was to establish cooperative relationships with the formal archival agencies, an approach that was very different to the ones held within the two ‘eastern’ communities of Montreal and Toronto. As a result, Arnold’s archival mentality is presented as the ‘integrative approach’ towards community archives.

The eighth chapter offers a comparative analysis of the findings and dives deeper into some of the topics that could not be sufficiently addressed in the earlier chapters. It summarises and consolidates the different elements that motivated and shaped the Canadian Jewish archival landscape: the contemporary social and political environments in Canada; the more specific Jewish ethno-religious context that provided the

12 community’s archives both purpose and concrete organizational infrastructure; and the different worldviews, charisma and professional capabilities of the individuals who took charge of the archival endeavours in each city. In order to directly answer the dissertation’s research questions, the chapter also examines the unique assumptions that guided these early Canadian Jewish archival endeavours – and identity-based archival work in general - and the effect they had on some of the core assumptions within the archival profession through the encounter with the contemporary initiatives of formal archival agencies to collect ‘ethnic archives’. The chapter concludes with a discussion over the feasibility of the term ‘Jewish archive’ and whether it could be used as a useful, definable conceptual background for future research and scholarly engagements. The dissertation ends with a short conclusory chapter that points to some potential directions for further research.

At its core, an independent ethnic archive is an effort to collect and preserve historical materials that relate to an identity framework that is both amorphic and fluid, and so, can be envisioned as a quixotic effort to retain links to past forms in an environment that constantly keeps on changing. Jewish community archives further complicate this framework by adding to it the tensions between religious and secular perceptions of history and identity and between the immense fear of assimilation and loss of Jewish identity and the desire to integrate into the surrounding society. These tensions, as shown in the following pages, were reflected in the ongoing debates over the community’s archival programs during the period covered by this dissertation.

As this is an historical study and as history, besides its other virtues, can also offer a perspective on the present, this introduction is best concluded by looking at today’s Canadian-Jewish archival landscape. In 2019, the Canadian Jewish community enjoys the services of nine functioning archival repositories - the most active and dynamic amongst

13 all Canadian ethno-cultural communities.14 These repositories are part of a broader infrastructure that is dedicated to Canadian-Jewish historical scholarship and includes an association for Canadian Jewish studies, academic programs and courses and an active scholarly journal - all testimony to the field’s vitality and energy. All of the archival-related mechanisms that make up this landscape did not exist during the beginning of the period that is examined by this dissertation. The decisions and choices described herein have therefore provided the seeds, shaped, and are still reflected, in the archival infrastructure which scholars, community members and Canadian citizens in general, are able to enjoy today.

14 The number is taken from the list “Canadian Jewish Heritage Material Repositories / Liste de référence de tous les dépôts du patrimoine juif du Canada”, Canadian Jewish Studies, 26, (2018), Pp. 228-229.

Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology

Insights such as “no archive arises out of thin air”, “every archive is…a deliberate project…a form of intervention”, or “no archive is innocent”, are common among scholars today, both within and outside of the field of archival science.1 These assumptions seem even more potent when applied to archival programs that are conducted within a non-formal environment and guided by the liquid and debatable boundaries of ethno-cultural identity. The voluntary nature of such archival programs and their reliance on pro-active search and acquisition of relevant materials point to the fact that they are best interpreted as forms of cultural activism and as deliberate, self- conscious efforts to determine the boundaries and frameworks of potential future historiographical works. These kinds of insights support the main premise of this research: that investigating the motivations behind the creation and shaping of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival landscape could offer a deeper understanding of the concerns, priorities and challenges that were faced by this community during the period in question, as well as provide a deeper understanding on the place that archives occupy within diasporic and minority ethno-cultural groups.

2.2 Research Questions

In a monograph that aimed to introduce the qualities of ‘information history’ as a worthy research framework, scholar Toni Weller argued that the concept of information needs to be explored “both as an act and as an idea”.2 This insight informs the two research questions that guide this study - aiming to explore both the actions that

1 Elizabeth Yale, “The History of Archives: The State of the Discipline”, Book History,18, (2015), P. 332; Stuart Hall, “Constituting an Archive”, Third Text, 15, 54, (2001), P. 89; Arjun Appadurai, “Archive and aspiration”. In Information is alive, Art and Theory on Archiving and Retrieving Data, eds. Joke Brouwer and Arjen Mulder, (Rotterdam: V2_Publishing/NAI Publishers, 2003). P. 24. 2 Weller, Information History – An Introduction, P. 23.

14 15 gave birth and shaped the Canadian Jewish community’s archival infrastructure, as well as the ideas, worldviews and belief systems behind these actions. Hence, the following research questions are not concerned with current archival practices nor with best archival practices, but rather, with the ways in which the archival endeavour is embedded within longer-term and broader social processes that were part of the historical growth and development of Canadian Jewry.

RQ 1: What kinds of institutional mechanisms were developed by the Canadian Jewish community in order to fulfill its perceived archival needs, and what were the elements that motivated the creation, guided the direction, and informed the differences between these mechanisms?

RQ 2: What were the ‘archival mentalities’ of the decision-makers who led the processes of creating these archival mechanisms? In what ways did the archival solutions that they envisioned corresponded with their broader worldviews regarding Canadian Jewish identity and history?

The first research question explores archival work as part of the community’s socio- cultural history and focuses on the processes of institutionalization and professionalization of archival programs as part of broader contemporary social developments. The second question turns to look at archival programs from the lens of intellectual history and explores perceptions of archives and archival work as an inherent part of individual cultural and ideological backgrounds.

Besides these two research questions, the study also contemplates, through its findings, whether there were any unique and discernible elements, either practical of symbolic, that marked the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour. At that, the discussion aims to ponder whether such elements could support the usage of the concept of ‘Jewish archives’ as a legitimate analytical construct within other, potentially broader, studies

16 concerning the nature of Jewish cultures and collective memories as part of modern Jewish community life.

2.3 Overview of Historical Method

Historical research, positioned at the intersection between the humanities and the social sciences, aims to trace, reconstruct and provide insights on “past situations, events or processes”, by interpreting them in as broad a context as possible.3 In other words, historians are concerned with much more than just the presentation of facts about the past. Instead, they are committed to “not just describe how things were, but why they took a particular course” and so, to accurate analysis and interpretation of causes and consequences of past events and ideas.4 Consequently, historical research can concern itself with an almost infinite number of topics, can be applied to virtually any geographical unit, social setting or domain of knowledge and, as a research method, employed by many other disciplines. There are two essential benefits that historical research, as a methodology, could offer. Firstly, the benefit of scope: the ability to explore and point to social patterns from a perspective that contemporaries were not able to possess and that remained unidentifiable due to the inability to recognize exact starting points, long-term causes and full implications of any given social phenomena in real time. Historical perspective can therefore support new insights into decisions and their eventual, long- term, outcomes. Secondly, through its attention to time-bound processes, historical research can help identify and focus one’s attention on the early, formative periods of the social phenomena under question, periods that tend to offer valuable perspectives with regards to any research topic. Within the domain of archival practice, examining a period that precedes professionalization and standardization can help illuminate the inherent

3 Alison Jane Pickard, Research Methods in Information, (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2013), P. 167. 4 W. H. McDowell, Historical Research: A Guide, (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2002), P. 7.

17 relationships between archival programs and broader socio-cultural environment in which such work was initiated, debated and performed.

As a research methodology, “the most notable difference between historical research and all other research methods [in the social sciences] is the nature of the evidence used to generate a theory or test a hypothesis”.5 This means that the core data sources on which historical researches are built already exist, and so, the researcher does not need to create new ones. Rather, the researcher aims to generate new knowledge by first gathering and then interpreting all existing documentary data that they managed to acquire. These data sources are referred to as primary sources and are defined either as documents created with no intention to “influence opinions of either contemporaries or future historians”,6 or, more generally, as original, authentic, contemporaneously created documents or records.7

The effort to gather all relevant primary sources and reliable documentary evidence about the topic of enquiry is an essential first stage in any rigorous historical research. The next step is for the researcher to analyze and interpret these materials in order to form an understanding and attain insights as for the reasons, patterns and consequences related to the topic of research. This stage of the research process is supported by secondary sources: earlier critical scholarly examinations of the topic at hand, selectively displaying and interpreting the primary sources according to the scholar’s perception and suggested thesis regarding the relevant issues of their study.8 Overall, the recency of the events in question, availability of, and accessibility to, required documentation, and the state of research on the topic, determine whether the researcher’s attention and analytical focus would be turned to the primary or the secondary sources. While the efforts to identify all relevant sources follow established guidelines and aim to assure

5 Pickard, Research Methods in Information, P. 167. 6 Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, trans. Peter Putnam, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), Pp. 50-51. 7 John Tosh, The Pursuit of History, (Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2010), Pp. 91-93. 8 Pickard, Research Methods in Information, P. 171.

18 objectivity, authenticity and trustworthiness of the primary sources on which the analysis is based, the interpretation of these sources is, by nature, a much more subjective and debatable process. This means that historical research always falls under the definition of qualitative research, even if and when it uses quantitative data as primary sources.

What are the main limitations of historical research in comparison to other research methods that could be used within Information Science? Pickard suggested a lack of rigour due to variables that cannot be manipulated by the researcher, as well as the possible dependence of the data interpretation and analysis process on the identity and biases of the individual researcher.9 As most other qualitative researches share similar challenges, the same corrective solutions can be applied: systematic identification of all relevant sources; rigorous documentation of the research process in order to offer others the ability to track the sources that were used as evidence; and the use of a clear, logical analysis and presentation style to support the research when faced with critical examinations.

In comparison to the efforts of most other disciplines within the social sciences to “search for patterns in the social developments, organizations and human behaviours”, historical research tends to rely much less on existing or proposed models and conceptual frameworks.10 Nevertheless, it still follows an established set of stages and procedures, even if the transitions between these stages are overall less strict in comparison to other methods of enquiry within the social sciences. These stages are: identification of an initial topic of interest; locating, accessing and gathering all relevant and available primary and secondary sources; rigorous analysis and interpretation of these sources in order to synthesize a coherent explanation and thesis concerning the chosen subject, and finally, the presentation of the findings in writing.11 More often than not, historical research

9 Ibid, Pp. 174-175. 10 McDowell, Historical Research: A Guide, P. 17. 11 Different guides name these stages somewhat differently, but all follow this same basic structure. See Pickard, Research Methods in Information, Pp. 169-176; Tosh, The Pursuit of History, Pp. 119-171; McDowell, Historical Research: A Guide, Pp. 77 – 143; Lyn Gorman, “Historical Investigation in Information

19 tends to oscillate between these stages. Writing, in particular, is likely to accompany all other stages of the research process; notes, drafts and insights reached while engaging with the materials are an inherent part of the research process. The following paragraphs offer a more detailed review of each of these stages in addition to a more specific discussion of their application within this research.

2.3.1 Setting the Parameters: Identifying a Topic and Locating the Sources

An essential building block within the research process is to confine the chronological and geographical scopes of the research by determining where, when and who are the subjects of the enquiry. These decisions depend on the researcher’s interest and expertise, on the current state of the research in the field and on the quantity and quality of available documentary evidence. Given that valid historical research depends on authentic and trustworthy documentation, archival repositories were, and remain, the most common space from where historical information is extrapolated, just as “the lab is for the physical scientist and the fieldwork to the anthropologist”.12 Of course, the process of locating and gathering primary and secondary sources further informs decisions on the scope of the study: are there enough or too many available sources? Is there a specific period which turns out to be more significant than others, and if so, why? Decisions pertaining to research scope and design are therefore flexible and could be adjusted, altered and fine-tuned throughout the process of the researcher’s engagement with the sources. Since the topic of this study - Canadian Jewish archives - was not previously thoroughly explored in other secondary, integrated research, the overarching advice that guided the research process was to ‘follow the sources’: to cast a wide as

Organizations”, In Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook, eds: G.E. Gorman, Peter Clayton with contributions from Sydney J. Shep and Adela Clayton, (London: Facet, 2005), Pp. 162-173. 12 Michelle King, “Working with/ In the Archives”, In Research Methods for History, eds. Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), P. 13.

20 possible net in order to gather all evidence of archival work conducted by and for Canadian Jews, and to determine more precise directions as the research process unfolded. The assumption that guided this recommendation was that the main themes, periods and personalities related to this story could be determined only after all available sources were located.

Overall, I visited nine archival repositories in search of materials. The most relevant primary sources were found at the Alex Dworkin Canadian Jewish Archives in Montreal (ADCJA), the Ontario Jewish Archives in Toronto (OJA), the Irma and Marvin Penn Archives of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada in Winnipeg (JHCWC) and at Library Archives Canada (LAC) in Ottawa. Each of these four repositories maintains valuable documentation on the topic of this research, both concerning the archival work that was conducted within each of these respective institutions, as well as copies of correspondences and general documentation relating to Canadian Jewish-related archival work performed within the other repositories. Other repositories visited, and that offered supplementary materials, were the Archives of Manitoba (AM), the Ottawa Jewish Archives (OTJA), The Jewish Public Library in Montreal (JPL), the archive of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario in Toronto (MHSO) and the University of Toronto Archives. Published materials and secondary sources were accessed either through the repositories mentioned above or via the University of Toronto’s library network or the Toronto Public Library.

A preliminary research trip to the ADCJA and the JPL was conducted in March 2015. The visit resulted in an array of relevant materials and contributed to the decision to follow this specific research path. Since the ADCJA was designated as a national archive for Canadian Jewry and as for many years it offered the only space in which Jewish archival materials were gathered, it still holds most of the documentation that is relevant for this study. Two additional research trips to the ADCJA therefore followed – in November 2016 and again in June 2017. Most of the work within the OJA, the repository in charge of

21 collecting Canadian-Jewish archival materials that originated from the province of Ontario, took place during January and February 2017, with several supplementary visits in following months. A research trip to LAC and the OTJA took place during May 2017 and was followed by an October 2017 research trip to Winnipeg and visits to the Archives of Manitoba and the JHCWC’s archives. All visits were preceded, if and when possible, by consultation with the repositories’ online catalogue databases, as well as by email correspondence and phone calls with the archivists on site.13 In no visit to these archives did I encounter any challenges with regards to access to relevant materials; archivists in all repositories were helpful, positive, and knowledgeable, and offered their support and advice. The reliability and authenticity of the primary sources did not prove to be of significant concern as the dissertation does not deal with highly contested events and there was little reason to doubt the authenticity and trustworthiness of the documentary evidence.

The primary sources that I was searching for can be divided into two main groups: ‘specific’ and ‘general’. The first group consists of sources that directly described actions, initiatives and ideas relating to the collection and preservation of Canadian-Jewish materials of historical value, whether conducted internally or externally of the organized community, and whether referring directly to the topic of archival work, or simply mentioning it in a correspondence or report dedicated to other matters. The kinds of sources included in this group were correspondences, memos, minutes of meetings and reports produced by a variety of decision-makers and stakeholders within the institutions that engaged in such endeavours, whether as part of the organized community or external to it. The CJC’s Intra-Office Information (IOI) publications proved to be an especially valuable source for accurate dating of activities. Produced by Montreal’s

13 The ADCJA holdings are accessible via http://www.cjhn.ca/en – the Canadian Jewish Heritage Network – an online database that includes a joint catalogue of the holdings of the CJA, the JPL and the Ottawa Jewish archives as well as the smaller collections of Montreal’s Holocaust Museum, Saint John Jewish Historical Museum, Shaar Hashomayim Congregation Museum and Archives and the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue Archives. The OJA’s holdings are searchable via http://search.ontariojewisharchives.org/ and the holdings of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada via: https://www.jhcwc.org/jhc-db/.

22 national CJC office and sent to CJC officers across Canada, these were periodical accounts about activities and events that took place within the CJC or that were of interest to the broader circle of interest of Canadian Jewish life.14 Other valuable sources were the summative reports of the CJC’s plenary sessions: tri-annual gatherings of representatives from a variety of Jewish organizations across Canada who convened in order to discuss and plan issues pertaining to the community’s governance and future considerations and priorities.15 The publications that summarized these sessions included reports on the archival work that was conducted within each of the organization’s regional divisions. Even if these reports tended to focus on achievements and disregarded many of the challenges and disagreements that took place along the way, they proved to be a worthy source of information by marking each region’s key figures and leading stakeholders, as well as by describing the main priorities and activities that took place during the three- year period covered by each report.

The second group of sources, those designated as ‘general’, consisted of published and manuscript materials produced by those individuals who were identified as the leading figures in the community’s archival programs. This kind of sources helped establish the connection between the ways in which these individuals perceived and conducted archival work and their broader ideological belief systems and worldviews. Sources were identified and gathered from a variety of places: personal archival fonds, library catalogues of books, journals and magazine articles, and databases containing copies of digitized or microfilmed newspapers. Sources were not limited to direct references to archival work, or even to historiographical works per se; rather, they included as wide a number as possible of sources in order to formulate a more comprehensive understanding of the general attitudes and positions that were held by the leaders of the community’s archival endeavours. Distilling worldviews and ideas concerning archives

14 The 1959 CJC plenary session acknowledged the future importance of these publications and predicted that they “will some day form one of the most important, if not the most important source to current Jewish history in Canada”. (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files, 1959 Plenary Report, P. 13). 15 For more information on the CJC and the plenary sessions see the historical settings chapter, Pp. 66-68.

23 and archival work from a broader corpus of publications required scrutiny of entire articles for passing references or ideas and required attention and open-mindedness when reading the sources. Eventually, this process helped identify four individuals as the ones who exercised the biggest impact on the shaping and direction of the archival infrastructure within their local community: Saul Hayes and David Rome in Montreal, Stephen Speisman in Toronto and Abraham Arnold in Winnipeg. Notably, besides the amount of time and effort these individuals dedicated to the community’s archival programs, there were not many other lines of symmetry between them: not in the positions they held, nor in the amount, level and genres of written materials they produced and, certainly not, in their worldviews and visions of the past – and possible futures - of Canadian Jewry.

Copies of relevant sources were made by using a ‘CamScanner’ application installed on a tablet device. The application creates digital images of the required documents and saves them as a PDF file. Users can choose to create a separate file for each document or to batch several documents as a single file. The preference was, of course, to include a single document in each digital file, but to save valuable time, some documents were batched together if kept in the same collection, box and file at the repository in which they were found. Since I only had a limited amount of time to spend during my research visits to the various archives, these visits mostly involved browsing through documents in order to assess their relevance to the research and then photocopying those sources that were found to be relevant. Each digital file was labeled according to the name of the repository and the fonds, box, and file or cataloguing number that was assigned to it by the respective repository where it was found. Files were later printed and emailed to my UofT email account, as well as saved on an external drive as an extra back-up procedure. After printing, duplicates and documents that turned out to be irrelevant were discarded. Printouts were kept in folders that were organized according to their original titles.

Given the relative recency of the period described by this dissertation, my initial assumption was that these documentary sources would be supplemented by research interviews with practitioners and decision-makers as a way to gather first-hand information on the events in question. However, despite submitting and receiving the approval from the University of Toronto’s protocol for research interviews, the demise of the main protagonists meant that beyond several general background conversations, interviews were not employed as a method to acquire evidence that was directly referenced in the dissertation.16

As for secondary sources that are specifically concerned with the topic of Canadian-Jewish archives: to date, the only published exploration of this topic was a 2015 article by Richard Menkis, a historian of Canadian Jewry. The article identified two periods of noticeable growth in the community’s archival initiatives and pondered the differences and similarities between these two periods. As the article’s general thesis aligns with my own findings, this dissertation aims to extend and broaden the framework and scope that the article helped to establish.17 Another specific reference to Canadian Jewish archives was found in a descriptive chapter dedicated to the history of the CJA in a 1997 M.A. thesis that was submitted to the University of Manitoba and dealt with attitudes towards ethnic archives in Canada.18 Earlier accounts on the development of local archival work in Toronto and Winnipeg were published as well. However, given that these were produced by the same people who are the subject of this research, for the purpose of this dissertation, these accounts were referred to as primary sources.19

16 Background conversations were conducted with Myron Momryk, former archivist at PAC’s ethnic archives unit; Karen Levine, former MHSO researcher for Jewish collections; Prof. Ruth Wisse, former press officer of the CJC; Shirley Berman, former executive secretary of the Ottawa Jewish Historical Society; Walter Neutel, former head of PAC’s ethnic archives unit (NEA). 17 Richard Menkis, “Identities, Communities and the Infrastructures of History: Creating Canadian Jewish Archives in the 1930s and 1970s”, In History, Memory and Jewish Identities, eds. Ira Robinson, Naftali S. Cohn, Lorenzo DiTommaso, (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2015), Pp. 233-256. 18 Lisa Singer, “Ethnic Archives: A Resource in Development”, (M.A. Thesis, University of Manitoba, 1997). 19 On Winnipeg See Abraham Arnold, “The Birth and Development of a Western Jewish Archives Program”, The Canadian Archivist, 2, 3, (1972), Pp. 1-6; On Toronto see Stephen Speisman, “The Keeping of Jewish Record in Ontario: Toronto Jewish Congress / Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region Archives”, Archivaria, 30, (1990), Pp. 160-162.

2.3.2 Source Analysis and Research Decisions

In order to produce rigorous historical research, the researcher needs to fully understand the primary variables (places, people, events) that impacted the research topic, to identify the records producers’ conceptual approaches and ideological biases towards the issues at hand and then, to situate the sources within a broader explanatory context. This means that one of the central characteristics of historical research is that the analysis process - the reading, note-taking, and identification of general patterns and themes – takes place in conjunction with the gathering of the sources. As a result, many research-related decisions are only formed and crystallized during – and not before - the analysis stage. The following section describes how these decisions were taken in structuring this specific study.

2.3.2.1 Focus on the 1970s

An initial analysis of the primary sources revealed that besides several uncoordinated efforts to develop internal organizational record-keeping programs, no consistent, community-wide effort to deal with the question of Canadian Jewish archives existed before 1934. The only organization that maintained an archival program of sorts before that date was Montreal’s JPL. The library was established in 1914 and shortly after inception was entrusted with a large collection of papers from Reuben Brianin, one of its founders and a leading literary and intellectual figure of his time. Brianin’s papers meant that the JPL served some archival functions as well and in following years the library continued to assemble personal papers of local Yiddish language literary figures. Nevertheless, it did not operate under a community-wide mandate, nor was it concerned with any access or research initiatives. The national ‘Canadian Jewish Archive’ that was established in 1934 during the CJC’s second plenary assembly therefore marks the real starting point of the community’s archival program. However, the enthusiasm that gave

26 birth to the CJA quickly waned and from the early nineteen forties onwards, the CJA existed in name only and, de facto, amounted to not much more than several boxes of unsorted documents locked in a Montreal storage facility. Only from the late nineteen sixties, according to the sources, another clear trend of efforts to conduct archival work - this time taking place across several Canadian-Jewish locales - could be detected. The sources also pointed to the fact that all of these endeavours were either initiated or consolidated through the organizational platform that was offered by the CJC, the only organization that approached archival work as a community-wide endeavour and as part of its institutional mandate.

‘Following the sources’ thus helped identify a discernable period, broadly stretching between 1967 and 1982, as the beginning of a concerted, sustainable effort and commitment by Canadian Jewry to perform archival work across its different locations. 1967 was the year in which the first hints for such a motivation became apparent: in Winnipeg, a focused campaign to collect historical materials for an exhibition on Jewish life in the prairies was initiated; in Montreal the planning stages for the construction of a permanent new home for the CJA were reaching their final stages, and in Ottawa, a local Jewish historical society was established in order to administer the collection of historical documents pertaining to the city’s Jewish community.

From then on, and throughout the following decade, archival-related activities intensified across Jewish Canada. The CJA moved to a new, designated space in 1970 and, despite not employing a professional archivist throughout the decade, became active in the fields of acquisitions and publications. In Toronto, the OJA began operations as an independent community archive in 1973 and enjoyed steady growth in subsequent years. Winnipeg’s JHSWC continued to actively build its collection of local materials and produced several public exhibitions dedicated to the display of these materials. To a lesser degree, archival activities were taking place also in the smaller centres of Canadian Jewry: Ottawa, Vancouver, Halifax, Quebec City and Calgary through local historical societies that were

27 established in each of these cities. All these programs were assisted by the national Canadian Jewish Historical Society (CJHS) that came to life in 1976 as a centralized coordinating mechanism. Furthermore, the nineteen seventies also witnessed the active interest of several official state repositories in the collection of Jewish historical materials, a fact that had a significant effect on both the motivations and the direction of all the internal community initiatives mentioned above.

Any research that wishes to focus on the commencement and early days of a social phenomenon needs to offer an end date as well; for the purposes of this research 1982 stood out as such a stage. The sources indicated that most of the endeavours to build a sustainable community archival infrastructure matured during the early 1980’s into a more standardized, regulated and relatively professionally-run archival landscape. While in 1967 no functional Jewish community archive existed across Canada, by 1982, the CJA, now operating from a designated archival space, began employing a full-time professional archivist and benefited from a significant government grant that enabled the proper cataloging and description of its major collections. In Toronto, the OJA celebrated a decade of community service with a move to a new dedicated space within a newly-built community centre, and in Winnipeg, the JHSWC was already preparing to celebrate its fifteenth anniversary of ongoing services while showcasing a properly catalogued and easily accessible collection of Jewish archival materials from across western Canada. Furthermore, by this time steady budgetary allocations helped elevate the professional capabilities of these archival programs and as a result, the debates over the essence of the community’s archival work significantly decreased as the formative period was now clearly over.

2.3.2.2 Geographic Units of Analysis

The procedures that govern archival-related work within a non-formal environment are, by nature, much more flexible and negotiable than the ones that regulate archival work within a formal environment. From a research perspective, this means that while it is easier to mark the relationship between the archival endeavour and broader contemporary socio-cultural developments, the exact nature of most of the archival mechanisms that operate within such an environment is relatively harder to pin down. For instance, while an independent Jewish archival repository existed in Montreal since 1934, it was an archive in title only as it did not enjoy the guiding hand of a professional archivist until 1981 - almost fifty years after it was established. In Winnipeg, the collection of archival materials was administrated by an historical society, yet the accumulated materials were deposited, under the status of a loan, at the Archives of Manitoba. This made Toronto the only city in which an independent and functional community archival repository existed during the period discussed by this study. Furthermore, all the aforementioned archival-related mechanisms pursued several other public-memory functions and were involved with projects such as the conservation of historical buildings or the publication of historical monographs. This complex landscape meant that more specific criteria had to be established in order to make an informed decision on how to best focus the structure of this study and to guide its analysis.

The first decision was to focus solely on work conducted within institutions funded and affiliated with the mainstream, organized Jewish community as a representative of the majority of those Canadian citizens who identified themselves as Jews. Of course, the ability to suggest a clear relationship between an archive and the community is not obvious, nor exclusive. For example, Jewish organizations and individuals affiliated with the more radical left elements of the political map did not see themselves as represented by the organized community bodies and thus, refused to deposit records within the

29 community’s archives because these were administrated by the CJC.20 Nevertheless, as there was no other community organization that contested or opposed the notion that these repositories were indeed representatives of the organized Jewish community – it seems proper to assign them the title of ‘community archives’. Even more significantly, this criterion implies that this study focuses not on Jewish records nor on Jewish archivists – but on Jewish repositories. Active and committed Jewish community members were employed by both the MHSO and PAC, as the community affiliation of these archivists provided them with the necessary expertise to deal with Jewish materials. Nevertheless, as they worked outside of the community’s internal organizational framework, their Jewish background is not considered as essential for this research. Rather, this study focuses on archival work initiated and operated by the organized, representational bodies of the community - as a representational act on behalf of the majority of community members.

The next decision was to concentrate the analysis only on those archival-related initiatives that were both sufficiently documented and whose scope was relatively broad and significant enough. This criterion correlated mostly with the demographic size of the communities in which the archival programs were conducted. In 1971 Canadian Jews numbered 276,000, out of whom roughly 84% lived in three cities: Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. Ten years later, in 1981, the percentage was 81% (out of 296,000 Jews).21 The size of these communities naturally corresponded with them being the most active, independent, and culturally confident centres of Canadian Jewry. As a result, the dissertation’s chapters focus on the work conducted by and within the Jewish communities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg not only because of their demographic and historical centrality in Canadian Jewish life, but also because these centres produced

20 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, P. 131; Faith Jones, “Between Suspicion and Censure: Attitudes towards the Jewish Left in Postwar Vancouver”, Canadian Jewish Studies, 6, 1998, Pp. 5-8. 21 The data is taken from the statistical appendix in Gerald Tulchinsky, Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community, (Toronto: Stoddart, 1998), Pp. 357-358.

30 sufficient evidence about the debates that were an inherent part of the growth an consolidation of their archival programs.

Nevertheless, also in Ottawa and Vancouver, the two other relatively sizeable centres of Jewish settlement in Canada, active Jewish historical societies operated during the 1970s. Ottawa’s Jewish Historical Society, established in 1966, collected materials pertaining to the local Jewish community but chose, from a very early stage, to deposit these at PAC.22 This decision can be explained by the community’s relatively small size and lack of sufficient resources, as well as in its geographical proximity and the more general lack of suspicion by most of its members – many of whom were government employees - towards federal agencies. However, the sources did not provide any indications regarding internal debates over this decision, a fact that made the archival endeavours of Ottawa’s Jewish community less relevant for the purpose of this research. In Vancouver, the Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia was established in 1971 and concentrated, during its early years, on efforts on to conduct oral history interviews – aiming, in a way that somewhat followed the JHSWC’s efforts, to document a certain pioneering lifestyle that was rapidly disappearing.23 The historical society therefore did not turn to archival collection initiatives proper until relatively later. Thus, besides attesting to the lack of ability of a national program to answer the needs of a geographically remote community, the public memory activities and debates that took place in Vancouver during the period covered by this study were simply not focused enough on archival-related questions. The same holds true also for the other, even smaller, Jewish historical societies that were established across Canada during that time, all of which, besides providing evidence for the growing interest in local Jewish history, did not produce enough documentation on archival-related debates and activities in comparison to the three bigger centres.

22 Minutes of Meeting to constitute an Ottawa Jewish Historical Society, November 17th, 1966, (OTJA, OJHS Box 1); W.I. Smith, Dominion Archivist to H. Hochberg, Executive Director, Jewish Community Council of Ottawa, January 17th, 1972, (OTJA, OJHS Box 1); “Archives of the Jewish Community of Ottawa: Assessment of needs, opportunities and relationships”, May 1997, (OTJA, OJHS & Vaad Ha’ir Box). 23 “Conversation with Cyril E. Leonoff and Irene Dodek”, The Scribe, 31, (2011), Pp. 129 – 148.

A third, interrelated, decision had to do with the relationship between the archival programs and some of the more general public memory initiatives that emerged during the period as part of a more general growth in interest in ethnic origins and cultural heritage. The decision was to focus as much as possible on work that related solely to the collection of sources that pertained to Canadian Jewish history and to exclude initiatives that were concerned with the collection of general Judaica items or world Jewish history. Of course, given the many public memory functions conducted by the Jewish repositories, this distinction was, in many cases, not easy to make. In practice, it meant that less attention was awarded to the archival collection efforts of the JPL, as these, as already noted, focused mostly on personal records of Yiddish literary figures.24 Besides a short period during the mid nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies in which the JPL made a more concentrated effort to establish itself as Montreal’s local Jewish repository (as opposed to the CJA’s national role), the library did not strive to position itself as a community-wide archival solution. Only later on, and after it experienced a number of crises along the way, did the JPL attained this role and incorporated it into its mandate. Besides the JPL, several other contemporary memory-related projects, such as the collection and preservation efforts of Holocaust-related materials or the creation of PAC’s Lowy collection of general Judaica books and manuscripts, were initiated.25 These projects all point, again, to the broader awakening and interest in Jewish identity and memory during the period, but, unless specifically incorporating cooperative interfaces with the local community archival repositories, were considered to be outside of the scope of this research.

24 Evelyn Miller, “The History of the Montreal Jewish Public Library and Archives”, The Canadian Archivist, 2, 1, (1970), Pp. 49-55. See also: Rebecca Margolis, Jewish Roots, Canadian Soil: Yiddish Culture in Montreal, 1905–1945, (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University, Press, 2011), Pp. 92-104. 25 See: L.F. MacRae, Associate National Librarian to Saul Hayes, December 5th, 1973 (ADCJA, Saul Hayes Personalia, ZB, 2,3); “Address to June 15th, 1974 luncheon of Canadian Jewish Congress, Toronto by Dr. Guy Silvestre, National Librarian” (ADCJA, Saul Hayes Personalia, ZB, 2,3). On the growth of Holocaust commemoration initiatives during the 1960s and 1970s, see: Frank Bialystok, Delayed Impact: The Holocaust and the Canadian Jewish Community (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000), Pp. 169- 176.

Given these criteria, the decision was made to divide the discussion and the ensuing chapters geographically and to dedicate separate sections to Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg – the three main centres of Canadian Jewish settlement and cultural production. The geographical division was supported by the fact that in each city a somewhat different mechanism to fulfill the local community’s archival needs was created and by the fact that in each city it was possible to identify at least one individual as a key decision-maker within the local community archival program. The decision also helped overcome the difficulty of separating the boundaries between the archival programs and the individuals who directed their activities. For instance, David Rome’s requests for archival materials to be sent to Montreal’s CJA from across Canada were both a part of his desire to consolidate holdings of archival materials – as well as a CJA long- established policy, a policy that was envisioned well before Rome joined the organization. Another example is a request made by Saul Hayes, on behalf of the CJA, to a prospective donor of archival materials, describing community archival work through the metaphor of ‘escutcheon’. Does this choice of words represent Hayes’ own views? Does it represent the CJA’s policies and institutional goals? Or does it stand for deeply shared sensitivities of the Jewish community in general? A clear distinction between these elements seemed impossible to make, and so, the geographical division helped accommodate these relatively blurred borders between the individual’s perceptions of Jewish identity and history, and the repository’s more general policies and mandates.

2.3.2.3 The Concept of Archival Mentalities

Engagement with the sources helped realize that the different shape that was taken by the local Jewish archival landscape in each city was directly related to the broader worldviews held by the local decision-makers. Opinions regarding the need for direct ownership of the historical records; regarding whether the community needed to maintain its own independent archives; and regarding how to conduct the relationship

33 with formal governments repositories, were all related to attitudes towards the historical purpose – and desired future - of Canadian Jewry. In order to accommodate and describe these differences, the study develops and introduces the concept of ‘archival mentalities’ – defined as the reflection, in the realms of archival practice and archival thought, of individual ideological worldviews and belief systems regarding issues relating to identity and history. Of course, depending on the environment and the individuals in question, the exact elements that make up these archival mentalities may differ. For the purpose of this study, the elements that make up the archival mentalities of Rome, Hayes, Speisman, and Arnold, relate to their attitudes towards Canadian Jewish identity, towards the purpose and path of Canadian Jewish history, and towards the optimal structure of the governance of the Canadian community. The concept, it should be noted, was not used by the contemporaries whose views this research aims to explore. Rather, it is an analytical construct, identified and explained through an analysis of their actions and written contemplations on the issues at hand.

The concept grows from the notion that there exists a deep relationship between the desire to perform archival work and the commitment to the creation of historiographical products. Thus, just as an historian is committed to professional principles of trustworthiness and objectivity, but is also part of a specific place, time and cultural affiliation, so is the archivist. Prior commitments, opinions and ideologies impact archival work - and primarily so when conducted in a non-formal, community environment such as the one explored by this study. As a result, certain aspects within one’s archival mentality could be a product of a shared linguistic or cultural background and group affiliation, while others could differ according to the individual’s biography, professional background, and ideological commitments.

There are several similarities between the concept of archival mentalities and Funkenstein’s conceptualization of the term ‘historical consciousness’.26 Funkenstein suggested envisioning historical consciousness as a way to bridge the gaps between the theoretical notions of ‘history’ and ‘memory’ as two distinct, dichotomic elements - the dominant view held by earlier scholars of collective memory. Similarly, the concept of ‘archival mentalities’ could serve to bridge between the notion of the archive as a symbol for an objective, positivist repository and the much more disarrayed reality and practice, by introducing the agency of individuals as an essential part of the nature of the archival endeavour. Overall, then, the concept aims to capture the essence of archival work as a product of specific time, place and unique historical circumstances and thus, helps to situate archival repositories as the outcome of historically concrete, time-bound processes. For that reason, the next section turns to review other scholarly attempts to explore, and write about, the history of archives.

2.4 Writing History of Archives

Although archival repositories have always been, and still remain, a vital source for the conduct of historical enquiries, it was rather uncommon, until late, to find scholarly endeavours that examined archives and archival work as active historical constructs. In contemplating the reasons for this gap, scholars suggested the long- standing professional self-image of archivists as passive entities and the efforts of positivist historians to ignore archival agencies in the products of their work, as the main reasons that history of archives remained, for many years, an “underground subdiscipline”.27 Even the ‘archival turn’ within humanities scholarship, initiated and

26 Amos Funkenstein, “Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness”, History and Memory, 1, 1, (1989), Pp. 10-12. 27 Markus Friedrich, The Birth of the Archive: A History of Knowledge, trans. John Noël Dillon, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018), P. 9. See also Terry Cook, “The archive(s) is a Foreign Country: Historians, Archivists, and the Changing Archival Landscape”, The American Archivist, 74, (2011), Pp. 613- 617.

35 guided by the writing of Derrida and Foucault, did not do much to correct this situation; despite supporting a new awareness of the inherent relations between archives and social power mechanisms, most scholars who followed this route tended to conceptualize archival repositories as quasi-metaphysical entities, rather than as concrete and well- grounded institutions.28

However, with time, one of the other results of this recognition of archival agency in the production and shaping of historical knowledge was a noticeable growth in scholarly interest in ‘histories of archives’. Broadly speaking three main models, or areas of interest, for the writing of histories of archives, can be discerned. The first model tends to concentrate on a specific archival organization as its primary unit of analysis and follows the institutional growth of these repositories, most commonly national archives, along the lines of their effort to consolidate national identities.29 The second type of archival histories follows professional developments within the profession, as well as explores ways in which specific archival concepts have developed across a range of places, times and cultural settings.30 The third type of enquiry, and the one most closely related to the goals of this dissertation, is somewhat harder to define. It includes efforts to situate the creation and development of archival repositories and record-keeping practices within a broader cultural and intellectual perspective and to use the archival domain as a tool for achieving a deeper understanding of the society in which the archival endeavour was conceived and conducted. The main difference between this approach and the other two

28 Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), Pp. 128–30. For a critique of this conception of archives see Richard Cox, “Making the Records Speak: Archival Appraisal, Memory, Preservation, and Collecting”, The American Archivist, 64, (2001), P. 400. 29 For example, Ian E. Wilson, “A Noble Dream: The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada”, In Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, ed. Tom Nesmith, (Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993), Pp. 61-84; Jennifer S. Milligan, “What is an Archive? In the History of Modern France”, In Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, ed. Antoinette Burton, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), Pp. 159-183. Given their general focus on national identity building, such studies tend to focus on case studies from early modern and modern Europe. See Yale, The History of Archives, P. 336. 30 For example: Elizabeth Shepherd, Archives and Archivists in 20th Century England, (Farnham, Surrey, England, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009); Heather MacNeil, Trusting Records: Legal, Historical and Diplomatic Perspectives, (Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer, 2000).

36 models is that the surrounding culture, or society, rather than just the repository, is conceived as the object of the analysis. Probably the first scholarly effort in that direction was Ernst Posner’s Archives in the Ancient World that offered a comparative account of the various manifestations of archival functions and record-keeping methods across the ancient Near East. Posner analyzed record-keeping and archival practices as an inherent part of the technological and intellectual climates of the areas and periods he reviewed and his stated goal was to show that “archives administration is so intimately connected with the governance of secular and religious affairs…that it must be viewed within the context of the cultures in which the archive originated”.31 In doing so, Posner reflected his own intimate acquaintance with the workings and worldviews behind both Weimar Germany’s and the US national archives during the twentieth century. More recent examples for such an approach range from brief reviews such as Duranti’s comparative account of record-keeping practices throughout history; to more thorough examinations – mostly guided by ideas of archives as tools for social justice - such as Weld’s description of the Guatemalan secret police archives or Stoler’s analysis of Dutch colonial archives as an essential factor in the creation of colonial epistemological knowledge systems.32

Posner’s book, and its overall thesis, were well-integrated into the curricula of archival studies. Scholars in the field continuously encouraged and called for the production of more archival histories, even if concrete efforts to engage in such research were somewhat less common. The entry on ‘archival history’ in the Encyclopedia of Archival Science suggested that such endeavours should aim to be “more than describing the development of archival programs” but rather, “strive to understand why records and records keeping systems have been created, what uses they had, how they were influenced by power, politics, gender, social and cultural constraints and…archival

31 Ernst Posner, Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). P. vii. 32 Luciana Duranti, “The Odyssey of Record Managers”, in Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, ed. Tom Nesmith (Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993), Pp. 29-60; Kirsten Weld, Paper Cadavers: The Archives of Dictatorship in Guatemala, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014); Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).

37 consciousness”.33 Nesmith argued that archival histories need to be written “from the bottom up”, and that they should try and position archives as part of social history in order to communicate the idea that archival repositories are not uniform, one-size-fits- all institutions, but rather, functional tools that were developed, mandated and manifested themselves differently across different times and social settings. If done correctly, Nesmith claimed, archival histories could “offer insights into the evolution of a society through the study of communication: what are records [and] how do archival actions affect and reflect perceptions of reality”.34 The same sentiment was shared by Cox who asserted that archival histories, given the symbolic and practical significance of archival repositories in all literate societies, offer a value that would “extend far beyond the archival profession”.35 Also the introduction to a 2007 issue of the Archival Science journal that was dedicated to the history of archives, claimed that archival history scholarship should be perceived as part of social history and that efforts to collect and preserve historical materials should be researched as “sites in which to examine conceptions about knowledge, order and control by the state” in order to allow a richer understanding of the place and roles of archives in any given society.36

Two recently translated books provide a practical, as well as a methodological, demonstration of the above suggestions. Delsalle’s A History of Archival Practice offers a comparative review of archival work as practiced since the days of Babylonian priesthood through current endeavours to develop universal digital description standards. Although the scope of the book does not accommodate in-depth analysis, its methodology is useful: exploring the social functions of archiving, rather than limiting the research to the actions

33 Peter Horsman and Eric Ketelaar, “Archival History” in Encyclopedia of Archival Science, eds. Luciana Duranti, Patricia C. Franks (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), Pp. 53-58. 34 Tom Nesmith, “Archives from the Bottom Up: Social history and Archival Scholarship”, Archivaria, 14 (1982), P. 26. 35 Richard Cox, “On the Value of Archival History in the United States”, Libraries & Culture, 23, 2, 1988, P. 137. See also Richard Cox, “The Failure or Future of American Archival History: A Somewhat Unorthodox ew”, Libraries & Culture, 35, 1, (2000), Pp. 141-145; Peter Burke, “Commentary”, Archival Science, 7, 4, (2007), Pp. 391-397. 36 Ann Blair and Jennifer Milligan, “Introduction”, Archival Science, 7, 4, (2007), P. 290.

38 committed within the repository’s walls. Hence, Delsalle discussed relations between archival work and literacy, technological capabilities and political circumstances and arrived at a conclusion that echoed Posner’s earlier insight concerning archivists and archival work, either deliberately or unknowingly, as fully engaged agents in the domain of cultural production and that they are not, nor ever been, “mere temple guardians or gatekeepers”.37 Even more insightful for this study was Friedrich’s The Birth of the Archive which dealt with early modern European archival history. Friedrich positioned the creation of archival repositories as an essential part of the process of formation and consolidation of scientific knowledge and meticulously demonstrated how these repositories were “socially embedded phenomena…affected by all parts of society and affecting society in return…subject to different, contradictory interests; objects of social debate and arenas for rival attempts to define their functions”.38 Thus, Friedrich acknowledged that “archives were important not just for the knowledge they contained”, but also for the debates over their roles, functions and social value. He therefore recommended that “history of archives should not be limited to the investigation of catalogues and record-keeping practices”, but instead, aim to consider archives as physical spaces where knowledge, which is always in the making, was negotiated and stamped as valid.39 Notably, Friedrich focused on a period before the professionalization and standardization of archival practices began to form, and as a result, managed to show how archival repositories were shaped by distinctive cultural elements, while, at the same time, supported the broader process of solidification of scientific knowledge across early modern Europe.

Hence, this review of scholarly attempts to produce histories of archives offers this study two crucial considerations: Firstly, it confirms the assumption that a careful examination of the ways in which various socio-cultural groups perceive and debate questions

37 Paul Delsalle, A History of Archival Practice, trans. and revised Margaret Procter, (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2017). P. 235. 38 Friedrich, The Birth of the Archive, P. 4. 39 Ibid, P. 6.

39 regarding the collection and preservation of their historical record, could provide a worthy and unique perspective on the group’s social and intellectual history. Secondly, they suggest that it is worthwhile to focus on periods preceding the professionalization of archival practices as such periods tend to better reflect the group’s cultural norms and immediate priorities and their manifestation within the archival domain. Of course, when following this direction, the researcher must be sensitive to the amateur nature of the archival practices under consideration and to the varied understandings and vocabularies that could be used with regards to the need, value and methods through which to conduct archival tasks.

As a result, ‘following the sources’ and engaging with the insights offered by the literature on the history of archives, helped inform the focus of this study. Rather than concentrate on professional practices such as cataloging, description or production of finding aids, this study looks at archival work from a broader perspective and as understood and interpreted by individuals who were, for the most part, not trained in the archival profession. Rather, these were people who invested most of their time and creative energies into trying to encourage Canadian Jewish culture and community life and shared a desire to stimulate knowledge of Canadian Jewish history. As a result, they perceived the community’s archival mechanisms as a tool through which to promote their beliefs, worldviews, and concerns for the future of their community. The next chapter turns to review the scholarly literature, and conceptual understandings, concerning other instances of archival work conducted within similar environments.

Chapter 3: Conceptual backgrounds

Although this study does not follow any specific theoretical framework, this chapter is dedicated to a review of scholarly literature that could support the positioning of the research findings within broader understandings of the place of archival work within a non-formal, ethnic community environment. The chapter is divided into two sections: the first section reviews scholarly literature that deals with archival work conducted within a non-formal, community environment. Academic interest in this topic is growing steadily, and a review of the existing literature could point to some of the broader sociological elements that are part of this phenomenon. Given that ‘community archives’ is still a rather loosely defined concept, a result of the many kinds of groups that engage in archival work and the different motivations, capabilities and outcomes of their endeavours – the review focuses on research dedicated to archival work conducted by immigrant ethnic communities within North-America, as these provide the best framework for an analysis of the specific Canadian Jewish case study. The chapter’s second section is dedicated to a review of archival work conducted within other Jewish community environments. It aims to identify and understand, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, what unique models, practices and sensitivities could one find in other instances of archival work conducted by and within Jewish communities throughout history and how these might support a better understanding of the specific Canadian Jewish case study.

3.1.1 Community Archives

Archival repositories are public institutions that support the need, inherent in any literate society, to maintain authentic, reliable, and trustworthy documentary evidence on a variety of activities and social transactions. As archival repositories are committed to the collection and preservation of recorded materials as a way to overcome barriers of time and space in the transmission of evidence and cultural knowledge, their activities pose, on both

40 41 practical and philosophical level, a challenge to those who wish to fully understand their social roles and functions.

As the archival endeavor answers an innate human impulse to gather and preserve materials from the past, the one character that is shared by all archival repositories is their commitment to the preservation of unique records as authentic sources of evidence. The goals of most archival repositories can thus be regarded as stretching across a continuum between supporting the need for reliable evidence and legal accountability and assisting the multi-leveled process of construction of collective memories and senses of identity and belonging. This means that archival repositories are never neutral but, rather, active agents in the shaping of collective remembrance and forgetting and in the backing and legitimizing of various historical claims. As a result, scholars acknowledge the inherent - even if not always directly manifested - proximity of archival work to political and social power.1 Archives thus fulfill both practical and symbolic purposes and although they exist, in one form or another, in all literate societies, their real-life operations are guided by obligations that vary according to local cultural and legal frameworks.

As the creation and management of archival repositories can take different forms, an effort to provide a clear typology of archival institutions is not an easy task. The most basic distinction divides archives according to their institutional provenance: as public-governmental entities, as in-house units in various corporate settings (whether business oriented or public, non-profit institutions), and as community-run endeavors. Other distinctions, even if valid, are somewhat less helpful in clearly articulating the difference in commitments and institutional mandates.2 Given the context of this research, a slightly more crude terminology of just two groups is being used: formal and non-formal archives, divided according to the presence, or absence, of a legal

1 There are, of course, hundreds of introductions to the topic of archives. For example: Adrian Cunningham, “Archival Institutions”, in Archives: Recordkeeping in Society, eds. Sue McKemmish, Michael Piggott, Barbara Reed and Frank Upward, (Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, 2005), Pp. 21-50; Louise Craven, “From the Archivist’s Cardigan to the Very Dead Sheep: What are Archives? What are Archivists? What do They Do?”, in What are Archives? Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives: a reader, ed, Louise Craven, (London: Routledge, 2008), Pp. 7-30; Caroline Williams, “Records and Archives: Concepts, Roles and Definitions”, In Archives and Recordkeeping: Theory into Practice, ed. Caroline Brown, (London: Facet, 2014), Pp. 1-30. 2 Laura Millar, Archives: Principles and Practices, (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2010), Pp. 35-44.

42 duty to fulfill the record-keeping and archival functions. Formal archives operate within environments that are governed, for the most part, by existing legal frameworks and established mandates and policies that pre-determine what items are to be deposited and preserved. They include the governmental and business repositories which keep records of enduring value, created and sustained in order to serve as legal evidence and, in democratic settings, in support of public accountability. Non-formal archives, on the other hand, follow the definition of what archival science literature most commonly refers to as community archives: repositories that “grow out of the desire to collect documentary heritage that reflects common identities, experiences, and interests”.3

The discipline of archival science is primarily interested in questions of how to best perform the duties of archival practice. The answers that were provided to these questions, on technical, philosophical, or practical levels, helped archivists to develop core principles regarding order, access rights, and proper documentation and representation methods. Naturally then, until late, most research within the field focused on the work of formal archival institutions. This focus was further supported by the traditional ethos of archives as passive institutions, committed first and foremost to the safekeeping of documents and to providing proper access services to those individuals who were interested in their holdings. Still, with time, and primarily as a result of the acknowledgment of the above-mentioned agency of archives and archival work, a growing body of literature on community-based, non-formal archives, became apparent.4

The main challenge faced by the scholars that aimed to research and theorize the community archives phenomenon seemed to be the ability to offer a set of common characteristics through which to encapsulate these endeavours. A broad range of institutions, environments, and scopes were used as case studies, and the choices influenced the definitions, as well as the research questions. This challenge is apparent in the many descriptive titles that were used for the

3 Rebecka Sheffield, “Community Archives”, In Currents of Archival Thinking, eds. Heather MacNeil and Terry Eastwood, 2nd edition, (Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 2017), P. 351. 4 Terry Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms”, Archival Science, 13, 2-3, (2013), Pp. 95-120.

43 phenomena, with “independent”, “community”, “autonomous” archives, and even “community of records” as some of the examples, with each of these titles reflecting the diverse backgrounds, funding schemes, sources of legitimacy and most importantly, the nature of the community that these repositories aimed to represent.5 Can a shared conceptual background be used to group together archives based on religious affiliation, sexual orientation, a local village or an online group of shared-hobbies, both in terms of the group’s role in the individual’s life and with regards to the kinds of records that such affiliations help to produce? Overall, it seems literature on community archives still misses a clearer typology that would account for levels of both ‘communality’ and ‘archivality’, as a way to better understand, define, compare and evaluate the variety of repositories that are associated with this term, as well as acknowledge different and even competing collection endeavors that might occur within the same community.6

The literature on community archives tends to portray these repositories as mechanisms that aim to preserve and disseminate records and documents that were ignored – or even rejected - by formal repositories and thus, as enhancing social justice and as mobilizing, politically-motivated institutions.7 Probably the most outspoken representative for this 'activist' approach is the British scholar Andrew Flinn. Flinn conducted a comparative analysis of several non-formal repositories across the UK and suggested three fundamental characteristics through which to understand community archives: (1) the act of archival collection is performed by community members; (2)

5 Shaunna Moore and Susan Pell, “Autonomous Archives”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16, 4-5, (2010) Pp. 255 – 268; Eric Ketelaar, “A Living Archive, Shared by a Communities of Records”, in Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, eds. Jeanette Bastian and Ben Alexander, (London: Facet, 2009), Pp. 109-132; Jeannette Bastian, Owning Memory: How a Caribbean Community Lost Its Archives and Found Its History, (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2003). 6 The most important attributes for such a proposed typology seem to be the community’s size, geographical proximity between members, the timeframe of existence, levels of member engagement, strength of identity framework (racial, religious, sexual orientation etc.), financial capabilities, the kinds of records produced by the group and the number and its overall institutional completeness. These should all be seen, of course, as elements within a continuum. 7 For literature reviews on the topic of community archives see: Sheffield, “Community Archives”, Pp. 351-376; Andrea, J Copland, “Community Archives”, Annual Review of Cultural Heritage Informatics, ed. Samantha Hastings, (Lanham, MD: Rewman and Littlefield, 2014), Pp. 85-97. There appears to be a consensus within archival literature that community archiving should be seen as a dynamic and refreshing phenomenon that could help rejuvenate some of the existing practices within the profession. See Andrew Flinn, “The Impact of Independent and Community Archives on Professional Archival Thinking and Practice, In The Future of Archives and Record-keeping: A reader, ed. Jennie Hill, (London: Facet, 2011), Pp. 145 - 169.

44 the community maintains a certain level of custodianship over the collections, and (3) the act of collecting is motivated by the will to preserve and disseminate the community’s story.8 These three elements (which do not include geographical proximity, the kinds of records to be collected or any other cohesive factor that relates to the nature of the community that is involved with these kind of efforts) are translated into practical features such as diverse and inclusive collection practices which transcend the formal, mainstream distinctions between archives and other collecting institutions such as libraries or museums; cautious, and sometimes tense, relationships with official funding bodies and formal repositories; reliance on enthusiastic and charismatic leadership and volunteers support; the creation of documentary resources – most commonly, oral histories - as an essential source for collection development; possible different conceptualizations of what kind of materials might be considered as an archival record; and ongoing concerns regarding institutional sustainability and independence.9 These general characteristics were confirmed by the findings of other scholars in the field. Caswell, for example, suggested these five characteristics of community archives: participation (community involvement); shared stewardship models; collection of multiple types of records; activism and reflexivity (as in institutional flexibility).10

This activist framework, although helpful, does fall short of describing other kinds and other models of community archives, built and administered as tools through which to represent somewhat different historical experiences and challenges. For example, communities which are based on geographic proximity, on religious or ethnic affiliation or even ‘memory communities’ -

8 See Andrew Flinn, Mary Stevens and Elizabeth Shepherd, “Whose Memories, Whose Archives? Independent Community Archives, Autonomy and the Mainstream”, Archival Science. 9, 1, (2009), P. 73. For other explorations of the topic by Flinn – also in cooperation with others see: Andrew Flinn, “Community Histories, Community Archives: Some Opportunities and Challenges”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 28, 2, (2007), Pp. 151 – 176; Andrew Flinn and Mary Stevens, “It is noh mistri, we mekin histri': Telling Our Own Story: Independent and Community Archives in the UK, Challenging and Subverting the Mainstream”, in Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, Pp. 3-27; Anne Gilliand and Andrew Flinn, “Community Archives: What are we Really Talking About”, Keynote lecture: CIRN Prato 2013 community informatics conference (https://www.monash.edu/data/assets/pdf file/0007/920626/gilliland_flinn_keynote.pdf), Pp. 1-23. 9 Gilliand and Flinn, “Community Archives: What are we Really Talking About”, Pp. 8-11. 10 Michelle Caswell, “Toward a Survivor-Centered Approach to Records Documenting Human Rights Abuse: Lessons from Community Archives”, Archival Science, 14, (2014), Pp. 311-314.

45 communities that no longer exist in a physical space.11 Nevertheless, one can still notice that at least some of the elements suggested by Flinn are apparent also in these other community archives: from the importance of the individual practitioner in shaping the character of the repository, to the generally looser collection policies and practices.

An effort to position community archiving within a chronological context and as a part of broader intellectual shifts within archival theory was offered by Canadian archivist and scholar Terry Cook.12 Cook divided modern archival thought according to four general mindsets, or intellectual paradigms, that dominated it during different periods. Although he suggested four stages in this transformation (Cook named these stages ‘evidence’, ‘memory’, ‘identity’ and ‘community’ – broad and somewhat vague titles), Cook’s more fundamental distinction was between the commitment to provide 'evidence' - making archives strive for passiveness and objectivity, and the efforts to shape 'memory' - acknowledging the active roles the institution can play for its community of users. Overall, Cook suggested, one could note a gradual transformation from the perception of the archivist as a passive guardian of evidence, to an understanding – and later active pursuit – of the archivist as an active shaper of collective memory. Although Cook focused solely on internal developments within the archival profession and used examples that were taken from work conducted within official, mainstream archives, his model is helpful in chronologically positioning the intellectual shifts within archival thought. I will refer back to Cook’s model in the comparative chapter and use it as a way to place the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour within the broader landscape of archival thought.

11 For some case studies see Pauline Swords, “Politics, Heritage and Identity: Northern Ireland's Community Archives”, in Archives and Archivists 2, Current Trends and Voices, eds. Alisa, Holland and Elizabeth, Mullins, (Dublin, Portland, OR: Four courts, 2013), Pp. 98 – 113; Elizabeth Macknight, “Archives, Heritage and Communities”, Historical Reflections, 37, 2, (2011), Pp. 105 – 122; Lyndon Ormond-Parker and Robyn Sloggett, “Local Archives and Community Collecting in the Digital Age”, Archival Science, 12, 2, (2012), Pp. 191 – 212; John Erde, “Constructing Archives of the Occupy Movement”, Archives and Records: The Journal of the Archives and Records Association, 35, 2, (2014), Pp. 77 – 92; Hariz Halilovich, “Reclaiming Erased Lives: Archives, Records and Memories in Post-war Bosnia and the Bosnian Diaspora”, Archival Science. 14, 3, (2014), Pp. 231 – 247. 12 Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity and Community”.

Research dedicated to more specific case studies of well-defined groups can offer an extra layer of context to the complexities involved with the topic of community archives. An example of such a case study can be taken from research conducted on archives dedicated to the LGBT community. Although predominantly portrayed as part of the community’s struggle for acceptance and the consolidation of LGBT as a legitimate identity framework, literature on the subject also helps to reflect on some of the more concrete challenges involved with representing the highly diverse nature of a community in which many voices, experiences, issues of self-identification and therefore kinds of records produced, had to be accommodated.13 Sheffield contextualized LGBT repositories as following the general four stages within the life cycle of social activism groups: emergence, coalescence, bureaucratization, and then decline. However, besides pointing to the direct relationship between community archival endeavours and broader political and social trends, this activist model (and especially its fourth and final stage of decline), and other social- justice orientated contextualizations of community archival endeavours – seem to be less relevant when examining the Jewish case study.14

What value is therefore provided by the literature on community archives to the specific case study of modern Jewish community archives? Since the bulk of the scholarly work dedicated to these repositories describes them within the context of social change, the literature helps underline the motivations behind the acts of collecting and archiving as manifestations of cultural activism. The literature also points to the power of the individual in shaping these repositories, to their dialectical growth vis-à-vis the mainstream, usually state-backed, official archives and to the focus on the collection and accumulation of records as driven by identification with the group, rather than by legal necessity.15 On the other hand, as most of this literature was produced within the field of archival science, it seems to pay less attention to the fact that the act of archiving is, for the most part, perceived by those who initiate these repositories as a tool for the future

13 Marcel Barriault, "Archiving the Queer and Queering the Archives: A Case Study of the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (CLGA)", in Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, Pp. 97 – 108. See also Diana Wakimoto, Christine Bruce and Helen Partridge, “Archivist as Activist: Lessons from Three Queer Community Archives in California”, Archival Science, 13, 4, (2013), Pp. 293-316. 14 Sheffield, “Community Archives”, Pp. 367-372. 15 Copland, “Community Archives”, P. 86.

47 dissemination of historical knowledge, rather than as a stand-alone goal. Overall, the broadness of the term ‘community’ and the focus on the activist function make it hard to apply existing literature to the case study of Canadian Jewish archives. The following section therefore turns to look at research that dealt directly with archival work that was conducted by, or in relation to, an ethnic community framework.

3.1.2 Ethnic Archives

The term ethnic archives refers to efforts to capture and preserve records and documentation relevant to a community that is based on a joint cultural or geographic origin – a community created through immigration and encounter, as a cultural minority, with a new social and linguistic environment. The bulk of the research that tried to explore these endeavours was conducted from a North American perspective, the part of the world where such a phenomenon was, for many years, the most common. Furthermore, as ethnicity continues to be ”one of the most persistent and deeply ingrained aspects of identity” in both Canada and the US, ethnic archives also continue to be a relevant, ongoing concern for many ethnic groups.16 Ethnic identity is, of course, a dynamic and constructed identity framework, one that does not offer clear answers to questions of choice and participation, and which is differently perceived, interpreted and adjusted with every new generation. At that, scholars agree that ethnic archives are both tools through which to anchor a sense of solidarity between group members, as well as vehicles through which to negotiate contemporary interpretations of a collective past.17 In the words of Daniel, the most productive scholar in this field, “if ethnic groups are defined by a sense of common descent, real or imagined, and of a shared history and experience, then surely the

16 Dominique Daniel and Amalia S. Levi, “Introduction: From Containing to Shaping to Performing Ethnicity in the Archives”, in Identity Palimpsests: Archiving Ethnicity in the US and Canada, eds. Dominique Daniel and Amalia S. Levi, (Sacramento, CA: Litwin Books, 2014), P.2. 17 Joel Wurl, “Ethnicity as Provenance: In Search of Values and Principals for Documenting the Immigrant Experience”, Archival Issues, 29, 1, (2005), P. 68.

48 reconstruction of their history through archives cannot but have an impact on the ethnic group identity”.18

Most of Daniel’s research focused on the ways in which formal archives determine what kinds of records can be considered as representative of the experiences of ethnic communities. While she acknowledges the legal and cultural differences between Canada and the US, her research is based on case studies from both countries under a singular North American context. Overall she points to three periods in the evolution of ethnic archiving: pre-1960s as a period of limited interest, the 1960s to 1980s as a time of enthusiasm and energetic growth and from the 1990s onwards, as a period of acknowledgment of the inherent complexities of ethnic identities and a transformation of professional focus to more local, independent and digital initiatives.19 These periods also correlate with changes in scholarly perceptions of the concept of ethnicity, as well as with broader policy changes within many formal archives. Daniel attributes the initial growth of ethnic archiving to “a new political context increasingly responsive to minority rights and cultural diversity”, as well as to “rising interest in social history” and the understanding that identification with ethnic origins was actually ”there to stay”.20 Ethnic archiving, she argues, is a result of the efforts of historians, both academic and amateur, who were interested in the ethnic communities and with the processes of immigration, integration and acculturation, and discovered, while trying to research these topics, significant documentary gaps in the representation of such groups within the holdings of formal archives in both Canada and the US.

Daniel also conducted comparative research on the development of independent Jewish, German, and Finnish community historical societies and archives in the United States. In this research, she aimed to answer questions regarding when and why did ethnic communities choose to establish their own archival infrastructures, and how did these infrastructures

18 Dominique Daniel, “Archival Representations of Immigration and Ethnicity in North American History: From the Ethnicization of Archives to the Archivization of Ethnicity”, Archival Science, 14, 2, (2014), P. 171. 19 Ibid, Pp. 172-183. 20 Dominque Daniel, “Documenting the Immigrant and Ethnic Experience in America”, The American Archivist, 73, 1, (2010), Pp. 82-84.

49 correspond with the unique needs of each group.21 Daniel framed these initiatives as efforts to respond to the weakening of traditional markers of ethnic identity and showed how each group reacted differently to the tensions between assimilation and preservation of 'authentic' ethnic culture and in accordance to contemporary socio-political circumstances. Americans of German descent, despite being one of the first groups who formed ethnic historical societies in North America, rejected former pride in their origins, mostly as a result of the two World Wars, and, consequently, gradually relinquished their independent archival and collection efforts. The archival history of Finns in North America was also directly influenced by the geopolitical sensitivities of the homeland. Political divisions within the North American Finnish community reflected internal political divisions in Finland and have resulted in the failure of all attempts to build a central, unified community repository. At the same time, during the 1960’s and 1970’s, universities in Finland began to acquire archival collections from North American Finns as part of a concrete policy to create “an anchor against any eastward drift” within the country.22 The American-Jewish community – whose archival programs are further discussed in the next section of this chapter – initiated its archival infrastructure as an effort to disseminate the contributions of its members to American history and to portray itself as a 'safe ethnicity' in a time when more and more accusations were heralded in the public sphere against Jewish relations with global Communism. Thus, according to Daniel, there is no one model through which to describe ethnic archives as each endeavour needs to be explored as a product of specific time and place and as a reflection of the changing historical circumstances of each group.23

Still, one could identify several common elements across these endeavours. All initiatives shared a desire to portray the community in a positive light and to provide evidence to its long and ongoing history in the country. In that, the archival endeavour was also perceived as an affirmation of the group’s independent history and strength of identity.24 As a result, those who

21 Dominique Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage in North America: Ethnic Organizations and the Documentary Heritage”, IdeAs, 6, (2015), https://journals.openedition.org/ideas/1089. 22 Edward Laine, “Archival Resources Relating to Finnish Canadians”, Archivaria, 7, (1978), P.112. 23 Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage”, Pp. 8-9. 24 Ibid; See also Elisabeth Kaplan, “We are What we Collect, We Collect What we are: Archives and the Construction of Identity”, The American Archivist, 63, 1, (2000), Pp. 136-140.

50 were involved with these endeavors tried to steer away from more controversial topics related to their ethnic identities, as well as from portrayal of more recent, less acculturated, immigrants who belonged to the group. The underlining motivation behind these repositories, at least during their earlier history, seems to be therefore different from, if not opposed to, the activist model that dominates the community archives literature. Another noteworthy element relating to ethnic archives is the generational gap with regards to the experiences that are considered to be part of the ethnic identity.25 While the immigrating generation is steeped in another culture, often “too busy to think of how the future might view them” and experiences ethnic identity as inherently different – the next generation is already formed within the new environment and as a result, develops a different kind of conceptualization of the essence of its ethnic identity.26

Daniel further demonstrated how the practices of ethnic archiving were extremely varied in both methods and scope, a natural result of the principle of using one’s ethnicity as the source for archival provenance. Concern for representing the experiences of ordinary people and the need to base archival decisions around the concept of identity meant that a new approach, one that differed, both practically and philosophically, from earlier conceptualizations of archival work, had to be developed. Questions such as what types of experiences could be considered as ethnic; whether collection efforts should focus on significant figures and pioneers or on regular men and women, and how to determine and define the two terms; whether archived records should consist solely of those created in the new country or could also include records from the old one, demanded answers and redefined the scope of what could be considered as an archival record. These questions were coupled with the need to actively encourage and win the trust of community members in order for them to donate their records, and with the need to create records - mostly through oral histories – where none existed, all of which helped the gradual transformation of long-held professional ideas and worldviews regarding the essence of archival work.27

25 For a discussion of this topic see John Appel, Immigrant historical societies in the United States, 1880-1950, (New York: Arno Press, 1980), Pp. 1-8. 26 Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage”, P. 2. 27 Daniel, “Documenting the Immigrant and Ethnic Experience”, Pp. 87-93.

Turning to more specific case studies, in similarity to Jews, African Americans could also be considered as an American group that was part of the general citizenry yet developed and maintained its own cultural forms and a sense, which was for many years backed by social realities, of essential difference. Gibbs demonstrated how most of the archival-related debates within the African-American community revolved around ways to integrate proper group representation into mainstream institutions, before turning attention towards independent archival endeavours.28 She thus claimed that African American archival history, as in “the evolution of self-documentation in the African-American community”, could be seen as a mirror of more general trends within African-American history and identity.29 Other elements noted by Gibbs were that also within the African-American community’s documentation efforts, the acquisition of evidence on accomplishments and contributions was prioritized and used as a method to refute pervading negative stereotypes. Gibbs also showed how independent archival endeavours helped surface the many internal divisions and debates within the community – mostly a result of “a historic social hierarchy within the community most notable along the lines of class, gender, and sexual orientation.30 Gibbs thus introduced the challenge of representing the diversity of geographical, social and gender divisions that always exists under the broader title of ethnicity and which, unless acknowledged and addressed, can lead to “segregated collection objectives and internalized social hierarchies”.31

Another case study was offered by Bastian in her seminal work on the archival records of the US Virgin Island territory and the complex relationships between a local community and its historical records.32 The main framework that informed Bastian’s study was the post colonial perspective of its subject, and her focus turned to the question of the absence of records – and of the ability

28 Rabia Gibbs, “The Heart of the Matter: The Developmental History of African American Archives”, The American Archivist, 75, 1, (2012), Pp. 195-204. 29 Ibid, P. 196. 30 Ibid, P. 197. 31 Ibid, P. 195. 32 Jeannette Bastian, Owning Memory: How a Caribbean Community Lost Its Archives and Found Its History, (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2003).

52 to access them - as a way to explore relations between a community and its historical memory. Although these circumstances were somewhat different from the ones of the Canadian Jewish context, Bastian’s work still provides some important insights that are of benefit to this dissertation. Firstly, Bastian shows how an archival repository needs to be conceived as part of a broader eco-system of collective memory and in direct relation to the ability and effort to produce rigorous historiographical accounts that help sustain the community’s overall sense of purpose and confidence. Furthermore, her research demonstrated the importance of introducing the concrete cultural and historical background as a crucial aspect in the ability to write archival histories that manage to capture the full implications of their subject. Most importantly, Bastian research provided insights on the need for a broader conceptualization of the archival concept of provenance as a way to capture and accommodate a fuller and more inclusive array of the possible contexts of historical records. As evident in the following chapters, this idea played a core part in the opposition of Canadian Jewish archival activists to the notion of Jewish records making their way to official archival agencies rather than being maintained within a community- controlled space.

Overall, the literature on ethnic archives offers a much more concrete context for a discussion on Canadian Jewish archival endeavours. Daniel provided a deeply perceptive framework which was also adopted by this study, and that situates the ethnic archives endeavour as part of the “process of hyphenation” and in correlation with the fluidity of ethnic identity.33 The different case studies also help to position the archival process, aiming for stability and posterity, as an almost paradoxical endeavour within the shifting perspectives and priorities of ethnic identities. Daniel called for more research into specific case studies to be conducted in order to “better understand the contextual factors that shape ethnic archiving policies and practices” and to realize what are “the stakes of ethnic archiving”.34 To do so, while maintaining the conceptual framework of 'ethnic archives', one needs to also address the more specific elements which are created through the distinct Jewish context of the archival endeavour. The next section therefore

33 Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage”, P. 6. 34 Daniel, “Archival Representations”, P. 198; Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage”, P. 10.

53 turns to look at ‘Jewish archives’ as a specific case study of archival work within a unique cultural setting. Are there any discernible archival practices, sensitivities or structures which were part of Jewish culture and that would be helpful for the exploration of the Canadian Jewish case study?

3.2 Jewish Archives and Archival Work

Knowledge of, and a sense of affiliation with, a collective past, either historically- concrete or mythological, was, and still is, one of the most crucial elements in the Jewish socialization process. As Jews tended to live in close-knit communities within larger, host national, cultural, and religious environments, shared collective memories, as a source of legitimacy, identification, and sense of meaning and purpose, played a vital part in the preservation and shaping of group identity. Furthermore, given the chronological, territorial and linguistic disparity between what could be included under the title of Jewish history, shared collective memories are also crucial in allowing one to assume a level of continuation and coherence in Jewish experiences through history.

As the most dominant framework of Jewish life was that of a tolerated minority within other national settings, records pertaining to Jews appear in many different formal, national, regional, and municipal archives. As shown by Bein, whether such records were kept as separate collections or integrated into existing bureaucratic divisions, depended on the contemporary legal status of Jews. As a rule of thumb, in places and periods where Jews enjoyed equal citizenry rights, one would naturally tend to find fewer records pertaining specifically to Jewish issues, and only if these were kept by the community’s own archives, if and when such archives existed or survived.35 This review therefore limits itself to the literature on independent Jewish archival endeavours as in efforts to group together records and documents that represented the social and historical experiences of organized Jewish communities. This decision means ignoring

35 Alexander Bein, “Archives”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, Vol. 2, (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, Keter Publishing House, 2007), Pp. 405-406.

54 collection practices conducted within a Jewish national sovereign entity such as the State of Israel, acting under constraints of a specific legal environment and as a result of the needs of a modern bureaucracy. Nor does this section examines ancient, biblical or post-biblical Jewish archival endeavours. These, despite falling under the title of Jewish archives, are too chronologically removed and have no direct effect on the more specific Canadian Jewish experience.

So far, hardly any effort had been made from within the purview of archival science to look at Jewish archives from a comparative or theoretical perspective. In fact, besides an almost fifty years old entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, the only effort to date was a 2016 article that offered an initial theoretical and historical review of the topic.36 Nevertheless, references to Jewish collection and archiving traditions can still be found in historical accounts that deal with the rise of Jewish historiography in the German and Eastern European cultural spheres.37 Other than these, one can also find several other reports and surveys regarding Jewish archival materials within a specific country or linguistic region, many of which are dedicated to the fate of Jewish archives – and cultural assets in general – during and after the Nazi Holocaust.38

Through the medieval and early modern periods, and with the consolidation of the organized Jewish community as the primary regulatory framework of Jewish life, one finds a variety of Jewish repositories, varying in size and aspirations according to their location, community size,

36 Bein, “Archives”; Silvia Schenkolewski-Kroll, “Jewish Archives and Archival Documents: Israel and the Diaspora”, Archival Science, 16, 3, (2016), Pp. 309-326. 37 Jeffrey Veidlinger, Jewish Public Culture in the Late Russian Empire, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009); Itzik Nakhman Gottesman, Defining the Yiddish Nation: The Jewish Folklorists of Poland, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2003); Cecile Esther Kunitz, YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 38 Karen Robson, “The Anglo-Jewish Community and its Archives”, Jewish Culture and History, 12, 1-2, (2010), Pp. 337 – 344; Lisa Leff, “Zosa Szajkowski, Historian and Thief of French Jewish Archives”, Archives Juives, 49, 1, (2016), Pp. 54 – 80; Bruce Montgomery, “Rescue or Return: The Fate of the Iraqi Jewish Archive”, International Journal of Cultural Property, 20, 2, (2013), Pp. 175 – 200; Hilda Nissimi, “Heritage centres in Israel: Depositories of a lost identity?”, Jewish Culture and History, 15, 1-2, (2014), Pp. 55-75; Dennis Rein, “The Holdings of the Former Jewish Communities in Germany in the Central Archives for the Jewish People in Jerusalem, Review of the Various Communal Archives”, Arkhiyyon, 12, (2003), Pp. 58–78 [In Hebrew]; Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, F.J. Hoogewoud and Eric Ketelaar, Returned from Russia: Nazi Archival Plunder in Western Europe and Recent Restitution Issues, (Builth Wells, Great Britain: Institute of Art and Law, 2007).

55 and the local Jewry’s political and legal status. Registers concerning life events such as births, marriages or deaths, as well as the maintenance of genealogical lists, were conducted, for the most part, independently by the community, a result of the relative isolation of Jewish life and lack of interest from formal authorities in such events. These records were kept within registries known as pinkas kehila (translated as “community notebook”), manuscript books that also tended to contain internal rules, budgets, and correspondences with religious authorities from outside of the community. Both current and past pinkasim (plural for pinkas) were usually kept in the synagogue, the centre of traditional Jewish community life. Schenkolewski-Kroll, in her outline of Jewish archival practices, referred to these pinkasim as the community’s fonds.39 Although several pinkasim have been preserved, no comparative research – within the Jewish world or in comparison to other minority groups - was so far conducted with regards to the record keeping functions fulfilled by these pinkasim or why and what elements were chosen to be contained and preserved in them.40 Schenkolewski-Kroll suggested to compare medieval and early modern Jewish archives to the archives of a guild, given the wide array of topics it dealt with, as well as to its desire to protect the records from non-community members.41

This notion of the sensitivity of recorded information leads to another traditional concept that could be contextualized as a unique element within the domain of Jewish community archiving: the notion of Genizah. This concept appears already in biblical texts in relation to the Persian royal archives, but later became a more general signifier of both the act and the place where sacred texts and other liturgical artifacts, worn out or inappropriate for ritual use, were buried or left to disintegrate, many times in a locked or hidden room within a synagogue. Again, there is no integrative study of this ritual, but in several regions it became a practice of community members to add personal documents and records which had no religious value to their local Genizah. This practice resulted in some important collections of historical records that became

39 Schenkolewski-Kroll, “Jewish Archives”, P. 311. 40 A recent digitization project administered by the National Library of Israel and the Simon Dubnow Institute for Jewish History and Culture al Leipzig University, now offers an online platform for comparative review of several Pinkasim. http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/collections/jewish-collection/pinkassim/Pages/default.aspx. 41 Ibid, P. 312.

56 available to researchers through the years.42 Nevertheless, not incorporating any elements of order, access, or even preservation in the more traditional sense, Genizah cannot be considered as an archive. What this tradition does offer though is the notion of protection and safekeeping which seem to have remained an on-going motif in later Jewish archival efforts. Furthermore, it implies a perception of texts and records as an inherent part of the community’s symbolic assets, kept not just in order to be advised with or because of their historical value, but simply as an acknowledgment of the community’s broader lifecycle.

Interestingly, although enjoying high literacy rates, and despite portraying the remembrance of past events as a value and as a religious duty of traditional Jewish life, historiography was not a common literary genre in post-biblical Jewish culture.43 Yerushalmi argued that the lack of interest in chronologies or community annals (which were relatively popular genres in most other medieval European cultures) did not mean Jews were not invested in their past, but rather, that they maintained different attitudes towards historical causes and effects, which were best manifested through ritual and liturgy. The interpretation of the local, immediate past was thus subjected to the models offered by the ‘mythical time’ that was commemorated through the cyclical calendrical order of Jewish life and the weekly readings from the bible.44 As a result, hardly any effort was made to document or preserve contemporary experiences as worthy historical sources, and from the many Jewish literary products that were produced during the medieval and early modern periods, very few were written from of a historiographical perspective.45 As noted by Yerushalmi, one of the main reasons why modern research into Jewish

42 Abraham Meir Habermann, “Genizah”, Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, Vol. 7, P. 460. The most well known of these collections is the Cairo Genizah, which became an essential source for historical research on medieval Jewish life in Egypt and North Africa, see Adina Hoffman and Peter Cole, Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza, (New York: Nextboot, Schocken, 2011). 43 The demand 'to remember' appears frequently in the bible, mostly in relation to godly interventions in history and as a foundational part of the group's identity – forgetting their historical role as a nation chosen by god would be answered by the group subject to violence and humiliation. 44 Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish Memory and Jewish History, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982), Pp. 40 – 48. Yerushalmi's views on traditional Jewish memory were later contested. Funkenstein argued that each Jewish community had its own local history, traditions and identity – but still, not within a framework of belonging to world history but rather through belonging only to 'Jewish history' which was seen as a separate realm of causes and effects. See: Funkenstein, “Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness”, Pp. 12-18. 45 The only exception was the ‘Shalshelet Ha’Yochsin’ genre – lists of rabbinical figures that were used as evidence to claims of rabbinical authority between local communities and as a way to attract students of Jewish religious law.

57 history took a relatively longer time to develop was because “bibliographical and archival foundations had to be established as almost none existed”.46

Concentrated efforts to establish designated Jewish archival repositories that could serve scholarly historiographical purposes grew from the mid 19th century onward and resulted in two different working models. Within the German Jewish cultural sphere, efforts focused on the collection of records and documents that marked the religious and philosophical peaks of Jewish culture, as well as on the desire to locate archival records that could provide evidence on the long chronology and historical continuity of Jewish presence in their areas of habitat. With the integration of Jews into academic institutions across Germany, these processes quickly intensified and professionalized, even if the overarching motivation that guided them remained the effort to prove the positive contribution of Jews and Judaism to the surrounding culture, and especially during the period after Jews were granted equal citizenship. Efforts were also made to centralize a variety of local collections into one central repository as a way to support the archival programs of smaller communities and as part of the desire to develop unified community mechanisms. Despite ongoing resistance by several local communities, the Central Archives of German Jews was established in Berlin in 1905.47 This model of archival collection as a tool to portray Jews as loyal, long-settled citizens and as active participants in the state-building effort, or in the words of Daniel, as “a safe ethnicity”,48 was shared by most other Jewish communities in Western Europe, as well as influenced early Jewish archival endeavours in the US.49

A somewhat different collection and archiving model was developed in the region that included the highest concentration of Jews during the 19th and early 20th centuries: the 'pale of settlement' that stretched across parts of Poland, Ukraine, and Western Russia. Less accultured, not allowed to fully participate in formal academic institutions and not enjoying the same civil liberties as their Western European counterparts, Jews from ‘the Yiddish Nation’ were forced to develop

46 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, P. 87. 47 Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith, (Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2005), P. 119. 48 Daniel, “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage”, P. 10. 49 Kaplan, “We Are What We Collect”, Pp. 135-136.

58 their own cultural institutional infrastructures. Collection and documentation efforts began to take shape during the late 19th century, mostly in correlation with contemporary acts of mass violence against Jews, and were fueled by the hope that reliable evidence from such incidents would help mobilize public opinion and Jewish communities in the west to support the plight of Jews in the region.50 By the early 20th century, these efforts were consolidated into a more systematic collection of ethnographic and historical materials. But unlike the Western European model, these endeavours aimed to document and collect materials about Jewish life and experiences as an independent cultural phenomenon, rather than focus on its contributory elements. Another factor that motivated and shaped this archival working model was the sense that the traditional fabrics of Jewish life were quickly disappearing under the weight of economic modernization, urbanization and westwards immigration. Attention was therefore turned towards the collection of more recent ethnographic manifestations of Yiddish folk-culture such as songs, tales, and proverbs. Given the region’s political conditions, formal authorities were distrusted, and the collection was conducted mostly on a voluntary basis and by a new generation of Zamlers, young, committed intellectuals, who were not able to find other, more formal, venues for their creative energies as most of them were excluded from academia due to their Jewish origin.51 The guiding principle behind these endeavours, as declared by historian Samuel Dubnov, was to show that Jews constituted a nation apart, rather than a religious minority, and so, deserved to enjoy the rights of an ethnic minority.52 In 1925, in Vilnius, an independent Jewish research centre, the Yiddish Scientific Institute (YIVO) was established and with it, a central archive that was dedicated to the documentation and study of Eastern European Jewish life.53

The Nazi Holocaust, followed by the creation of the State of Israel, marked a watershed in modern Jewish history, and as a result, also in Jewish archival history. The war brought with it the

50 Brian Horowitz “Building a Fragile Edifice: A History of Russian-Jewish Historical Institutions, 1860-1914”, In The Russian-Jewish Tradition: Intellectuals, Historians, Revolutionaries, (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2017), P. 28; Laura Jockush, Collect and Record: Jewish Holocaust Documentation in Early Postwar Europe, (New York, Oxford University Press, 2012), Pp. 18-33. 51 Gottesman, Defining the Yiddish Nation, P. 171. 52 Horowitz, “Building a Fragile Edifice”, P.20; Veidlinger, Jewish Public Culture in the Late Russian Empire, Pp. 229- 260. 53 Kunitz, YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture, Pp. 44-70.

59 destruction of many local Jewish community archives, either deliberately, or as a side effect of the prolonged chaos. Paradoxically, some archival collections were preserved due to the German desire to build a central archive and research centre dedicated to the Jewish problem.54 The war also stimulated new documentation efforts that were dedicated to the extreme conditions experienced by most European Jews during the war – from the Oneg Shabbat archive that was created in the Warsaw Ghetto, to the post-war establishment of several Holocaust-focused archival repositories across the world and the many projects dedicated to the gathering of survivors testimonies. As the war brutally reshuffled the cultural and demographical centres of world Jewry, its aftermath within the Jewish archival scene was dominated by the desire to document the Holocaust, to trace and reacquire lost collections and to transfer archival materials to the two remaining centres of Jewish life: Israel and the US. These efforts surfaced open-ended questions regarding custodianship, continuity and cultural heritage both within the Jewish world and in relation to the status of Jews in their countries of origin and thus, reflected some of the ongoing tensions between different perceptions regarding the nature of Jewish identity.55

Despite some substantial differences, the closest comparative framework for the Canadian Jewish archival scene is that of American Jewry. Both communities grew and flourished within the stable democratic North American environment, and both were shaped by the immigration of Eastern European Jews during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (more so in Canada as the US enjoyed a more substantial Jewish presence, made mostly of German Jews, already during the mid-eighteenth century). The American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS) came to life in 1892 and regarded the collection and preservation of historical materials as a way to support research and publication concerning American Jewry history, as one of its core missions. The primary motivation behind the creation of the AJHS was to employ its services in the struggle

54 Yoram Mayorek, “The Fate of Jewish Archives During and after the Holocaust”, in Preserving Jewish Archives as part of the Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the Conference on Judaica Archives in Europe, Potsdam, 1999, 11-13 July, eds. Jean-Claude Kuperminc and Rafaële Arditti, (Paris: Nadir de l'alliance israélite universelle, 2001), Pp. 33-38. 55 See examples in Schenkolewski-Kroll, “Jewish Archives”, Pp. 314-323; Other or more detailed examples can be found in: Montgomery, “Rescue of Return”; Jason Lustig, “Who are to be the Successors of European Jewry? The Restitution of German Jewish Communal and Cultural Property”, Journal of Contemporary History, 52, 3, (2017), Pp. 519-545; Sarah Abrevaya Stein, “Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Buried Troves: Decolonization and the Multi-Sited Archives of Algerian Jewish History”, The American Historical Review, 120, 3, (2015), Pp. 900-919.

60 against contemporary anti-Semitism, on the rise as part of the flow of Eastern European Jews to the country. As a result, although the AJHS’ establishment, and activities, marked a crucial stage in the process of the maturity of American Jewry, the organization tended to follow a filiopietistic ethos that was evident in its collection and publication priorities.56

Only after the end of World War Two, when the fuller implications of the terrible fate of European Jewry became evident and American Jewry became the leading demographic and economic centre of world Jewry, was local history acknowledged as a critical venue that had to be pursued by professional historians. In 1947 historian Jacob Rader Marcus founded in Cincinnati the American Jewish Archives (AJA) as a national repository dedicated to the support of academic research into American Jewish history.57 But the AJA’s location meant that it was not able to fulfill the role of a national archive and several other libraries, research centres, and local repositories were established in other cities and in various Universities across the US during the next few years.58 Most of these repositories were located on the east coast, where the largest centres of American Jews were located. New York, the epicenter of Jewish American life, was home to several important Jewish archives. The most substantial American Jewish agencies such as the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee had their main offices in the city and chose to keep their vast archives in house. After the war, New York also became the home of two repositories that were dedicated to the collection of materials from the now-vanished European Jewries: the Leo Beck Institute for the research of German Jewry and YIVO, whose activists managed to ship a portion of its archival collection to America before and during the war. During the nineteen fifties several efforts to consolidate different repositories

56 On the AJHS: Jeffrey S Gurock, “Introduction”, American Jewish History, 81, 2, Centennial Issue, (1993/1994), Pp. 155-164; Hasia R Diner, “The Study of American Jewish History: In the Academy, in the Community”, Polish American Studies, 65, 1, (2008), Pp. 42-43; Ira Robinson, “The Invention of American Jewish History”, in Translating a Tradition, Studies in American Jewish History, (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008), Pp. 1-15; Beth Wegner, History Lessons, The Creation of American Jewish Heritage, (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010). 57 Jacob Rader Marcus, “The Program of the American Jewish Archives”, in The Dynamics of American Jewish History: Jacob Rader Marcus’s Essays on American Jewry, ed, with introductions and notes, Gary Phillip Zola, (Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, Brandeis University Press, 2004), Pp. 108-115. 58 Diner, “The Study of American Jewish History”, Pp. 43-45. See also Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the American Humanities: Jewish Learning and the New Humanities, (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); David Zeff, “Archives”, American Jewish Yearbook, Vol. 61, 1960, Pp. 151-154.

61 into a central Jewish American archive were initiated, but, due to disagreements as to where should such a repository be located and the mandates and priorities it should pursue, these plans failed to materialize. This failure, as shown by Lustig, reflected, the contradicting approaches towards the question of how should the history of American Jews be researched and presented.59

Overall, the archival history of American Jewry displays certain resemblances to the Canadian one, as well as some significant differences. In both countries an inherent connection existed between the archival and the historiographical endeavours and in both, early archival initiatives originated from the work of amateurs before they consolidated through the support of professional, academic historians. One also finds in both settings tensions between two competing visions – the creation of a central, national archival centre versus the notion of a network of regional solutions. As noted, there were also several significant differences between the two Jewries, mostly a result of the differences in size and scope. The expansion and professionalization process began in the US almost immediately after the Second World War, about two decades earlier than in Canada, and was motivated by the sudden sense of responsibility and maturity US Jewry experienced as a result of the transformation in the demographic makeup of world Jewry. Furthermore, in the US academic historians such as Salo Baron, Moses Rischin, Jakob Marcus, and Oscar Handlin turned their attention to American Jewish history as a result of their understanding of the new significance of American Jewry and they took on a leading role in the archival endeavour from a very early stage.60 On the other hand, unlike their Canadian counterparts, the leaders of the American Jewish archival programs could not enjoy the services of a common, unifying organizational platform such as the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Furthermore, although in both countries the vision of a national Jewish archive faced many obstacles, the reasons for those differed. As shown by Lustig, in the US, the fact that the controlling bodies that the archival repositories were affiliated with different Jewish religious

59 Jason Lustig, “Building a Home for the Past: Archives and the Geography of American Jewish History”, American Jewish History, 102, 3, (2018), Pp. 375 – 399. 60 Pearl Berger, “Jewish Libraries and Archives in America”, Judaica Librarianship, 12, (2006), P. 18-21; Hasia Diner, “American Jewish History”, in The Oxford handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman, (Oxford University Press, Print Publication Date: December 2004; Online Publication Date: September 2009), Doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199280322.013.0019, Pp. 3-9.

62 denominations, was one of the primary sources of contention.61 As well, the prominence of American Jewry meant that while some repositories wished to focus solely on local-American collections, others had for more global aspirations, both in terms of collections and with regards to the overall institutional goals and the kinds of research it was destined to support.62 One more difference between the two Jewries lies in the role played by the non-Jewish archival agencies – while in Canada, these played a fundamental role in motivating the community’s programs, in the US, the formal archives seemed to have not to played any role – as motivators, as endorsers or as competitors – with regards to the shaping of the Jewish archival landscape.

Modern Jewish archival endeavours can therefore be best contextualized as specific case studies of ethnic archiving and as efforts to collect historical materials in support of future historiographical interpretations. They were shaped by the context of the experience of a cultural minority group and by the desire to illustrate its contributions, sense of belonging and successful integration, as well as its symbolic unity, pride of origin and commitment towards future generations. As well, the motivation to conduct such documentation and collection projects was in most cases stimulated by a crisis situation – something that Jewish history was not in short supply of - be it as a result of acts of mass violence or more subtle processes that involved a sense of duty to preserve traces of traditional ways of life that seemed to be vanishing, or, in the case of American Jews, a sudden sense of responsibility and leadership.63 In North America, where Jews always enjoyed equal citizenry and relative stability, archival endeavours were also perceived as part of the identity-shaping tools through which the community could fight the threat of assimilation. Another unique aspect of Jewish archives is that, as a result of the turbulent course of twentieth-century Jewish history, the biographies of many Jewish archival collections and repositories reflect the patterns of migration and creation of new demographic and cultural centres. The stories of the transitions and whereabouts of these collections and repositories could thus illuminate several core patterns of Jewish history, mainly with regards to

61 Lustig, “Building a Home for the Past”, Pp. 383-384. 62 Ibid, Pp. 385-388. 63 Jockush, Collect and Record, Pp. 18-45; David Roskies, The Jewish Search for a Usable Past, (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999), Pp. 17-25.

63 the relationship between individual Jewish identities and the senses of belonging to broader community, religion and national circles.

3.4 Conclusion:

The collection, preservation, and ownership of documents and records of historical value are acts shared by all literate societies. At the same time, different groups, harboring a variety of social and cultural needs, perform and conceptualize these acts in more than just one way. Exploring how archival-related work was perceived, explained, planned and executed, can therefore help scholars to better appreciate some of the contemporary issues, worldviews and social circumstances that affected the groups that they wish to study. This is especially true when looking at non-formal, community environments, free of pre-determined legal requirements regarding the ways in which the archival duties need to be performed.

Literature regarding non-formal archives emphasises the flexibility, self-consciousness, and proactive approaches that dominate this domain of social activity. These qualities are a direct result of the motivation to base archival work on the fluid perspective of identity, ever in flux and in a constant stage of negotiation. As such endeavours usually take place, either directly or incidentally, vis-à-vis the dominant, national archival programs, they are typically perceived by their initiators as marking the group’s autonomy, self-confidence, and existence as an independent historical entity, both in the past and in the present. In that, a close inspection of the development of ethnic archives could help a researcher to understand the ways in which members of an ethnic group perceive the roles, threats and future existence of their group within the ever-encroaching dominant culture in which they reside.

For the more specific case study of Jewish archives, the literature points to a tradition of Jewish archiving, borne out of the collective historical experiences of Jews as a threatened minority, committed to maintaining independence and integrity of a separate identity framework. In

64 modernity, Jewish archival endeavours were also a product of the desire to promote a deeper historiographical understanding of Jewish history as a concrete, secular, time-bound experience. Both archival models that were created within the realm of European Jewish culture proved just how the desire to represent the past was also a negotiation with a specific present and both, as a result of immigration patterns, found echoes in the archival initiatives that were created in the North American Jewish centres. The next chapter therefore turns to deal with the broader contemporary environment in which Canadian Jewry operated during the 1970’s and sets the stage for the more specific discussion of the archival initiatives within the three main centres of Jewish settlement in Canada.

Chapter 4: Historical Settings, The CJC, PAC and the MHSO

This dissertation explores the dynamic relationships between the archival programs developed within the context of an ethno-cultural community and some of the broader contemporary social, cultural, and identity-related issues that affect community members. While the previous chapter reviewed the scholarly literature on non-formal, ethnic and Jewish archival work from a comparative and theoretical perspective, this chapter turns to look at the concrete local circumstances that were part of Canadian Jewish life and the Canadian archival scene. The chapter thus provides the fundamental reference point for the dissertation’s argument for apparent relationships between archival decision-making and broader political and cultural frameworks. The chapter’s first section deals with the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), a pivotal governance mechanism in organized Canadian Jewish life during the mid-twentieth century, and the organization that initiated and administered the bulk of the community’s archival work, both before and during the period covered by this dissertation. Reviewing the origins, organizational structure, and contemporary challenges faced by the CJC during the nineteen-seventies, is a necessary step in better contextualizing the forces that affected and shaped the community’s archival scene. The second part of the chapter reviews the efforts of governmental archival agencies to collect historical materials originating from Canadian ethnic groups as part of the implementation of multicultural policies and the desire to accurately represent the contribution of all ethnic elements in the shaping of Canadian society. Familiarity with the broader Canadian archival landscape and with how formal archival repositories interpreted their commitment to multicultural policies helps highlight the crucial role played by state agencies in motivating and shaping the community’s own archival initiatives.

65 66

4.1 Canadian Jews and The Canadian Jewish Congress

Under the orders of the French Crown Jews were not permitted to settle in the territory of New France, and as a result, organized Jewish presence in Canada began only after the British army gained control over the region during the mid-eighteenth century. After more than a century of only minor Jewish presence through the vast dominion, the community was transformed by the mass-migration of Eastern-European Jews to North America, a process which meant that by early twentieth century, Jews already maintain a much more significant and noticeable presence in Canada. Since then, Canadian Jewry had been characterized by continuous and steady demographic growth, an absence of a state, or fellow-citizens, inflicted violence, and life in a democratic society which gradually integrated Jews into its mainstream.

Several scholars pondered the fundamental socio-historical elements through which to define the Canadian Jewish experience and have tended to do so by employing a comparative framework – either with other ethnic groups in Canada or with the experiences of Jewish communities in other national settings. Comparisons to other ethnic groups in Canada emphasised the Jewish commitment to the creation and maintenance of a robust self-governance infrastructure, comprised of a plethora of local and regional organizations aspiring to “institutional completeness” in support of the various life stages and potential needs of community members.1 Even if the development of such organizational infrastructure was not unique to Jews – the level of specialization, sophistication and the variety of organizations that were involved with it was, and still is, unmatched by any other ethno-cultural group in Canada. This ongoing commitment to

1 Morton Weinfeld, Like Everyone else but Different: The Paradoxical Success of Canadian Jews, (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2001), Pp. 153-170; Michael Rosenberg and Jack Jedwab, “Institutional Completeness, Ethnic Organizational Style and the Role of the State: the Jewish, Italian and Greek Communities of Montreal”, Canadian Review of Sociology, 29, 3, (1992), Pp. 266-287. Institutional completeness is an element that characterizes not just Canadian Jewry but many other Jewish communities across the world.

67 maintain a “self-governing quasi-state”,2 can be traced back to the community’s Eastern- European origins and was a result of, as well as strengthened by, two other unique aspects of the Jewish group: its dual, religious and ethnic, identity frameworks and its principal commitment to fight assimilation by nurturing members identification with, and active participation in, Jewish community life.3

Comparisons between Canadian Jewry and other Jewish communities across the world were conducted mostly vis-a-vis US Jewry, with whom Canadian Jews share many sociological and cultural traits. Despite the inherent difficulty of such a comparison due to the difference in scale, scholars pointed to elements such as Canada’s cultural duality (especially visible in Montreal, the historical centre of Canadian Jewish life); the need to deal with the unique brand of French-Catholic anti-Semitism; and the community’s relative religious, cultural and demographic homogeneity, as the elements that marked the main differences between the Canadian and the US Jewish identity frameworks. These factors, together with the notion that “where everyone is a hyphenated Canadian, Jews do not stand out from their fellow countrymen”4, i.e., that it was overall easier to preserve one’s minority identity in Canada in comparison to the US, were also given as the main reasons why Canadian Jews maintained – and continue to do so - a relatively higher record of involvement and commitment to Jewish values and causes.5

2 Weinfeld, Like Everyone Else, P. 164. 3 Bernard Vigod’s book, The Jews in Canada, (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1984) was published as a part of the Canadian Historical Society series on Canada’s ethnic groups. Vigod concluded that Jews were both ethnic and religious group and that the freedom of individual choice between these two frameworks was the key to understanding the strong group affiliations. Likewise, the Canadian census acknowledges, and has done so for many years, the distinction between Judaism as a religion and as an ethnicity and each respondent is free to choose affiliation with both or with just one of the two. 4 Daniel Elazar and Harold Waller, Maintaining Consensus: The Canadian Jewish Polity in the Postwar World, (Lanham, MD: The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs & University Press of America, 1990), P. 5. 5 Gerald Tulchinsky, “The Contours of Canadian Jewish History”, in The Jews in Canada, eds. Robert Brym, William Shaffir, Morton Weinfeld, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993), Pp. 5-21; Jonathan Sarna, “The Value of Canadian Jewish History to the American Jewish Historian and Vice-versa”, Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 5, 1, (1981), Pp. 17-22. For a recent study that points to the continuation of this trend see: https://www.environicsinstitute.org/projects/project-details/survey-of-jews-in-canada.

Another unique marker of Canadian Jewry was its success in creating a national, widely- endorsed institutional mechanism for community representation and governance. In a comparative study of the three main centres of Jewish settlement on the American continent, Davis noted that although Canadian Jewry did not develop any unique forms of religious or cultural expression, in the domain of political representation, the CJC offered a unique “collective authority mechanism”.6 Davis attributed this achievement to Canadian Jewry’s relatively small size, to the fact that it was primarily concentrated in two major urban centres, to the comparatively slow and controlled immigration into Canada and to the community’s ability to nurture and sustain committed leadership.7

The CJC was indeed a unique creation, and the 1960 Canadian Jewish Yearbook tried to explain this uniqueness to its readers: “Congress is Sui Generis. It fails in its purpose and its design if it is regarded as an organization or association. It must be regarded as Canadian Jewry in corporate form…it must not be cribbed, cabined or confined by a-priori definitions of activity. The role of the Canadian Jewish Congress is to function”.8 Another common metaphor described the CJC as a ‘Jewish parliament’9 - a pragmatic, internal meeting space where Canadian Jews could meet and debate in order to later voice their unified opinions and concerns vis-à-vis the Canadian government or on any other Canadian or international forum. Although the CJC could not acquire an official, legal designation as a community representative, it was certainly accepted as such de-facto by most community members, as well as by the politicians and public figures who wanted to communicate with Canadian Jewry. Thus, a 1969 letter sent by the CJC’s executive director, Saul Hayes, to Prime Minister Trudeau declared the CJC as the “official

6 Moshe Davies, “Jewish Centres in the American Continent: Similarities and Differences”, in Israel’s House in America, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1970). P. 246. (In Hebrew). 7 Ibid, Pp. 246-247. 8 “A Tribute to the Canadian Jewish Parliament – The Canadian Jewish Congress”, in The Canadian Jewish Yearbook, 5720-1960, ed. Yaacov B, Dari, (Montreal: The Zionist-Revisionist Organization of Canada, 1960), Pp. 32-33. 9 Gerald Tulchinsky, Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community, (Toronto: Stoddart, 1998), P. 287.

69 spokesman for the Jewish community of Canada”.10 Unfortunately, and despite historians of Canadian Jewry acknowledging the organization’s predominance within the Canadian Jewish polity, to date, there is still no comprehensive historical monograph dedicated to this organization.11

The CJC’s roots lie in the complex educational and welfare organizational infrastructure that was established by the Eastern European Jews who arrived in Canada during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With time, in the cities that welcomed the bigger concentrations of Jewish immigrants, local federations that aimed to centralize welfare efforts and create structured mechanisms of fundraising and distribution of community funds were established. Nevertheless, as Canadian Jewry continued to grow and expand, the local focus of these federations meant that new organizational mechanisms were needed for national coordination and governance - mostly as a way to respond to public anti-Semitism and discriminatory policies. The aftermath of the First World War which brought with it a humanitarian crisis for Eastern European Jewry as well as hopes for a Zionist breakthrough in British controlled Palestine, provided the required sense of urgency to the effort to build a national mechanism as a way to advance Canadian Jewish interests. In 1919, members of 125 Jewish organizations from across Canada met in Montreal and established the Canadian Jewish Congress as a national, representative umbrella organization for Canadian Jewry.12 Although impressive levels of energy and vision were displayed on that occasion, participants did not manage to accompany the creation of the new organization with transparent and sustainable administrative and funding mechanisms and by 1921 the CJC was no longer active. However, the seeds that were sown in 1919 were ripped in January 1934, when an even more urgent crisis presented itself after the rise of German Nazism, an event that was accompanied by an alarmingly escalating wave of anti-Semitism across Canada.

10 Davies, “Jewish Centers”, P. 272. 11 Jack Lipinsky, Imposing Their Will: An Organizational History of Jewish Toronto, 1933-1948, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011) offers a review of the CJC’s early days in Toronto. 12 Gerald Tulchinsky, Taking Root: The Origins of the Canadian Jewish Community, (Toronto: Lester Publishing, 1992), Pp. 268-275.

But while the 1919 CJC sessions focused on the challenges that were faced by Jews in other parts of the world and, excluding the topic of incoming immigration, did not dedicate time to issues that had a direct effect on Canadian Jewry as a distinct entity from world Jewry, the 1934 session was different. Although most resolutions still revolved around reactions to Nazism and appeals to the British government regarding its mandate in Palestine, representatives dedicated a substantial amount of time to discuss Canadian anti-Semitism and the need to achieve community-wide unity. It took a few more years and the 1939 election of business tycoon Sam Bronfman as the CJC’s president before the CJC was able to turn itself into the recognized, undisputed governance mechanism for Canadian Jewish life. Immediately after his election, Bronfman appointed a young Montreal lawyer, Saul Hayes, as the CJC’s national director. Together, the two navigated the CJC into becoming the representative voice for the Canadian Jewish community and a force to be reckoned with within the broader Canadian political landscape. Bronfman remained the CJC’s president until 1962 and Hayes held his position as executive director until 1974 – a period that also clearly marked the organization’s heyday.

The CJC was designated as an umbrella organization, a coalition of many local and regional groups dedicated to Jewish causes. Work was distributed according to regions with the Initial three regions (Eastern, Central and Western) later expanded into five: Atlantic, Eastern (Quebec), Central (Ontario), Western and Pacific. While the CJC’s national office resided in Montreal, each local office maintained its own independent executive board and small professional staff and was represented in the national assembly according to the number of active and participating Jewish organizations in that region.13 Besides a small staff of employees, most actions were initiated, discussed and executed through voluntary committees, some ad-hoc and some ongoing, some acting locally and others on a national level. These committees regularly reported on their work to the CJC’s regional or national offices and their chairperson presented the outcomes of their endeavours

13 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 42-47.

71 during the CJC’s tri-annual assembly, or plenary session, where issues were discussed and motioned for further action. These plenary sessions also included the elections of new officers and committee members, offered reviews and reports on the political, economic and cultural dilemmas faced by Canadian, and world, Jewries, and, of course, provided a chance for networking and nurturing new community leadership.

Throughout the post-war period the CJC maintained a leading role within the community by concerning itself with numerous issues: the settlement of Jewish refugees, promotion of Jewish education initiatives, and advocacy on behalf of Israel and other Jewish communities across the world. Its most significant achievement was advancing legislative actions against discriminatory rules and practices that hindered the ability of Canadian Jews – and other minority groups - to fully integrate into Canadian society.14 As one of its objectives was “to study problems, conduct researchers and encourage studies…to improve the social, economic and cultural conditions of [Canadian] Jewry”, the organization also supported the publication of several historiographical, sociological and demographical monographs15. No other Canadian Jewish community-wide organization adopted such a mandate.

Given the nature and structure of the Canadian Jewish polity, tensions over issues regarding the boundaries of authority and representation were always part of the CJC’s agenda. These tensions were manifested in the organization’s relationship with the local federations, with other community advocacy groups, and even in the relations between its Montreal national headquarters and the regional divisions.16 During the 1940s and 1950s, backed by Bronfman’s leadership and financial capabilities and by the need to display a clear, unified voice in the struggle against anti-Semitism and discriminatory practices, the CJC was able to overcome challenges to its authority. But from the late nineteen sixties onwards, there emerged a clear sense of erosion of the CJC’s ability to

14 Irving Abella, “Canadian Jewish Congress”, in Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd Edition, Vol. 4, P. 422. 15 “Canadian Jewish Congress, Objects and By-Laws”, (LAC, CJC files, MG30, D222). 16 Lipinsky, Imposing Their Will, Pp. 109-152.

72 represent the community and to act on its behalf. As the aspirations and viewpoints of Canadian Jewry became more and more complex, the question that was posed by a prominent Toronto Rabbi, Stuart Rosenberg: ”could, or should, any single group purport to speak for all Canadian Jews?” became a legitimate and relevant question on the community’s, and the CJC’s, agenda during the nineteen seventies.17

Unfortunately, there is still no dedicated, integrative study of Canadian Jewry during the nineteen seventies. Nevertheless, several general outlines about the period were published, as well as a thorough research on Canadian Jewry during the nineteen sixties.18 While the nineteen sixties were described as “the decade that reset the course of Jewish history in Canada”, the nineteen seventies are mostly referred to as continuing – while adding several more complexities – the trends that began to surface during the previous decade.19 Tulchinsky chose to combine both decades into one chapter in his historiographical account of Canadian Jewry and argued that during this period “a new Jewish ethnicity, firmly grounded in Canadian realities, had emerged”. He added that “this multi-faceted identity was still evolving in a context that was itself in transition”.20 The general historiographical consensus regarding the nineteen seventies is therefore that of a continuous search for answers and responses to the profound structural changes that were reshaping both community and national environments.

What were the elements that made up this new “Jewish ethnicity” that emerged during this period? Both Tulchinsky and Troper agreed that it was shaped by the generational and socio-economical changes that supported Jewish integration into the mainstream of Canadian society and were accompanied by a growing, publicly displayed confidence in

17 Stuart Rosenberg, “Canada: The Jewish Community”, in American Jewish Yearbook, Vol. 73, (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1972), Pp. 397-398; See Also: Tulchinsky, Branching Out, Pp. 305-307. 18 Harold Troper, The Defining Decade: Identity, Politics and the Canadian Jewish Community in the 1960’s (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010); Frank Bialystock, “Post-War Canadian Jewry”, in Canada’s Jews In Time, Space and Spirit, ed. Ira Robinson, (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), Pp. 93-119; Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 423-447; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, Pp. 288-339. 19 Troper, The Defining Decade, P. 296. 20 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, P.321.

Jewish identity and causes. Tulchinsky perceived a “curious ambivalence” between “increasing adjustment to the local milieu” while sustaining firm Zionist and Jewish worldviews, with both processes backed-up by broader trends within Canadian society which gradually came to accept the idea that “to be Jewish was not incompatible with being Canadian”.21 Likewise, Troper identified a growing recognition that Jewish identity was not just about ‘being Jewish’ but also about ‘acting Jewish’ and an “intensified a gut- level sense among Canadian Jews that there was no such thing as a stand-alone Jew”.22 Although Jews were always equal citizens of the Canadian polity, only during the nineteen sixties semi-official bans on their participation within certain professions, clubs and social, business and political milieus were lifted. As a result, Jewish mayors, Members of parliament, business leaders, civil servants and academics became a common sight, a phenomenon that helped disseminate the sense that “there was no need to park your Jewishness out the door” anymore.23

But besides continuing these long-term processes, the nineteen seventies also introduced several new challenges to Canadian Jewish life. As already noted, for the CJC, the decade was characterized mainly by its declining power and status within the community. The organization was openly criticized, mostly by the community’s younger generation for not being energetic and strong-minded enough, as well as for losing the connection – which was its primary source of organizational pride – to grassroots elements within the community. Tulchinsky attributed the CJC’s decline to the inevitable loss of the “cement” of Yiddish and shared experiences of the CJC’s founders generation, as well as to the growing sense of belonging and security of the newer, Canadian-born generation.24 As a result, other organizations began to deal with topics that were for many years considered as the CJC’s core interests – advocacy and tackling anti-Semitism – and have done so by

21 Gerald Tulchinsky, “The Jewish experience in Ontario to 1960”, in Patterns of the Past: Interpreting Ontario’s History, eds. Roger Hall, William Westfall and Laurel Sefton MacDowell, (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1988), P. 322. 22 Troper, The Defining Decade, P. 295. 23 Ibid, Pp, 284-285. 24 Tulchinsky, Branching Out, Pp. 306-307.

74 following a different, more publicly visible tactics from the behind-the-scenes politics that characterized Hayes and the older generation of CJC leadership. The CJC’s post-Bronfman period was also marked by financial challenges. Having never established an independent fundraising mechanism, the organization was dependent on budgetary allocations that were controlled by the local federations through a ‘National Budgeting Committee’.25 The mid-1970s economic slowdown resulted in reduced budgetary allocations and eventually led to mergers between regional CJC offices and local welfare federations - Winnipeg led the way in 1972 and Toronto followed suit in 1976. This gradual decline continued during the following decades and slowly made the CJC’s role into not much more than “what the local federations wanted it to be”, thus signalling “the triumph of localism” within the Canadian Jewish polity.26 This process was further affected by the making of Toronto into the largest demographic centre of Canadian Jewry. The political unrest in Quebec and the mounting unease of the Montreal Jewish community with regards to the actions and public discourse of some of the leaders of the Front De Liberation du Quebec party supported a gradual shift of Jews and Jewish businesses to Toronto – a process that was led mostly by the younger members of the community, as well as directed the majority of incoming Jewish immigration to Toronto.27 As shown in subsequent chapters, these processes were well reflected in the discussions over archival-related jurisdictions and responsibilities.

Another development that had a long-term impact on Canadian Jewish life was the introduction of multiculturalism as a governmental policy-backed ethos for Canadian society. The sources for Canadian multiculturalism - as a policy rather than as a social reality - can be traced to the previous decade as well. In 1963 the Canadian government appointed a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and provided it with a mandate to seek ways “to develop the Canadian confederation based on equal partnership between its two founding races”, while also considering “the contribution of

25 Ibid, Pp. 336-337. 26 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp 109-110. 27 Ibid, Pp. 15-19, 73-75, 165-171; Tulchinsky, Branching Out, Pp. 307-312.

75 other ethnic groups to this partnership”.28 The fourth volume of the commission’s report, published in October 1969, was dedicated to a review of the demography, history and sociological character of non-British and non-French ethnic groups and their contributions to Canadian society.29 The commission acknowledged the immense cultural impact these groups had on the development of Canadian society as well as of certain levels of discrimination that members of these groups suffered from in the past. Overall, the commission made sixteen recommendations, some of which focused on the removal of existing barriers to full participation in Canadian society due to one’s ethnic and cultural backgrounds and others, on the ways in which government agencies could help preserve and better represent the unique cultural characteristics of these groups.30 The commission’s recommendations, “both acknowledging the centrality of cultural pluralism to the fabric of Canadian identity and encouraging public institutions to reflect this vision in their organization and programs”,31 became the foundation to Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1971 announcement of the official policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual framework.

As research had already shown, it is impossible to condense Jewish responses to multicultural policies into one clear framework. Furthermore, the debate over how to respond to these policies correlated with other contemporary socio-cultural trends such as the decline of overt anti-Semitism and with the community’s growing interest, and worry, over questions of identity and assimilation. On the one hand, the multicultural ethos helped Canadian Jews to see themselves, as well as to be perceived by others as “poster child of multiculturalism” and as “model Canadians”. As a result, portrayals of

28 Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book I: The Official Languages, Appendix I, The Terms of Reference, (Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1967), P. 173. 29 Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups. (Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1970). http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/Z1-1963-1-5-4-1-eng.pdf. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/Z1-1963-1-5-4-2-eng.pdf. 30 Ibid, Pp. 228-230. 31 Harold Troper and Morton Weinfeld, “Canadian Jews and Canadian Multiculturalism”, in Multiculturalism, Jews, and Identities in Canada, eds. Howard Adelman and John S. Simpson, (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1996). P. 21.

Jews as “enthusiastic celebrants of the multicultural ideal” became common.32 Still, in actuality, Jewish acceptance of multiculturalism was not as rapid nor enthusiastic as one might assume – and especially by the CJC leadership which maintained a cautious approach towards the royal commission and its investigation. The reasons behind this hesitant response were both the uncertainty of the implications of Jewish support for multicultural policies to relations with French-Canadians, as well as the fear that a Canadian society which will be based on ethno-cultural identities would take away from the unique position of Jews as a religious-ethnic group. There were also reservations from the possible implications of the fact that the commission’s mandate included the term “founding races” to describe the position of the British and French groups in Canada.33 As a result, with the question of how to implement Multiculturalism as a formal policy and how to allocate its newly-designated budgets still open – CJC leadership decided that it would be wiser not to take on an active and public role on the topic, or even to try and influence the political processes behind the adoption of multicultural policies.

This ambivalence in Jewish responses to the idea of multiculturalism can be interpreted as reflecting the ongoing debate between “those Jews who tend to be accommodating in their approach…to the non-Jewish world and those who hold a more parochial and insular view…over the desirability of embracing opportunists to fully participate in the Canadian social, cultural and political mainstream”.34 The notion of multiculturalism thus helped surface questions and concerns on how best to maintain, preserve and adjust

32 Michael Brown, “Canadian Jews and Multiculturalism Myths and Realities”, Jewish Political Studies Review, 19, 3-4, (2007), P. 6.; Michael Brown, “From Bi-Nationalism to Multiculturalism to the Open Society: The impact on Canadian Jews”, in The Jewish Diaspora as a Paradigm: Politics, Religion and Belonging, ed. Nergis Canefe, (Istanbul: Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık Ticaret, 2014), P. 310; Stuart Schonfeld, “Jewish Identity in a Multicultural Canada: The Implications for Assimilation and Intermarriage”, in Canadian Jewry Today: Who’s Who in Canadian Jewry, ed. Edmond Y. Lipsitz, (Toronto: J.E.S.L Educational Products, 1989), Pp. 92-98. 33 Richard Menkis, “Jewish Communal identity at the Crossroads: Early Jewish Responses to Canadian Multiculturalism, 1963-1965”, Studies in Religion, (2011), 40, 3, P. 291; see also the contemporary review by Rabbi Stuart Rosenberg, “French Separatism: Its Implications for Canadian Jewry”, in American Jewish Yearbook, 73, Pp. 407-427. 34 Harold Troper, “The Canadian Jewish Polity and the Limits of Political Action: The Campaigns on Behalf of Soviet and Syrian Jews”, in Ethnicity, Politics, and Public Policy: Case Studies in Canadian Diversity, eds. Harold Troper and Morton Weinfeld, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), P. 228.

77 commitment, especially of the younger generation, to Jewish identity in a society that began to accommodate and even favour more meaningful social encounters outside of the immediate Jewish milieu. As the following chapters aim to prove, the entire gamut of responses to this debate, ranging between enthusiasm, hesitation, fear and denial, were all reflected in the community’s archival-related decisions and policies. Still, in order to better contextualize these responses, as well as the motivations behind the creation and growth of the Canadian-Jewish archival infrastructure during that period, one also needs to be familiar with the ways in which the formal Canadian archival landscape was affected by multicultural policies - as part of the unique history of archival practice and thought in Canada.

4.2.1 Multiculturalism in The Archives: The Public Archives of Canada

One of the insights provided by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was that governmental-backed cultural agencies underrepresented ethnic groups that were of non-British and non-French origins and that as a result, their roles in the shaping and advancement of Canadian society were not sufficiently familiar to fellow citizens. The commission’s report explained this gap as a matter of neglect, rather than of discrimination and argued that “there has not been sufficient interest in the country's past to ensure the National Museum of Man and the Public Archives were provided with adequate facilities and funds”.35 As a result, the report argued, “the groups themselves had to gather, preserve, and display the documents and artifacts associated with their coming to Canada and their early settlement”.36 As part of the new multicultural awareness, the commission recommended that in order to correct the situation more attention, and funding, needed to be allocated by governmental agencies to these issues.

35 Report of the Royal Commission, Book IV, P. 221. 36 Ibid, Ibid.

However, the commission did not specify how should such attention be manifested and only suggested that “federal, provincial, and municipal agencies receive the financial means to maintain and extend their support to cultural and research organizations whose objectives are to foster the arts and letters of cultural groups other than the British and French”.37 The only specific action recommended by the commission was for PAC to prepare and publish dedicated inventories of the ethnic resources deposited at archival repositories across Canada as a way to ensure scholars were aware of their existence. The commission also advised PAC to guide ethnic organizations about proper preservation methods as, the commission assumed, materials that were held by private archives were “deteriorating because of incorrect methods of storing and handling”.38

Upon adopting the commission’s recommendations, the federal government ordered PAC to establish a program dedicated to “collection and preservation of archives relating to the history of the cultural communities whose origins are neither French nor British”.39 The decision also stated that “the Public Archives of Canada will be given funds to acquire the records and papers of all the various ethnic organizations and associations which hold significant documents of Canadian history”.40 Thus, while the royal commission left the question of custodianship and care for the materials open, the federal government made a clear choice in favour of state ownership. As a result, although the mandate of PAC’s new National Ethnic Archives (NEA) program declared that its goal was to “ensure the preservation of archival documents of all kinds relating to Canada’s cultural minorities”, whether deposited at PAC or held by another “suitable institution”, in practice, real-life policies favoured the transfer of materials to Ottawa.41

37 Ibid. P. 220. 38 Ibid, P. 223. 39 Public Archives of Canada, Annual Report 1972-1973, P.32. 40 LAC, Canada Parliament, House of Commons, Debates, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, Volume 8 (8 October 1971), 8545-8548, Appendix, 8580-8585. 41 Ibid, Ibid.

Before reviewing the NEA’s activities, it should be noted that the program had deeper roots than the Royal Commission’s report. In fact, the report indicated that it found the staff of the Public Archives “fully aware of the diversity of the Canadian population and eager to collect materials regarding cultural groups other than the British and French”.42 To understand PAC’s willingness to take on the task of collecting non-governmental materials, as well as its clear preference to own these materials rather than support and direct existing community archival mechanisms, one needs to be familiar with PAC’s organizational history and in particular, its ‘total archives’ policy.

PAC’s roots date back to 1872 – five years after Canadian confederation. Since its earliest days, PAC’s mandate entrusted it with the collection and preservation of historical materials relating to all aspects, governmental or private, of Canadian history. Hence, the recognition that “Canada’s documentary heritage was a public responsibility to be borne by the Dominion government” and the belief that the organization was meant to be more than just a storehouse for government records, shaped PAC’s proactive organizational ethos.43 In the face of Canadian geographical and cultural dispersity, PAC, and the histories it would help to produce, were perceived as a “powerful tool for shaping national unity and identity”.44 PAC’s proactive approach was displayed in the creation of two copying offices (in London and Paris) that were charged with finding, copying, and sending records pertaining to the colony’s past. It also maintained a constant interest in private records: in commerce, exploration, settlement and other venues of activity, all deemed just as crucial for the shaping of a Canadian spirit as the work of governmental agencies.45 This meant that gathering such a variety of records into one space, under proper care and with open access rights, became a way to ‘Canadianize’ the records and that the national

42 Report of the Royal Commission, Book IV, P. 222. 43 Ian Wilson, “A Noble Dream: The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada”, Archivaria, 15, (1982-83), P. 16. See also: Laura Millar, “Discharging Our Debt: The Evolution of the Total Archives Concept in English Canada”, Archivaria, 46, (1998), Pp. 105-118; Michael D, Swift, “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970’s: Current Developments and Trends”, Archivaria, 15, (1982-83), Pp. 47-57. 44 Hugh Taylor, “Canadian Archives: Patterns from a Federal Perspective”, Archivaria, 1, 2, (1976), P. 7. 45 Millar, “Discharging our Debt”, P. 105.

80 archive “became the nursing mother of the historical profession”.46 This long-standing organizational ethos provided the basis for what became known, following the 1968 appointment of Wilfried Smith as Dominion Archivist, as PAC’s total archives policy.

Although Canada was not the only country were the notion of total archives was pursued, it was the first to make it into a formal policy, as well as the place where the most practical and theoretical attention to such a policy were offered.47 Overall, the total archives policy reflected a belief in the responsibility of the national archives to represent society in its totality – preserving the records of private individuals and not just of government agencies; collecting records from all types of media; representing all subjects of human endeavour; and the involvement of the repository with the whole life-cycle of the records – from creation until archiving.48 Summarizing the essence of this policy, Smith claimed that it originated from the belief that “a single archival agency has to be responsible not only for the reception of government records…but also for the collection of historical material of all kinds and from any source which can help, in a significant way, to reveal the truth about every aspect of Canadian life”.49 Smith dismissed claims against the ability to apply archival principles to private collections and argued that the benefits of consolidating many records under single professional institutional care, far outweighed any challenges the policy might pose to acceptable archival principles.50

Internal PAC correspondences show that the organization’s attention to, and interest in, ethnic materials was already displayed during the mid nineteen sixties, with staff members reaching out to private ethnic repositories in order to include their holdings in the Canadian union list of manuscripts.51 Already in 1968, well before multicultural funds

46 Taylor, “Canadian Archives”, P. 7. 47 Millar, “Discharging our Debt”, P. 117. 48 Wilfred I. Smith, “Total Archives: The Canadian Experience”, in Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, ed. Tom Nesmith, (Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow press, 1993), Pp. 145-146. 49 Ibid, P. 137. 50 Ibid, Pp. 146-147. 51 The first edition of the union list was published in 1968 and a much-expanded edition which identified around 27,000 archival units in 171 repositories across Canada was published in 1975.

81 became available, the Ottawa Jewish historical society was invited to donate its collection of historical materials to PAC, and PAC’s 1970/71 annual report mentioned a plan to acquire historical records from various “ethnic elements”.52 Hence, PAC’s willingness to play a role in the collection and preservation of ethnic materials predated the multicultural budgetary allocations, even if those, obviously, provided a much-welcomed boost and helped to legitimate and encourage this interest.53

The NEA program began operations in April 1972 and immediately launched a multi- pronged appeal for historical records: representatives attended conferences and assemblies of ethnic communities, delivered seminars and workshops about the program, published ads in ethnic newspapers and local TV shows, and directly approached ethnic organizations and leaders with requests to deposit their records with PAC. The program’s raison-d’etre, according to its director, Walter Neutel, was to right a wrong. So far, Neutel declared, Canadian historians had to rely on community folklore and on “problem- oriented” government records when they tried to “explore and explain the stimuli for, and the context of, decisions and events which cannot be understood without full cognizance of the pluricultural character of Canadian society”.54 Unfortunately, the Canadian public archives “failed to acquire documentation on the daily life of Canadians while accumulating evidence on…politicians whose forgettable and notable utterances alike are recorded faithfully”.55 The NEA initiative, according to Neutel, would allow historians and educators to foster and disseminate the understanding that Canada was established by people from a wide variety of backgrounds and by doing so, help refute

52 Public Archives of Canada, Annual Report 1970-1971, P. 24. 53 See the internal review “The Public Archives and Ethnic Archives” by W.I. Smith, June 17TH, 1970, (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6); “General Information on the Ethnic Archives Collection Program, Toronto, 10, March, 1971” (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6); Pro Memoria from J.M. Kirschbaum to Robert Stanbury, MP, November 18th, 1970. The memo is dedicated to an initiative to preserve ethnic archives at PAC. A copy was sent to me by Walter Neutel after a phone conversation we conducted on January 17th, 2017. 54 Walter Neutel, “Geschichte Wei Es Eigentlich Gewesen or The Necessity of Having Ethnic Archives Program”, Archivaria, 7, (1978), P. 109. The reference is to the famous quote by Leopold Von Ranke, the ‘founding father’ of modern, scientific historiography. 55 Ibid, P. 106.

82 long established stereotypes and help the country to “progress towards national and international brotherhood and toward social and economic security”.56 Neutel also argued that ethnic collections needed to be contextualized as indispensable parts of the Canadian national story and gave as an example “the records of the Jewish labour committee [which] are probably more important to the study of labour and human rights in Canada than for that of the Jewish community”.57

But behind this fine rhetoric the NEA had to face three complex challenges: firstly, to establish proper criteria regarding which materials should be selected for acquisition out of the abundance of ethnic materials - Neutel estimated the number of ethnic organizations across Canada at about one thousand, not including churches.58 Secondly, it had to decide on how to manage and maintain intellectual control over materials produced in a variety of languages and diverse organizational contexts. A third, and perhaps the most pressing challenge, was to find ways to cultivate a relationship with the many ethnic groups, navigate their different expectations from the program and most importantly, manage to persuade them to entrust their materials with PAC.59

On the question of which materials to acquire, the NEA followed the National Significance criterion that was developed by PAC as part of its total archives policy. National significance was determined according to an estimation of the collection subject’s relationship and contact with the federal government, their professional excellence in their field of activity, and whether their work was conducted across more than just one of the provinces of Canada.60 Of course, PAC admitted to the subjectivity of these criteria,

56 Ibid, P. 109. 57 Ibid, Ibid. 58 Speech by Walter Neutel, Toronto, March 10th, 1971. Neutel emailed me the text of the speech after a phone conversation we conducted on January 17th, 2017. 59 “National Ethnic Archives, Report to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism”, W.I. Smith to the Hon. John Munro, n.d., (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6); “General Information on the Ethnic Archives Collection Program, Toronto, 10 March, 1971”, (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37- B, 487, file 9-0-6). 60 Myron Momryk, “National Significance: The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies in the Manuscript Division, National Archives of Canada”, Archivaria, 52, (2001), Pp. 151-174.

83 and as a result, the general consensus was that it would be wiser to err on the side of inclusion.61 To deal with the second challenge - of handling materials in different languages, scripts, and cultural contexts - an effort was made to employ archivists who were members of the groups whose materials were sought-after. The assumption was that besides possessing the necessary linguistic background, these archivists would also find it easier to recognize and establish communication lines with the relevant ethnic group’s decision-makers.

The biggest challenge was to understand the internal politics within each ethnic group and to establish trusting relations with the community’s leadership. PAC’s archivists had to deal with many suspicions regarding the motivations behind the sudden interest of a federal government agency in ethnic materials. Likewise, the fact that Ottawa was distant from most of the demographic and cultural centres of the communities whose records PAC wished to acquire did not make things any easier. To deal with these challenges, ethnic community leaders were reminded of PAC’s superior professional capabilities and, of course, of the costs incurred by proper preservation of community documents – costs that could be covered by taxpayer money instead of internal community funds.62 Furthermore, as Neutel told his audience during one of the outreach meetings he attended, PAC was the guardian of the “collective national memory” which “would only be as complete as the records which it acquires and preserves”.63 As a result, only communities whose leaders were far-sighted enough would eventually enjoy “higher visibility” in future history books. Donating materials to PAC was therefore portrayed both as a civic duty and as a practical benefit.64

61 Ibid, Pp. 153-155. 62 See for example: Judith Nefsky to Irving Abella, December 21st, 1983, (ADCJA, Judith Nefsky files, DA11, 2, 8); Wilfried Smith to Rabbi Gunther Plaut, January 9th, 1980, (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 63 Speech by Walter Neutel, Toronto, March 10th, 1971. 64 A brochure titled “Your Past Belongs in the Archives”, n.d., (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6).

Although clearly aware that some of the larger ethnic communities in Canada performed their own archival work, PAC’s total archives policy and its desire to get hold of multicultural budgets meant that the organization insisted on direct ownership of ethnic records. Smith specifically requested John Munro, the Minister of Labour who was in charge of multicultural funding, not to allocate government funds in a way that would encourage the creation of private ethnic archives. Smith explained his request in the ethnic communities’ lack of professional capabilities, objectivity, and ability or will to offer free access rights to the materials.65 Thus, he declared, PAC would “play a vital role in the development of multiculturalism” only if it was allowed to become more than just a “referral centre”.66 Although Smith’s conviction was shared by most other decision makers at PAC,67 there were also some within the organization who held different opinions. The head of the manuscript department, R.S. Gordon, believed that PAC had no choice but to cooperate with the bigger and more established ethnic communities. In an internal memo, Gordon highlighted the fact that his encounters with the leadership of the Ukrainian and Icelandic communities taught him that these groups already developed “embryos of research institutions and libraries…and repositories of historical documents“ and that they clearly expected to receive at least some of the newly available funding directly.68 Gordon questioned “the wisdom of opposing and rejecting these efforts” and suggested that PAC’s interests would be best served by cooperating with these groups and supporting their institutions.69 For example, Gordon suggested that some ethnic collections could be sent to Ottawa, copied and microfilmed, and then returned to the

65 Draft memo attached to “National Ethnic Archives, Report to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism”, W.I. Smith to the Hon. John Munro, n.d., (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6). 66 Ibid. 67 M. Swift to R.S. Gordon, “Ethnic Archives”, May 28th, 1971, (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6). 68 R.S. Gordon to Wilfried Smith and Bernard Weilbrenner, “Meeting of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Winnipeg, October 1971”, October 21st, 1971 and “Supplementary report – the Icelandic community”, (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, file 9-0-6). 69 Ibid.

85 ethnic repositories from which they originated.70 Although his views were not accepted, Gordon’s willingness to flex, and the cordial relationships he developed with Abe Arnold, helped apply this model to the records of the JHSWC when these were sent to Ottawa for microfilming in 1975 and later returned to Winnipeg.

PAC was therefore able to accommodate the complexities or differentiate between the ethnic communities it dealt with to only a limited degree. Neutel insisted that PAC was, as a matter of principle, incapable of reaching separate agreements with each ethnic group as such a practice would differentiate between Canadian citizens and by doing so, work against, rather than towards, the multicultural goal.71 It was also Neutel’s belief that researchers would prefer if materials were centralized and that it would be much more cost-effective to fund description and publication efforts within PAC, rather than to spread these projects across dozens of small private institutions.72 PAC’s overall lack of respect and somewhat patronizing approach towards the professional capabilities of the independent community archival efforts also did not do much to help cooperation efforts.73

Jewish records were placed high on the list of the NEA’s priorities. Canadian Jews, besides being a well-organized, urban, record-producing group, were also an example for an ethnocultural community that successfully contributed and integrated into the mainstream of Canadian society yet preserved a variety of distinctive cultural characteristics. Lawrence Tapper, a recent graduate of Canadian history from Carleton University, was hired by the NEA as a full-time archivist whose sole responsibility was to

70 Evelyn Millar to G. Friedman, May 11th, 1972. The letter speaks about an initiative to send Community records to PAC and the employment of Jewish students in the sorting and indexing of these records. Interestingly, this initiative was promoted via the JPL and not through the CJA (JPL, 00105, 1970-1975). 71 Wilfried Smith to Saul Hayes and Victor Sefton, February 8th, 1977, (OJA Sous-fonds, 64-4, 1); Walter Neutel to Stephen Speisman. November 6th, 1973, (OJA, Sous-fonds, 3, 9). 72 Walter Neutel to W.I. Smith and H.A. Taylor, March 27th, 1972, (LAC, Ethnic Archives establishment. 1971- 1972. RG37-B, 455). 73 Jack Lipinsky to Stephen Speisman re visit to PAC, n.d. (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2), Judith Nefsky to Irvin Abella, Jim Archibald, David Rome, Stephen Speisman, June 28th, 1982, (OJA Sous-fonds, 64-4, 1).

86 acquire and catalogue Jewish materials. Through Tapper, the NEA managed, in a relatively short while, to build an impressive, well-rounded collection of prominent Jewish individuals and organizations. Two different PAC annual reports specifically mentioned the Jewish group as being the most cooperative with the NEA.74 Subsequently, the 1978 “Guide to Sources for the Study of Canadian Jewry” (republished in 1987) included more than forty different collections, many of which were indispensable to any historian who was interested in Canadian Jewry. Besides obtaining several records of synagogues (including Canada’s first synagogue, the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue in Montreal), the NEA acquired the records of other central Jewish organizations such as B’nai Brith and the Canadian Zionist Federation as well as the collections of leading cultural figures such as the poet A.M. Klein and philosopher Emil Fackenheim. It also got hold of the records of several notable figures from the ranks of community leadership, many of which – be it Louis Rosenberg, Stephen Barber or Gunther Plaut – were also high-ranking officers and decision-makers within the CJC.75 Overall, PAC’s Jewish collection focused on national, independent Jewish support, welfare and settlement organizations – most of which were housed in Montreal which meant that by so doing, the NEA positioned itself as a direct competitor of the CJA.

4.2.2 Multiculturalism in the Archives: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario

PAC’s mandate as a federal agency dictated its acquisition policy with regards to ethnic archival collections. However, multiculturalism was also endorsed and promoted by the provinces and just as each province developed its own multicultural legislation and policies, so did the various provincial archives. In Quebec, the Archives

74 Public Archives Canada, Annual Report, 1975/1976, P. 48; Public Archives Canada, Annual Report, 1976/1977, P. 48. 75 Lawrence Tapper, A Guide to Sources for the Study of Canadian Jewry - Guide des sources d'archives sur les juifs canadiens, (Ottawa: National Ethnic Archives, Public Archives Canada, 1978).

Nationales du Quebec (ANQ), established in 1969, was not very active during the early 1970’s with regards to the acquisition of private collections but developed and maintained cooperative relationships with ethnic repositories, fundamentally trying to ensure that private collections did not leave the province.76 The Archives of Manitoba, while maintaining cordial relations with ethnic groups representatives, chose not to take an active part in collection efforts and did not extend its support beyond offering storage space to those materials that were collected by group members themselves.

Ontario was the only province to echo the active federal interest in ethnic archives. The province’s early multicultural policies prioritized three objectives: equality, access to government services and cultural retention. To support these objectives, a multicultural development branch was created within the province’s Ministry of Culture and Recreation. But rather than increasing the budget of the provincial archives, it decided to establish a new, dedicated mechanism as a way to administer the collection of ethnic archival materials. As a result, the Multicultural History Society of Ontario (MHSO) was established in 1976, supported by an impressive five-year grant of $3 million from the Ontario Lottery fund. Although the MHSO performed the role of collecting archival materials, it was not an archival repository per se. Rather, its chartered objectives were to promote historical study “relevant to the province’s immigrant and polyethnic history”; to collect, safekeep, provide access and publish materials to support these studies; and lastly – “to publicize the important contribution by all communities to the cultural growth and development of Ontario”.77 Daniel rightfully recognized this last article as the key to Ontario’s policy makers broader agenda.78 After the end of its five-year funding scheme, the MHSO was expected to transfer the materials it gathered to the Ontario Archives for permanent safekeeping. Why was a completely new institutional mechanism established instead of administrating this work through the Archives of Ontario? It seems the answer

76 Gilles Heon, “The Archives Nationales du Quebec: Memory of a Nation”, Archivaria, 59, (2005), P. 81. 77 As quoted in Robert Harney, “A History of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, Polyphony, 9, 1, (1987), P. 1. 78 Dominique Daniel, ”The Politics of Ethnic Heritage Preservation in Canada: The Case of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, Information & Culture. 47,2 (2012), P. 210.

88 to this question is to be found in the Archives of Ontario’s lack of interest in having to proactively deal with ethnic collections, as well as in the emphasis of the various preparatory committees that advised policy makers that new historical research should be one of the priorities of the new provincial multicultural policy.79

The MHSO was initiated and administered by a group of academics and cultural activists, most of whom originated from the ethno-cultural groups whose materials the organization aimed to collect. They aspired to create “a well catalogued collection of ethnocultural materials open to both the general public and scholars” and believed that such an endeavour was a necessary first step in the making of Ontario, the Canadian province that enjoyed the highest number of foreign-born citizens, into a place that would appreciate “the variety of its rich heritage…and help free people from ignorance and dangerous dependence on stereotypes”.80 The most active spirit behind the MHSO was Robert Harney, a Professor of history at the University of Toronto and a leading scholar on North American social history and immigration. Harney was aware of the critique regarding the decision to establish a new organization from scratch and of the envy in the MHSO’s sizeable operating budget, but strongly objected those who blamed the MHSO for being the result of “political calculations based on lottery revenues”81. Rather, he insisted, PAC’s NEA program was simply not enough for the needs of serious historians. Harney estimated that only 3% of ethnic materials could be designated as having national significance – which meant that the real work had to be conducted on the provincial and local levels.82 Harney also maintained a generally suspicious attitude towards PAC – as well as towards most other government agencies – whom, he believed, would aim to “neutralize, corrupt, drain and bureaucratize the enthusiasm” of the new multicultural

79 Daniel, “The Politics of Ethnic Heritage”, Pp. 208-209; See also the “Ethnic Archives Workshop Report” (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). This was a 1983 Toronto workshop that brought together historians, archivists and community activists to discuss the various ethnic archives programs across Canada. In the meeting delegates from an unnamed provincial archive admitted to not being very enthusiastic regarding the collection of ethnic materials, especially due to expected difficulties in maintaining intellectual control. 80 Harney, “A History of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, P. 1. 81 Ibid, P. 2. 82 Ibid, Ibid.

89 policies.83 Furthermore, he argued that given Canada’s size, Ottawa was too distant from centres of habitat of most ethnic communities, and sending collections to PAC would result in local researchers finding it generally harder to access the materials that they required.

With a supervisory staff made mostly by historians, the MHSO openly built its collection strategy on the innovative and inclusive notion of ethnicity as the collection’s provenance. As group affiliation was the primary reason and context for the creation of such records, Harney claimed that it made the most sense to apply ethnicity as their primary provenance and wondered about "the remarkable fact that after ten years of a multicultural policy in Canada and a century of rhetoric of being a 'nation of nations' in the United States, the ethnic dimension of man is still not seen as valid provenance."84 One of the natural results of Harney’s approach was his frustration with the MHSO’s collection mandate and the requirement to maintain collection efforts within the boundaries of Ontario’s borders. Harney’s research led him to realize that provincial borders had very little significance for immigrant and ethnic groups and that their histories were best explored from either strictly local or a wide North American perspective, a framework that could not, for obvious reasons, be accommodated within the MHSO’s collection mandate. Harney also objected to the ‘contribution’ element in the MHSO’s mandate and suspected that it would “promise the mainstreaming of the other groups' history and their records…an instrument of Canadianization rather than a defence of cultural diversity”.85

83 Robert Harney, "Ethnic Archival and Library Material in Canada: Problems of Bibliographic Control and Preservation", Ethnic Forum, 2,2, (1982), P. 15. 84 Harney, "Ethnic Archival and Library Material in Canada”, P. 27. See also Joel Wurl, “Ethnicity as Provenance: In Search of Values and Principles for Documenting the Immigrant Experience”, Archival Issues, 29, 1 (2005), P. 67. 85 Robert Harney, “Entwined Fortunes: Multiculturalism and Ethnic Studies in Canada”, Siirtolaisuus Migration, 3, (1984), P. 83, P. 92.

Furthermore, as a historian, Harney argued that it was impossible to know which records would be of interest or value to researchers in the future and so, encouraged his researchers to err on the side of inclusion.86 As an example of this approach, he suggested the need to collect books that were translated from English into the ethnic language as a way to illuminate the cultural preferences of immigrants communities.87 As a result, the MHSO was critiqued by archivists who snubbed what they’ve seen as a “subject approach” which did not allow the organization to maintain archival principles or rational acquisition strategies.88 In response, Harney declared that part of the MHSO’s mission was to “free from older hierarchies of historical and archival thought which didn’t keep pace with changes in society”.89

The MHSO’s archival collection activities were based on hiring field researchers who were for the most part affiliated with the particular ethnic group whose records they collected. The collection efforts were directed, where possible, by academic committees and the researchers were employed on a contract basis and were evaluated according to the collections they managed to acquire. Given the nature of their endeavours, researchers were expected to work from the bottom up - without prescribed criteria or acquisition policy and to make decisions on a rolling, case-to-case basis. Researchers were also asked to produce initial inventories, despite not always being trained in how to do so. Unlike the NEA, Harney and the MHSO were more attuned and willing to accommodate the sensitivities of the ethnic communities that they served. Nevertheless, cooperative arrangements were not always easy to administer and Harney was not shy to voice his objection to the tendency of ethnic leaders to see the stories of their communities as “a form of intellectual property” and to perceive ownership of archival materials as a way to protect the group’s reputation from defamation.90 In a specific reference to the Canadian

86 Harney, “A History of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, P. 1. 87 Harney, “Ethnic Archives and Library Materials,”, Pp. 27-28. 88 Marion Beyea, “Review of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Annual Report, 1976/77”, Archivaria, 5, (1977-78), Pp. 218-219. 89 Harney, “A History of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”, P. 1. 90 Ibid, P. 3.

Jewish leadership, Harney critiqued the community for keeping its archives “in the manner of genizhas, places to hide the sacred books from outsiders”.91

Despite these tensions, the MHSO made a big difference. Overall, it amassed 382 linear feet of materials, additional 544 feet in microfilm, some 34,000 photographs, either original or copies, about 5,000 oral interviews and produced an impressive list of publications on ethnic histories. The organization also managed to acquire a significant amount of Jewish materials – with the most substantial portion of this collection coming from individuals and organizations related to labour history and the left side of the political map - those who were less committed to the CJC and the mainstream of the organized Jewish community.92

Overall, then, both PAC and the MHSO were successful in their efforts to acquire Canadian-Jewish materials and in a relatively short period managed to obtain an impressive number of records and collections of Canadian-Jewish organizations and individuals. Why did so many Canadian Jews agree to donate their materials outside of the community? Reasons, of course, differ but overall it seems that the preferred tax credit that a donation of archival materials to the crown was able to offer, certainly played a significant role, even if it was relevant only for individuals and not for institutional donors.93 Other factors were related to a sense of pride in being considered a figure of national or provincial importance, as well as confidence in the superior capabilities of the official archives with regards to preservation and access.94 In Ontario, were the OJA was relatively new, it took community members a while to become aware of the availability of this service. Personal and ideological antagonisms played their part as well. Many

91 Ibid, Ibid. 92 See A Guide to the Collections of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Compiled by Nick G. Forte, ed. Gabriele Scardellato, (Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1992), Pp. 265-293. 93 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, November 16th, 1976, (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). The donation of archival materials to the state resulted in a 100% deduction of the estimated value of the collection from the donor’s tax liability. Donating the same collection to a private archive offered a deduction that equaled to the donor’s income tax bracket for that year. 94 See Saul Hayes to Stephen Speisman, December 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

92 prospective donors associated with the Jewish left did not perceive the CJC as their representative and were determined to deposit their materials outside of its reach. One potential donor even claimed that “Canadian Jewish history is held ransom by the OJA” and that it was the MHSO’s role to protect the objectivity of future historical accounts on Canadian Jewry from this bias.95

Eventually, by the beginning of the nineteen-eighties, budgets for both the NEA and the MHSO were reduced, and as a result, so were their collection efforts. Political agendas turned multicultural funds towards educational programs, mostly in schools, as well as to other, more publicly visible programs than archival collection.96 The MHSO did manage to maintain a steady, ongoing budgetary support from the Ontario government also past its initial five years mandate, but it was on a much smaller scale and did not allow the organization to maintain its position as a leading pacemaker in the field. By 1983 the MHSO transferred the majority of its materials to the Archives of Ontario, where they remain to date. Likewise PAC, although continuing to administer the NEA program, adhered to new policy recommendations that were made by a number of external reports and shifted the focus of its total archives policy from a centralized approach to that of decentralized, country-wide “archival network” system and by doing so, significantly reduced its proactive ethnic archives collection efforts.97

4.3 Conclusion

The Canadian Jewish community, apart from maintaining a plethora of local religious, welfare and education services, managed, for most of the twentieth century, to sustain a semi-representative national governance mechanism in the CJC. Besides its centralizing role within the Canadian Jewish polity, the CJC’s ethos perceived its mandate

95 S. Levitt to Robert Harney, November 25th, 1978, OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 14. 96 Daniel, “The Politics of Ethnic Heritage”, Pp. 211-212. 97 Millar, “Discharging Our Debt”, Pp. 115-125.

93 as broader than just effective political advocacy. Since its inception, the organization tried to promote scholarly and artistic expressions by and for Canadian Jewry. During the late 1960s, and through the 1970s, the organization faced two challenges that, with time, became ever more discernible: firstly, an increasingly fragmented Canadian Jewish polity which spelled a decline in the CJC’s centralizing role. Secondly, the emergence of a Canadian society in which Jews were able to take an ever-increasing part surfaced concerns about the future of independent Canadian Jewish culture and levels of participation in community life – both of which were the basis to the very existence of the CJC as a national representative umbrella organization.

Another way in which the opening of Canadian society was encouraged and promoted was through direct governmental multicultural policies. One of the venues in which these policies were pursued was support to archival programs that aimed to better represent ethnic communities within the holdings of the official archives. Importantly, these initiatives were not just a result of a top-down policy. Rather, they were backed by real desire, energy, and interest on behalf of many who believed in the essential need to promote the field of ethnic studies. Still, like most other solutions, these programs did not just solve problems but introduced new ones as well. Can ethnicity – and multiculturalism - be accommodated within existing archival principals? Can the formal archival agencies manage to adequately represent the different needs, demographics, and contributions of the ethnic groups? And what should be done with the independent archival programs that some of the ethnic communities had created?

PAC and the MHSO were the two agencies that developed the two most meaningful attempts to deal with these questions. Each agency operated under a different mandate and developed different methodologies and practices on how to administer the archiving of ethnic materials. PAC’s NEA program displayed real enthusiasm and commitment to the collection of ethnic archival materials and truly regarded itself as playing a role in Canada’s broader trajectory towards becoming an open and multicultural society. But it

94 also adopted a relatively rigid interpretation of how to promote this multiculturalism, an interpretation that was based on its total archives policies and on a lack of desire to accommodate the specific needs and requests of the communities it wished to serve and represent. Instead, PAC prioritized the need to centralize records in Ottawa in order to be sure that the records received proper archival care and were integrated into the national context and classification system. The MHSO offered a slightly different model, one that was more sensitive to the needs that were displayed by the individual ethnic communities – but its own expiry date and extensive budget meant that it too was sometimes seen as an envied and suspectable competitor, especially to those communities that were already engaged with their own independent archival efforts.

Both PAC and the MHSO had a decisive role to play in the stimulation of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival endeavours. Besides helping community members assign value to their records, they also helped Rome, Hayes, Speisman, and Arnold – the community’s archival activists - to position the topic of archives as part of the broader debates over Jewish identity, continuity, and belonging. The next chapters provide detailed analysis on the independent archival endeavours conducted in each of the three centres of Canadian Jewry and on their responses to, and complicated relationships with, PAC and the MHSO - as motivators, as competitors, and as partners, in the efforts to collect Jewish archival materials across Canada.

Chapter 5: Montreal, The Canadian Jewish Archives, Saul Hayes, David Rome and the Comprehensive, ‘National Archives’ Approach to the Community’s Archives

5.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the work of Montreal’s Canadian Jewish Archives (CJA), the repository that was established by the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) as a national archive for Canadian Jewry. The chapter focuses on the period between 1970 and 1981, even though the CJA did not conduct much proper archival activities during this decade and access to its materials remained very limited. In fact, only from 1981, the year in which the CJC hired a professional archivist for the first time – can the CJA be described as a fully operational archival repository.

However, the very fact that the CJA conducted only minimal archival work before 1981 is also what makes this period intriguing and worthy of examination. The decade was rich with debates and deliberations concerning the need to maintain an independent archival repository, as well as with regards to the CJA’s mandate and the reasons for the inability to transform it into a functional repository. The active involvement of the Public Archives of Canada (PAC) in the acquisition of Jewish historical materials and the tensions between the CJA and the newly founded Jewish regional archives in Toronto and Winnipeg served to further fuel for these debates.

Two individuals stand out as the main protagonists during this decade. The first was Saul Hayes who served for many years as the CJC’s executive director. Hayes turned his attention to the CJA after he switched from his executive role to a consulting position in 1974. This newly found interest was a result of the two priorities Hayes set to himself for his post-retirement years: firstly, to make the Bronfman House, the CJC’s newly built

95 96 headquarters in downtown Montreal, into a national centre for Canadian-Jewish culture, and secondly, to publish memoirs from his long years of community service. Hayes thus dedicated the last years of his life to efforts to promote several Canadian-Jewish public memory initiatives: the CJA, a national museum of Canadian Jewry, a national Jewish historical society, and the publication of academic-level scholarship on twentieth-century Canadian Jewish history. Although Hayes was not an historian or frequent commentator on contemporary events, his role in top-level community administration provided him with venues through which to share his opinions on the character, purpose, and historical direction of the Canadian Jewish community.

The second person who played a leading role in the shaping of Montreal’s Jewish archival landscape was David Rome. A librarian, amateur historian, and cultural activist, Rome joined the CJC on Hayes’ request and in order to assist him with the several projects that he wanted to promote. Prior to that Rome served for more than twenty years as the director of Montreal’s Jewish Public Library (JPL) and by that stage had published several monographs and articles on a variety of topics concerning Canadian Jewish history. Both men advocated for the maintenance of the CJA’s independence and nationally oriented mandate, while also trying to fill the professional void that was created by the absence of a professional archivist.

Several elements set apart Montreal’s Jewish archival landscape from the working models that were developed in Toronto and Winnipeg. Firstly, archival activities in the city began substantially earlier than in the other two cities. Even if for almost fifty years the CJA consisted mostly of boxes of documents that were locked away in a remote storage facility, the physical and symbolic sense of an existence of an archival collection meant that, at least for Hayes and Rome, the CJA provided a sense of continuity and centrality that guided their interactions with the other stakeholders. Moreover, unlike in Toronto and Winnipeg where the Jewish archival operations were conducted within relatively clear geographic boundaries, the CJA was established and perceived as a Jewish ‘national

97 archive’, echoing Montreal’s position as the centre of Canadian Jewish life and of the CJC as its organizational axis. This notion was not contested during the period that preceded the nineteen-seventies, but, naturally, once archival endeavours began to formulate in other regions across Canada, tensions and complications surfaced. The ongoing debates over the CJA’s mission and goals were also inseparable from other contemporary discussions regarding community public memory initiatives and so, this chapter incorporates references to topics that were not directly related to the archival endeavour such as the creation of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society (CJHS) or the plan, that did not materialize, to establish a national Museum to Canadian Jewry.

In consideration of the elements noted above, the chapter begins with a review of the CJA from its 1934 inception and until 1970. The following section turns to look at Hayes and Rome’s broader set of worldviews and belief systems regarding Canadian Jewry and its history, its present, and its future. These views help to contextualize the chapter’s third section, an analysis of their archival mentalities and archival-related initiatives during the nineteen seventies and in relation to the challenges that they faced: the acquisition of Jewish materials by PAC; the apathy that was displayed towards the CJA by the new CJC leadership; and the growing dissent concerning the CJA’s national scope.

5.2.1 The CJA’s Early Days, 1934 to 1945

During the early years of the twentieth century, Montreal’s Jewry was transformed from a socially and economically well integrated, albeit demographically modest, community, into a much more visible, dynamic and independent force in the city’s life. Supported by an extensive network of welfare and service organizations, Jewish

98 life in Montreal were portrayed as a ‘third solitude’ within the city’s relatively closed circles of social and cultural interactions.1

From an archival perspective, no specific community-wide archival repository existed in Montreal prior to 1934, nor did there seemed to exist any apparent aspirations for one. Although the city’s Jewish Public Library (JPL), established in 1914, proactively collected the papers of local Yiddish literary figures, it had done so with little attention towards broader historical research or access needs – similar to all other local Jewish organizations that maintained their own internal records during those days.2 Thus, it was the CJC’s 1934 resolution to establish a national Canadian Jewish Archives marked the real beginning of Canadian-Jewish archival history. The resolution, and the commitment to collect and preserve Jewish materials of historical importance from across Canada, was continuously ratified and endorsed in all consecutive CJC plenary sessions and thus, guided Canadian- Jewish archival endeavours for years to come. The significance of this initial resolution to this dissertation warrants its quotation in full:

Resolution 18: On Canadian Jewish Archives

The Canadian Jewish Congress, a united representative body of all Canadian Jewry, assembled in Toronto, Canada, taking counsel (in order) to protect the cultural and spiritual interests of the Jews in Canada takes into consideration.

Whereas there are in Canada numerous documents and other historical material of the utmost value to the history and cultural achievements of the Jews of Canada

Whereas this material of great significance is scattered over all parts of the country and is in possession of various individuals and groups of people

1 Jerald Tulchinsky, ”The Third Solitude: A.M. Klein’s Jewish Montreal, 1910-1950”, Journal of Canadian Studies, 19, 2, (1984), Pp. 96-112. See also Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 69-89; Tulchinsky, Branching out, Pp. 19 – 22. 2 Evelyn Miller, “The History of Montreal Jewish Public Library and Archive, Canadian Archivist, 2, 1, (1970), Pp. 49-55. Miller described JPL’s collection practices as “haphazard”.

Whereas there is a great danger of this valuable material becoming lost or destroyed in which case it will be impossible to replace it

And whereas it is necessary for this material to be collected and stored in a place so that it may be made easily accessible to students or the Jewish historian for the purpose of study or reference

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this congress recommends:

(a) That it is for the general interest and well being of Canadian Jewry that this historical material be preserved and (b) That in order to accomplish this a committee be appointed to whom this mission may be safely entrusted and that this committee finds ways and means to finance such an enterprise.3

Hence, the resolution clearly marked the CJA’s mandate as being far wider than the preservation of the CJC’s own organizational records. Rather, the CJA’s mission and purpose were to become a proactive cultural agent: to search, gather and bring together ‘Jewish documents’ (a concept not defined by the resolution) that were portrayed as “scattered” across the land. Uniting these documents under one roof, cared-for by a committed and professional archival repository located at the demographic and cultural centre of Canadian Jewry, was deemed the best way to assure their physical and intellectual survival. There was another deep-seated assumption that this resolution hinted at: that the preservation of documentary evidence displaying Canadian Jewry’s loyalty and contributions to their host society would help protect the reputation and wellbeing of community members, both present, and future. Those who drafted the resolution therefore perceived the CJA as serving a dual purpose: supporting the process of consolidation of a national Canadian Jewish community, while also serving as a public relations tool in the struggle against the persistence of false beliefs regarding Jews and their place in Canadian society. Both of these objectives directly corresponded with the broader goal that the newly rejuvenated CJC set to itself, namely, to protect the cultural and spiritual interests of Canadian Jewry.

3 1934 2nd CJC Plenary session, (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files).

100

In order to carry out the resolution, the CJC’s plenary session ordered the establishment of an archives committee whose role would be to discern the best methods through which the “collection, preservation and publication of materials on the settlement, achievements, and history of Canadian Jews” be conducted.4 During its first meeting, the committee, which included some of Canadian Jewry’s leading cultural activists, concurred that the establishment of a historical society would offer the best way forward. Unfortunately, the historical society that was formed as a result of this recommendation was unsuccessful in building a substantial membership base and ceased to exist after a few years.5 Nevertheless, the initial enthusiasm of committee members helped to create an embryo collection for the CJA that consisted of CJC’s internal organizational records as well as published materials that were donated by the archives committee members themselves.6 The committee also managed to secure a space at the CJC’s Bleury Street offices in which these materials were stored.

Besides publishing several lists and inventories of its accumulated holdings, the archives committee also issued several calls to action, requesting community members to support its “highly important cultural mission” of “securing materials which have, or could have, historical interest or value”.7 The CJA was portrayed as a way to support the community’s internal cohesion and morale and to make sure community members were not “divorced from their historical setting”.8 Although no clear acquisition policy was ever published or discussed, the repository was presented as a folkarchive – aiming to accommodate not just the records of prominent community members but offering “a proper resting place”

4 Minutes of Committee on Archives, February 25th, 1934, (ADCJA DA11, A, 1); Amongst committee members were Benjamin Sack, a journalist who authored the first comprehensive historiographical account on Canadian Jewry (originally written in Yiddish and translated and published in English through the CJC in 1945); Hersh Hershman, a Yiddish journalist and one of the JPL’s founders; Martin Wolff, who published a short historical sketch on Canadian Jews in the 1929 American Jewish yearbook, and H.M. Caiserman, the CJC’s general secretary. 5 The last recorded meeting of the historical society took place in February 1st, 1944 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 6 See for example, Minutes of the Meeting of the Archives Committee from March 12th, 1935 (ADCJA, BA, 19, 1) and from May 7th, 1935 (ADCJA, BA, 22, 1); David Rome, Canadian Jewish Archives, An Address by David Rome, September 24th, 1940, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1940). 7 “For a Jewish archive in Canada”, Pamphlet translated into English, n.d. (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 8 1942 report of the archives committee to the plenary session (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files).

101 for the records of all members of Canadian Jewry.9 The requests for materials were thus addressed “to each and every Jew” and claimed that “everybody must contribute…and do what they can to help augment the archives”.10 The same inclusive ethos was applied to the materials that were sought after – “everything that may be found anywhere and be of historical or cultural value to the Jews of Canada”.11

But despite the impressive rhetoric and vision, the materials were amassed in a relatively inconsistent and unstructured manner, no clear policies for collection management were developed or implemented, nor was a dedicated archivist position secured. After the initial enthusiasm waned, the meetings of the archives committee became scarcer and shorter, as well as contained several complaints against the indifference displayed by community members and most other CJC officers towards the archival program.12 Energy levels rose again just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Apart from the many new initiatives and activities that the CJC was now involved with, and which naturally resulted in a considerably larger amount of records being produced and needing preservation, committee members also contemplated the possibility of shipping Jewish archival materials from Europe to Canada for safekeeping. At the same time, collection efforts at home were increased as well, presumably as a consequence of the anxiety created by the realization of the fate of Jewish cultural materials in Europe.13 Another cause for this renewed vitality was David Rome who joined the CJC’s public relations department as a young graduate of McGill University’s Library Studies program. Rome immediately began to play an active role in the archives committee and besides an effort to conduct an initial arrangement of the CJA’s collection, published a couple of position papers that advocated the importance of maintaining the CJA’s work.

9 “Report of the archives committee to the 5th plenary session of the CJC, January 10th – 12th, 1942”, (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). 10 “For a Jewish Archive in Canada”, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 11 “For a Jewish archive in Canada”, Pamphlet translated into English, n.d. (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 12 See Archives committee reports to the 1939 and 1942 CJC plenaries (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). 13 Rome, Canadian Jewish Archives, An Address” Minutes of the combined meeting of the archives committee of the CJC and the Canadian Jewish Historical Society, March 18th, 1941 (ADCJA, BA 22, 1).

102

One of the CJC’s main objectives was to fight against the anti-Semitic wave that swept across Canada during the early 1930’s and that was still noticeable both before and during the war years. The organization’s decision makers believed that the CJA had a decisive role to play in this struggle. By accumulating, processing and disseminating trustworthy and reliable documentary evidence, the CJC was able to “base public debates on events related to domestic and world Jewry on accurate and factual information”.14 The CJA was thus portrayed as a cornerstone in the CJC’s pursuit of its public policy and so, as “one of the most important services which the Canadian Jewish Congress [could] render the people of Canada:…to destroy the ignorance which is the soil for race hatred and anti- Semitism”.15

However, the massive energy and resources taken by the CJC’s war-time effort meant that the CJA was not able to remain an ongoing priority on the CJC’s organizational agenda. Even Rome’s direct attention was turned away from the CJA after he was appointed as the director of a new ‘war records’ project that intended to document the “great service which Canadian Jews are rendering their king and country” during the war.16 Dr. Samuel Levine, one of the few Jewish refugees who managed to arrive in Canada during the war, was offered the role of CJC’s librarian/ archivist, but also he quickly found himself fulfilling other, more urgent organizational tasks. As a result, although Rome warned Saul Hayes, the CJC’s executive director, that attention and budgetary allocations for the CJA had to remain a priority as “Congress activities will mean nothing to our decedents unless the archives are maintained”, as the war carried on, the CJA’s place on the CJC’s organizational agenda continued to drop.17 None of Rome’s earlier initiatives was ever materialized, no further cataloging work was conducted, and none of the plans to develop systematic arrangement or acquisition policies were carried

14 CJC 1945 plenary report, “Placing the Facts about Jews before the Canadian Public” (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). 15 Ibid. 16 CJC 1945 Plenary report, “War Records” (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). 17 David Rome to Saul Hayes, February 24th, 1943 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

103 out.18 When the war was finally over, and the CJC moved to new offices, first to St. Catherine Street and later to Sherbrooke Street, no dedicated space was designated to the archival collection, and some of the accumulated materials remained behind while others were sent to external storage.

5.2.2 Stand Still at the CJA: 1945-1959

Post-war changes to the CJC’s organizational structure meant that responsibility for the CJA was transferred to the newly formed Social and Economic Research Department that aimed to “establish the factual foundation for the plans of the Congress in the years to come”.19 The department’s director - and only employee - Louis Rosenberg, envisioned the CJA as part of a broader program that would also include a reference library and a research institute.20 But as Rosenberg’s expertise lay in sociological and demographical research, during his tenure, hardly any attention was awarded to the new department’s archives component. Although a lot of contemporary records and research data were gathered and preserved – Rosenberg did not pursue any arrangement or sorting activities and no consistent, strategic effort was made with regards to further acquisitions of historical materials.

Although the CJC’s plenary sessions continued to endorse the CJA and indicate the importance of archival work as part of the CJC’s broader mission, contemporary reports about the archival program failed to mention any concrete activities or initiatives. After

18 Minutes of the Archives Committee of the CJC, October 26th, 1942 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 19 1945 CJC Plenary report, “Establishing the Facts” (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). Louis Rosenberg was a demographer and economist, who was employed by the CJC and published several works about Canadian Jewry based on his analysis of the Canadian census. See Morton Weinfeld’s introduction to the new edition of Louis Rosenberg, Canada’s Jews: A Social and Economic Study of Jews in Canada in the 1930, ed. Morton Weinfeld, (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), Pp. xi – xxiii. 20 When the archives and research committee was reorganized in 1967 its declared mission was “to accumulate and preserve records, written materials and data concerning Jewish life in Canada”. Thus, the historical element was left out of its description of duties. See “Archives and Research Committee of the CJC” (LAC, LR Fonds, MG30 C119, Vol 6).

104

Rome left the CJC to become the JPL’s executive director, the archives committee ceased to meet. This lack of attention towards the archival program was, most likely, a result of the changes in the community’s overall circumstances and priorities. Canadian Jews had to adjust to two recent events that shook the very foundations of Jewish life: the creation of the state of Israel and the Nazi Holocaust. In such an environment, it was hard to think of their own, local history, as holding much significance. This mindset was also reflected in a more general attitude towards Canadian Jewish culture: Rosenberg’s 1950 enquiry as to whether the CJC would support the creation of a ‘Canadian Association of Jewish art’, or a Jewish studies program at one of the major Canadian Universities was declined by Hayes who claimed that Canadian Jewry did not enjoy a sufficient number of interested individuals who would be able to sustain such initiatives.21

Still, a commitment to the advancement and dissemination of historical knowledge remained part of the CJC’s organizational ethos. Its monthly publication, the Congress Bulletin, featured occasional articles on Canadian Jewish history and periodically, the organization also supported the publication of historical monographs.22 One of these initiatives was the publication, between 1955 and 1962, of six booklets entitled Canadian Jewish Archives. Each booklet was dedicated to a different topic of Canadian Jewish history and offered a collection of several historical records and documents, cherry- picked by Rosenberg from the CJA collection. The documents were published as-is, without any intervention or edits, but also with hardly any clarifications with regards to their exact provenance or broader significance. In the introduction to the first booklet,

21 Saul Hayes to Louis Rosenberg, May 9th, 1950 (LAC, LR Fonds, MG30 C119, Vol. 4). 22 For example, beside the publication of the English translation to Benjamin Sack’s History of the Jews in Canada (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1945), the CJC also published a 1957 monograph by Ben Kayfetz, Toronto Jewry: an Historical Sketch (Toronto: Centennial Research Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Region, United Jewish Welfare Fund of Toronto, 1957). This publication was followed by Highlights of Toronto’s Jewish history (Toronto: Joint Committee on Centennial Celebration, Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Region, United Jewish Welfare Fund of Toronto, 1957) and by two historical reviews authored by Louis Rosenberg: Chronology of Canadian Jewish history (Montreal: National Bicentenary Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1959) and Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada, 1760-1960 (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, Bureau of Social and Economic Research, 1961).

105

Rosenberg declared that he hoped these publications would make “the contents of our archives collection known to students of Canadian Jewish history” and thus, initiate serious historical research into the community’s past.23

The catalyst for the publication of these booklets, as well as for several other public memory initiatives, were the 1959 celebrations that marked the bi-centenary of Jewish settlement in Canada and to which the CJC initiated a year-long series of commemorative and public memory events across the country.24 During the initial planning stages, Rosenberg proposed several archival-related initiatives: the production of a unified catalogue of books and manuscripts relating to Canadian Jewry, the creation of a database of Jewish family records, and the microfilming of Jewish-related documents held within the various governmental archives. However, none of these initiatives ever materialized, presumably due to the lack of enthusiasm and interest in such projects within the wider circles of the CJC’s organizational decision makers who aimed at more publicly displayed events.25 Nevertheless, the efforts involved with the production and the publicity of the bi-centenary events drew attention to the value of a functioning archival program and so, the archives remained on the CJC’s agenda also after the celebrations were over. Besides the bi-centenary events, there was also another, more profound, reason for this renewed interest in the archives and in Canadian Jewish culture and history. A hint to this reason can be found in one of Rosenberg’s monographs in which he claimed that one of the profound, long term, effects that the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel had on Canadian Jewry was that it could no longer draw upon European Jewry as a source of leadership, demographical growth, and spiritual energy and dynamism.26 In order to ensure its long-term survival and growth, Rosenberg argued, Canadian Jews had to turn inwards and rely on “their own resources” in

23 Canadian Jewish Archives, The First Jewish Congregation in Canada, 1, 1, (Montreal: National Archive and Library and Bureau of Social and Economic Research, Canadian Jewish Congress, August 1955), P. 1. 24 Troper, The Defining Decade, Pp. 9-14. 25 L. Rosenberg to Saul Hayes and M.H. Myerson, March 29th, 1957 (LAC, LR fonds, MG30 C119, Vol.4). See also Troper, The Defining Decade, P. 11 regarding the celebrations’ focus on non-Jewish audiences. 26 Louis Rosenberg, “Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada, 1760-1960”, P. 49.

106 developing the next generation of community leadership. This meant that “the growth of Canadian Jewry must be in the quality of its cultural and community life” and so, Rosenberg argued, community resources had to be turned towards Jewish education, the promotion of active affiliations of individuals with the Jewish collective, and production of meaningful cultural Jewish life.27 The solutions that would be offered by the organised community to this challenge, Rosenberg argued, would determine the character of Canadian Jewry in the years to come.

5.2.3 The CJA, 1959-1970: Planning Ahead

In a booklet that marked the end of the 1959 bi-centenary celebrations, Samuel Bronfman, the CJC’s president, wrote that the sense of pride and belonging that were conveyed during the year-long events should “not be over when we tear off the last month of the calendar…[but] need to be contained in a permanent record for libraries, institutions, schools, and homes”.28 This remark was one of the first hints to the plan to establish a new physical space that would serve as the national headquarters of the CJC and as a national cultural institute for Canadian Jewry. Thus, since the earliest planning stages of what later became to be known as ‘the Bronfman House’, the CJA was perceived as one of its most fundamental components. The Bronfman House complex was thus envisioned as an “address of the entire Canadian Jewish community and the repository of its treasures”29 and as a place where “all records pertaining to Jewish life in Canada [would be] placed by communities, organizations, and individuals”.30 Canadian Jewry, as Hayes announced in the last plenary session before the Bronfman House opened its

27 Ibid, Ibid. 28 Commemorative Report on the National Bicentenary of Canadian Jewry, 1759-1959, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1960), P.2. The booklet also included a short review of Canadian Jewish history written by the poet A.M. Klein. 29 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 30 Resolutions of the 13th Plenary Session of the CJC, 1962 (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files).

107 doors, had reached a stage in which it could not “pretend to prestige and legitimate pride of status if it had no national repository where its achievements can be daily exhibited”.31 Besides providing the CJC with a much-appreciated tax relief for operating from within a building that was designated as a cultural institution, the decision to offer the CJA such a central place within the CJC headquarters was also part of the broader organizational vision of the CJC as a centre of Canadian-Jewish public life.

However, the planning process for the Bronfman House was a long one and lasted throughout the nineteen sixties. Besides two record surveys, hardly any work was done by or within the CJA during that time. Both surveys reported that a massive amount of documents was accumulated through the years and that it would take several years of work to catalogue and sort the repository’s holdings before they could be made accessible for researchers.32 In the meanwhile, in 1968, the CJA was incorporated under the name “Jewish Museum and Archives of Canada”. Now a separate legal entity from the CJC, it was able to directly receive monetary donations. The incorporation charter described the CJA as a comprehensive cultural institution with a mission to “build, operate and maintain” an archive, a museum, a reference library, and a social and economic research bureau, all working through a national, Canadian-wide, scope.33

By the mid nineteen sixties and as the planning process of the Bronfman house moved forward, questions of budgetary allocations and assumed responsibilities for the day to day administration of the CJA needed to be addressed. A ‘Cooperative task-force on the community’s archival needs’, was organized by the CJC, JPL and the local Montreal community council and recommended the creation of a joint JPL and CJC governing

31 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 32 “The Grossman Report”, July 1961 (ADCJA, CD-C, 1, 26). I did not find a copy of the 1963 Godfrey report, but it is referred to in a letter from Samuel Lewin to Saul Hayes dated September 11th, 1963 (ADCJA, CD-C, 1, 26). Godfrey also traveled to Ottawa in order to review and catalogue PAC’s Jewish holdings. 33 “Letters Patent Incorporating Canadian Jewish Congress Museum and Archives”, September 17th, 1968 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2).

108 mechanism to control the CJA. During that time the JPL, following its own move to a new location, planned to expand its archival program and to better integrate it into the library’s overall roster of services.34 However, this plan to cooperate never materialized, mostly due to the three organizations inability to reach an agreement regarding the relative amounts of funding that each would allocate.35 The task force therefore decided to ask for external advice and John Andreassen, the McGill University archivist, was asked to learn the subject and submit a report and a plan of action regarding the community’s archival needs. Andreassen’s 1969 report was the first-time professional standards were used to evaluate the community’s archival program, and it foreshadowed some of the inherent tensions in the encounter between the community’s archival endeavour and Andreassen’s more traditional, Jenkinsonian, views about the nature of the archival endeavour. All in all, its seems the encounter did little more than to confuse both sides. Andreassen was not able to fully comprehend the motivation behind the project and wondered why, if “no Icelandic archives or Ukrainian archives exist in Canada”, should Jews insist on creating one? Wasn’t it better, he asked, to negotiate an endowment of a Jewish collection to one of the official repositories and save much-needed community resources?36

Andreassen’s doubts on the validity and necessity of an independent Jewish archival program, and his failure to understand some of the deeper motivations behind it, led to recommendations that were somewhat out of sync with the expectations of those who commissioned the report from him. Based on his experience and understanding of the roles of archival repositories, Andreassen perceived the CJA as a passive repository where “the archivist does not disturb the arrangement in any way”37 and whose only job was to

34 Miller, “The History of the Montreal Jewish Public Library”, Pp. 52-53. 35 See E. Miller to H. Kalles, JPL president, July 5th, 1967 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00108); “Suggested Outline for Jewish community archives, JPL, Congress and other interested bodies”, JPL-CJC Archives Committee Recommendations, December 19th, 1967 (LR fonds, LAC, MG30, C119, 6). 36 “The Collection, Conversation and Utilization of the Historical Records of the Canadian Jewish Community”. John Andreassen, Records Management Company of Canada, April 1969 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 37 Ibid.

109 passively accept records from a pre-determined number of Jewish organizations in order to properly catalogue them and make them ready for future usage by researchers. Andreassen was also not able to envision the planned integration of library, archival, and museum functions within the same institution, as well as recommended the amalgamation of the JPL’s archival holdings into the CJA as a way to separate these functions. He also suggested that the community employ the services of a third-party external record centre to house at least some of the materials it owned.38

Upon reviewing the report, David Rome declared that Andreassen had completely misunderstood what Jewish community life was about, and so, failed to comprehend that there were “unique Jewish aspects of record-keeping and archives…[which do not exist] in usual purview of governmental or business records keeping”.39 This meant that “the term ‘archive’ may need elaboration in the light of the specific needs and conditions of the Jewish community...the words which describe records of government or institution may mislead when applied to a society and culture”.40 Others concurred, and the task force eventually rejected the report and its recommendations. One of the reasons given to this rejection was that the report’s “philosophical aspects which dealt with Jewish community life were unacceptable”.41 But rejecting the report in its entirety meant that a crucial point made by Andreassen was not heeded: “if one can not provide professional service or make the records available – then all the fine buildings to house them will be naught”.42 As a result, when the Bronfman house was finally opened to the public on May 24th 1970, the CJA found itself operating without a clear and reasonable budget, and without a professional and capable archivist who would help fulfill the vision of transforming the collection into a functioning, national Jewish community archive.

38 This recommendation appeared in a letter Andreassen sent to David Rome dated February 7th, 1969. The letter was attached as an appendix to Andreassen’s report. 39 David Rome to Joseph Kage, May 27th, 1969 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00103, 1960-1969). 40 David Rome to Joseph Kage, October 1st, 1968, (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00103, 1960-1969). 41 Minutes of meeting to discuss the Andreassen archives report, June 16th, 1969 (JPL, 00103). 42 Andreassen Report, P. vii.

110

5.3.1 Saul Hayes and David Rome, Worldviews and Archival Mentalities

Before turning to explore the CJA’s activities after the move to the Bronfman House and during the nineteen seventies, this section is dedicated to a review of Saul Hayes and David Rome’s broader set of ideas and worldviews regarding the Canadian Jewish community and its historical direction and overall purpose. Both men were part of the CJC’s founding generation, and both played important roles in navigating the transformation of Canadian Jewry during the post-war era. Although they were the products of different upbringings and social milieus, as well as followed different professional paths, both Hayes and Rome dedicated their professional lives to community service out of a sense of duty and responsibility, and both harboured similar ideas on the nature of Canadian Jewish life. As a result, they were able to join forces in their struggle over the future of the CJA, an organization that they perceived as a way to mitigate the centrifugal forces that threatened the integrity and position of the CJC as a mainstream, centralizing force in Canadian Jewish life.

Saul Hayes was born in 1906 to a well-established Jewish family in Montreal and died, aged seventy-four, in 1980 at his country home in the Laurentians. A secular Jew to whom religious sentiments did not play a significant role in life, Hayes was a pivotal figure in organized Canadian Jewish life during the period that followed the Second World War. Soon after graduating from McGill University law school, in 1942, Hayes accepted Samuel Bronfman’s request to assume the position of CJC’s national executive director and led the organization into becoming the de-facto representative of Canadian Jewry and a recognized actor on the Canadian public scene. As a result, Hayes came to be known as “Mr. Jewish Canada”: the community’s public face in its dealings with the government and on a variety of national and international forums.43 Although his commitment to the community was never questioned, Hayes was perceived as a person who was more

43 Wilfried Smith to Saul Hayes, May 24th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 4).

111 comfortable in Ottawa than with those he represented and lobbied for - the mostly first generation, Eastern European Jews who constituted the bulk of CJC membership.44 In addition to transforming the CJC into the recognized voice of a geographically-dispersed and ideologically-diverse community, Hayes supported and guided the long process of professionalization of the community’s service and advocacy infrastructures and mobilized the CJC to lead several legal struggles against restrictive and discriminatory practices against Jews and other minorities across Canada.45 His contributions to the Jewish community and to his country were recognized with his appointment to the Order of Canada in 1973.

David Rome, like Hayes, spent most of his professional career as a civil servant on behalf of Canadian Jewry and was involved with the CJA and with questions of Canadian Jewish history, memory, and identity for most of his life. One of the leading cultural activists of the Canadian Jewish community during the twentieth century, Rome was a secular Jew, yet deeply immersed in Jewish culture. Born in Lithuania in 1910, Rome arrived, as a child, to Vancouver in 1921. As a product of Eastern European Jewry, Rome, like many others from his generation, flourished on North American soil while still guided by “instincts that have been forged in the old Jewish context of Eastern Europe”.46 After graduating from the University of British Columbia in English literature, he worked as a journalist, writing in both Yiddish and English before moving to Montreal in 1938 to undertake library studies at McGill University. Rome joined the CJC’s Montreal office shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War and served in several roles within the organization prior to his 1953 appointment as the JPL’s director, a position that he held until 1972. That year Rome returned, on Hayes request, to the CJC and assumed a role of the CJC’s

44 Michael Marrus, Mr. Sam: The Life and Times of Samuel Bronfman, (Toronto: Viking, 1991), Pp. 278-279. 45 Marrus, Mr. Sam, P.297; Saul Hayes, “Some Highlights of Sixty Years of Canadian Jewish Congress” (ADCJA, Personalia Saul Hayes, ZB, box 1). 46 Sharon Gubbay-Helfer, “Rome Amongst the Bishops: A Reflection on David Rome and his Contributions to Dialogue”, Concordia University Working Papers in Canadian Jewish Studies, Working Paper Number 1, December 13, 2012, P. 8. https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/jewish-studies/docs/workingpapers/Workingpapers1GubbayHelfer.pdf.

112 historian/archivist. He remained actively affiliated with the CJA until his death in 1996. From the mid-1970’s onwards, after having served as a member of Quebec’s first arts council, Rome committed himself to establishing connections between Montreal’s Jewish community and French Canadians, an effort that won him a 1987 appointment to the Ordre National du Quebec.

Rome was motivated by a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to “protect the vital interest of Jewish people and ensure their survival”.47 To fulfill this duty, he employed his skills across several professional paths and worked as a journalist, a librarian, a bibliographer, and a historian. Still, and despite the fact that he held the title of the CJA’s archivist and his deep belief in the CJA’s fundamental role in Canadian Jewish life, Rome was certainly not an archivist - not in education, not in practice, and not in aspiration. Rome’s goals were to publish bibliographies, inventories, and historical monographs on Canadian Jewish history and to encourage and guide others in their research endeavours. These goals defined his archival practices. Thus, for instance, Rome separated the CJA collections according to subjects - or what he named “logical positions” - and placed them “in labeled subject files and in chronological order” in order to be “examined for each document and each pamphlet”.48 He also did not consider maintaining archival provenance as a priority. Rome argued that more often than not, it was impossible to determine the exact provenance of many of the documents under his care. The real priority, he claimed, was to mark down the contents of the records in order to understand their relationship to the underlying themes and events that constituted the community’s history.49 Thus, for instance, Rome was satisfied with traveling to the offices of one of the local community service organizations and xeroxing just those documents that he

47 Gubbay-Helfer, Rome Amongst the Bishops, P. 4. 48 D. Rome to Saul Hayes, February 1st, 1975 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). See also Janice Rosen “David Rome, The Omnivore of Jewish Canadiana”, Unpublished manuscript, ACJS Annual Conference 2009. Rosen, the CJA’s archivist, had kindly shared the paper with me. 49 D. Rome to Saul Hayes, “Annex re Library and Archives”, attached to Saul Hayes to National Officers Report, January 8th, 1973 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2).

113 deemed to be important and relevant for the community’s overall history.50 Rome also developed a very selective access policy to the CJA holdings, a policy that often depended on his impression of the particular researcher and of the ideological direction that he suspected the research was going to take. Rome lacked another fundamental archival skill: he was unable to discard of any record, book, or document that came into his care, nor did he allow others to do so without his consent.51

5.3.2 Hayes and Rome on the Canadian Jewish Community

According to Hayes, as director of the leading national representative organization of Canadian Jewry, religious affiliation, despite what many non-Jews might think, was clearly not the main driving force for Canadian Jewish life.52 Rather, what he named as the elan vital of Canadian Jewry, and of modern Jewish identity in general, was cultivated by a sense of cultural distinction and by a desire, “fostered by the nature of Jewish history”, to preserve and maintain this distinct cultural identity.53 Hayes presented this desire to remain Jewish as a matter of choice and free will and as the essential force behind the persistence of active participation in community life.54 As such, Hayes argued, “cultures don’t die, they commit suicide” and “Canadian Jewry – unlike many others of the newcomers to Canada – lacks the desire to do so”.55

Hayes and Rome agreed that the ability of Jews to maintain their distinct identity through the generations depended on the ability to organize and act together for a common

50 David Rome to Charles Kaplan, Interim director general of the Jewish family services, November 8th, 1977 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 51 “Meeting of Book Acquisition, Budget Archives Committee for JPL”, July 1st, 1970 (JPL, 00105, 1970-1975); David Rome to E. Miller March 16th, 1970 (JPL, 00105, 1970-1975). 52 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 13th Plenary Session of CJC, 1962” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 1, CJC Plenary Sessions). 53 Saul Hayes, “Canadian Jewish Culture: Some Observations”, Queen’s Quarterly, 84, 1, 1977, P. 87. 54 “An Interview with Saul Hayes”, Viewpoints, 9, 4, (1976), P. 9. 55 See Abe Arnold’s report of Hayes visit to Winnipeg (AM, AA Fonds, P5117) and Hayes, “Canadian Jewish Culture”, P. 87.

114 cause. “A Jew and Judaism”, as Rome wrote in a contemplation over the historiographical frameworks of Canadian Jewish history, “are what organized”.56 Jewish historical continuity was a function of the ability to unite and act for common causes, and to do so on all levels of social activity - religious, cultural, and political because “a Jew cannot live a full Jewish life if he is concerned only with himself”.57 As a result, Hayes argued, the most significant achievement of this generation of Canadian Jewry was the ability to establish and maintain the CJC as a mainstream, flexible, functional governing mechanism, able to adjust its goals and actions to accommodate the changing needs of a modern, vibrant community.58 Thus, he believed that the CJC’s very nature and higher purpose were deeply intertwined with the unique circumstances that the Canadian environment presented to Jewish survival. During the nineteen thirties, when the CJC was established, Canadian Jewry was still relatively young and unsecure, made of mostly first- generation immigrants, and challenged by the enormous geographic distances between its main centres of habitat and by the variety of cultural and ideological backgrounds of its member base. Furthermore, and despite all of the apparent advantages of living in a democratic society, as immigrants, most community members had to struggle with daily hardships and were removed from positions of power and influence. As immigrants, most of them also had to adjust to life in a society that was based on principles of equal citizenry and where organized Jewish communities had to be maintained as voluntary mechanisms and upon a cultivated sense of belonging and commitment, rather than on forced isolation.59 The CJC, as a “surrogate for Canadian Jewry”,60 helped that generation of Canadian Jews to achieve unity of purpose, as well as provided them with an instrument through which their fellow citizens and government could hear their voice, thus

56 David Rome, “Problems in Canadian Jewish historiography” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 3, 9). 57 Ibid. For the quote see Saul Hayes, “Working Paper, the 16th Plenary Assembly, 1971” (ADCJA, Saul Hayes Personalia, ZB, Box 3, 1). 58 See Saul Hayes, “The Canadian Jewish Congress”, Canadian Jewish Anthology, eds. Chaim Spielberg and Yaacov Zipper, (Montreal: National Committee on Yiddish, Canadian Jewish Congress, 1982), Pp. 15-24. 59 Saul Hayes, Working Paper, the 16th Plenary Assembly, 1971 (ADCJA, Saul Hayes Personalia, ZB, Box 3, 1). 60 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, June 8th, 1976 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1).

115 establishing Canadian Jewry as an influential and dignified actor on the Canadian political and public scenes.61

The CJC’s ability to achieve its goals and remain relevant through the years was a result, according to Hayes, of the understanding of its leadership that its role was much more holistic than just political advocacy. Rather, its duty was to be “a galvanic force in Jewish life and offer the vigilance to retain the integrity of the community against the onslaughts of the general culture”.62 The CJC’s overarching mandate was, therefore, to support a commitment to Jewish agenda, based on “a global universal sense” and so, to be concerned with “the far-reaching aspects and future of the community”.63 As the consequence of such a mandate, Hayes proudly announced, he, as the CJC’s director, had to be “available to all sections of the community…unable to reply to a request with a polite refusal that the enquirer has the wrong address”.64 As a logical conclusion, Hayes was also clear that although it was impossible to utterly separate the Canadian Jewish community from its commitments to international Jewish causes, in essence, the CJC was not a Zionist organization because its purpose was to build “a strong diaspora community without a sense of exile”.65 In fact, he asserted, “the negation of the diaspora is a horrendous concept”66 as strong diasporas were not only the ongoing historical condition of Jewish existence but also a much-needed instrument for Israel’s survival.67

The core, ongoing challenge that fueled the CJC’s mission was, according to Hayes, the ongoing tension between a commitment to Jewish cultural survival and the fact that the

61 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose and Stan Urman, “National Community Relations Programming”, August 15th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 4, 4); Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, November 14th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 2, 20). 62 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 63 Saul Hayes, “Jewish priorities and organizational structures”, Viewpoints, 8, 4, (1974), P. 23. 64 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 65 Saul Hayes, Canadian Jewry in 1974, An Overview of an Active Jewish Community. Keynote address delivered at the 17th Plenary Assembly of the CJC. Toronto, June 16th, 1974 (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1974). 66 See Abe Arnold’s report on Hayes visit to Winnipeg, n.d. (AM, AA Fonds, P5117). 67 “An interview with Saul Hayes”, P.21.

116

Canadian Jewish community was based on voluntary association and operated within an increasingly open society. This meant that the organization faced “a herculean task…to stimulate action…so that indifference and apathy can be eliminated and the pervasive influences leading to assimilation, mitigated”.68 In a telling anecdote, Hayes referred to his refusal to declare the CJC as an umbrella organization because it had to work also when it was sunny,69 always aiming to “frustrate the mischief of indifference, apathy, and ignorance…to weave a web at night and find it ravelled in the morning”.70

Hayes claimed that one of the secrets to the CJC’s ability to successfully fulfill its tasks was that, whenever possible, it applied scientific research tools in order to determine the community needs. Rather than basing its operational decisions on irrelevant traditions or on stereotypes and gut-feelings, the CJC, according to Hayes, governed the community by identifying social trends and patterns based on data that was gathered and interpreted according to the laws of history and economy. “Theologians”, Hayes declared, “never heard of the inexorable laws of economics…effects of inflation…gross national product, missiles or petro-dollars”.71 In that, he argued, the CJC successfully managed to adjust and transform old-world forms of Jewish self-governance into a secular, professional and representational system that helped secure Jewish survival and growth within the democratic, constantly-evolving, North American environment.72

When Hayes talked about research and data, he referred to the CJC’s research bureau and to Louis Rosenberg, who was the department through the 1950’s and 1960’s. Rosenberg produced a stream of research papers that provided early and useful indications on the many changes that Canadian Jewry was experiencing. Rosenberg

68 Ibid, Ibid. 69 Ibid, P. 8. 70 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 71 “An Interview with Saul Hayes”, P. 22. 72 Saul Hayes, “Some Highlights of Sixty Years of Canadian Jewish Congress” (ADCJA, ZB, Personalia Saul Hayes, box 1).

117 provided indications for trends such as the growing number of Jews who joined the professional workforce, the disintegration of the dense Jewish urban neighborhoods, the gradual disappearance of Jewish presence in small towns across Canada and provided many other markers to the overall process of the community’s Canadianization. Hayes, as the CJC’s director, was therefore well aware of the pressures on Jewish community life due to the diminishing strength of traditional socializing agents. To deal with these “awesome duties”73, Hayes advocated, already since the early nineteen seventies, for the need of the CJC to turn its attention to projects that would focus on cultural identity retention and to do so from a unique Canadian perspective rather than from a general Jewish one. After his retirement, and upon noticing that his views were not making the impact he believed that they should, the topic became the primary target for Hayes’ criticism of the new CJC leadership. If the CJC, Hayes argued, “loosens the major pillars on which it rests, it will surely totter and ultimately fall. The organization must resist the forces…with a narrower view of Canadian Jewish society”.74 Hayes thus criticized the CJC’s attention and focus on projects relating to Israeli, Soviet and Syrian Jewries, and wondered why not prioritize urgently needed cultural projects at home.75

Hayes’ attention to the cultural domain correlated with his involvement in the debates over the essence of multiculturalism as a state policy. Serving on the federal consultative council on multiculturalism, Hayes was a keen, even if cautious, supporter of Canadian multiculturalism.76 Hayes was confident that Canada, as part of its natural evolution as a nation, had to develop a more inclusive and accommodating multicultural policy, even if he had his reservations on the question of how to translate the multicultural ethos into concrete policies and on how should federal funds be allocated in order to support it.77

73 Saul Hayes, “The Changing Nature of the Jewish Community”, Viewpoints, 5, 3, (1970), P. 27. 74 Ibid, Ibid. 75 Saul Hayes to Stephen Speisman, December 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 76 See Richard Menkis, “Jewish Communal Identity at the Crossroads: Early Jewish Responses to Canadian Multiculturalism, 1963-1965”, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 40, 3, (2011), Pp. 283 – 292. 77 Saul Hayes “Report on and Impressions of a Conference”, (S.L: S.N, 1976); Saul Hayes, “Multiculturalism As a state Policy, in Canadian Jewish Anthology, Pp. 57-58.

118

Overall, Hayes believed that the preservation of ethnic cultural heritage should be done within clear boundaries that acknowledge the need to maintain a national, unifying cultural ethos. He thus openly objected to the notion of investing time and energy in teaching ethnic languages to the younger, Canadian-born generations. Instead, he supported the idea that the state should prioritize and promote ethnic cultural production in one of Canada’s two official languages and declared that “the CJC, using its own experience, would rather Jewish customs, history, and folkways be known in English or French than not be known at all”.78 Hayes was also convinced that although support for ethnic cultural output should be promoted by federal and provincial budgets, it should be administered through independent ethnic organizations, rather than left in the hands of paternal and uninterested governmental institutions. In fact, Hayes believed that the success of the multicultural experiment was in the hands of academics, intellectuals, and artists and not in those of governmental agencies.79 Only if these segments within Canadian society could be mobilized to actively support the multicultural ethos, Hayes asserted, multiculturalism would have a chance to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Canadian citizens.

Rome shared many of Hayes’ views. He, too, deeply appreciated the many opportunities Canadian society offered its Jewish citizens, while, at the same time, firmly held an inherent sense of separation between “Us and Them”.80 For Jews, Canada meant freedom and opportunity to flourish as fully participating members of society while being allowed to remain proud and publicly affiliated with their religious and ethno-cultural identity.81 Rome shared Hayes belief that Jewish organizations were “the cement and the brick and

78 Ibid, P. 51. 79 Ibid. Pp. 50-52. 80 Gubbay Helfer, Rome Amongst the Bishops, P.2. 81 See David Rome, The David A. Ansell Collection of the Archives of the CJC. Canadian Jewish Congress, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress Archives Committee, 1940). Rome’s vision for the planned national museum was for it to communicate “adaption” and “participation” of Canadian Jews while following principles such as “all began with a family” and “ancient world in the new world” in order to show the intimate and inherent relations between the elements that made up world Jewry. See David Rome to Saul Hayes, December 15th, 1973 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1, 17).

119 the architect’s plan” of Jewish life, as they provided individuals both a platform for active participation as well as a sense of belonging. 82 Thus, as Jewish history could only be defined “in the context of its institutional activities”,83 the CJC painted the Canadian Jewish experience in the colors of “a unique achievement…an ideal of total, comprehensive and fraternal unity of a Jewish democratic organization”.84 Through the CJC, Canadian Jewry achieved its sense of higher purpose, and so, according to Rome, the organization’s Montreal headquarters had to provide its visitors the feeling that they “arrived into the heart of Judaism in Canada and understand its highest specific purposes”.85 Rome also shared Hayes fear of the future and his belief that the stakes created by multicultural policies were indeed high. A fundamental lesson from Jewish history, Rome wrote, was that “Jews have lived meaningful lives only under conditions which permitted island existence of Jewish culture…[They] did not survived vivaciously where Jews were permitted to identify as citizens of Israelite origin…[in such places] Jewish vigour towards creative survival quickly waned…For Jews the possibility of retaining their own culture…is a matter of life and death”.86 Therein, Rome warned, the survival of Jewish values in a modern world, defined by “an experience of separation, cosmopolitism, and materialism”, depended on the ability of the CJC to remain active, focused and committed to Jewish culture in its broadest sense. The question of the survival of Jewish identity was therefore, for both men, the most fundamental challenge that they had to face during these last stages of their public careers.87

82 David Rome, “Judaism in Canada: Institutional history”, October 1982 (ADCJA, DA11.1, 5). 83 David Rome, “Problems in Canadian Jewish historiography” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 3, 9). 84 See Rome’s historical section in Pathways to the present: Canadian Jewry and Canadian Jewish Congress, (Toronto: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1987), P.4; Rome went as far as suggesting that the only possible comparison to the CJC was the Zionist Congress in terms of its vision and ability to mobilize. Ibid, P. 5. 85 David Rome to Saul Hayes August 25th, 1974 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1, 17). 86 David Rome, “A Jew Comments on Plural Cultures” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 1,3, Pp. 4-5). 87 Ibid.

120

5.3.3 Hayes and Rome on Canadian Jewish History and Historiography

Both Hayes and Rome were highly committed to the advancement of Canadian Jewish historiography. Both also admitted that there was still a long road ahead. Hayes’ main critique of the products of this literature up until that period was their inability to capture and portray just how deeply intertwined the Jewish experience was within the broader Canadian story. He believed that Jewish experiences were an essential part of Canadian history and were “fundamental to an understanding of Canadian civics and spiritual life, education, culture, and pluralism”.88 “The Jew of British Columbia”, he wrote, “is behind the Rocky Mountains just as the non-Jew of British Columbia”, both shaped by the same economic, social and political climates, thus making it impossible to understand Jewish experiences without an in-depth knowledge of Canadian history and culture.89 Furthermore, Hayes argued, Canadian Jewish history had a significant role to play in illuminating the Canadian nation-building experiment as it offered “the crucial dimension of civility: how a minority survives in a society whose dominant mores have a different provenance”.90

No historian so far, Hayes argued, was able to rise to the challenge of telling the Canadian Jewish story while finding the right balance between both sides of the hyphen – the Canadian and the Jewish. Hence, a topic such as the debates over public school attendance of Jewish children in Montreal, had to be explored and presented as an essential part of Canadian history. Constitutional history, relations between state and church, minority rights and the nature of Canadian education were all part of the debate in which “social philosophies developed not just in Ottawa but also in London, Rome and Odessa – clashed in Montreal”.91 On the other side stood the global aspects of Jewish

88 Canadian Jewish Archives, Early Documents on the Canadian Jewish Congress 1914-1921. Listed by David Rome with a forward by Saul Hayes, New Series, 1, 1974, P.1. 89 Saul Hayes, “Some Differences between Canadian and US Jewry”, Viewpoints, 1, 2, (1966), P. 7. 90 Saul Hayes, “A View on Canadian Jewish History”, Viewpoints, 7, 3, (1973), P. 6. 91 Canadian Jewish Archives, Inventory of Documents on the Jewish School Question 1903-1932, Listed by David Rome with a forward by Saul Hayes, New Series, 2, 1975, P. 2.

121 history and the deep sense of a separate Jewish destiny: “men and women identifying with the remarkable continuity of Judaism…forming new civilian structures shaped by Canadian geography, legal environments and cultural climates”. Thus, Canada was a case study for the Jewish ability to flourish and contribute to general society when offered equality, freedom, and peaceful existence.92 Any proper historiographical interpretation of the Canadian Jewish experience had, according to Hayes, to integrate these two perspectives – the past was a toll in pointing the way forward in navigating the complex relationships between the Canadian state, Canadian culture, and the community.

The proper contextualization of Canadian-Jewish historical experience during the first half of the twentieth century was therefore, according to Hayes, an urgent task that, if done effectively, would help strengthen the bonds of Jewish identity and provide future generations with a lasting and “healthy awareness of our roots and the nature of our challenges”.93 If, on the other hand, the task of producing narratives about the community’s past would be neglected, the community’s elan vital will suffer greatly. Canadian Jewry, just as any other ethnic community that would “think not of the conservation of its archives, the writing of its history, the preservation of the annals of communities” would simply not be able to survive the generational transformation and the emerging multicultural Canadian social landscape.94

Unfortunately, “Canadian Jewry”, Hayes announced, was still “sorely missing a first-class analysis of its record”.95 There was still no person who managed to capture and portray the Canadian Jewish story in a well-written, engaging and scholarly rigorous narrative

92 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 1, P.2. 93 Canadian Jewish Archives, On the Jewish School Question 1903-1932, Listed by David Rome with a forward by Saul Hayes, new series, 3, 1975, P. 5. 94 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, June 8th, 1976 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1); Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 95 Canadian Jewish Archives, On Our Forerunners – At Work, Complied by David Rome, introduction by Saul Hayes, New Series, 9, 1978, P.2.

122 form – combining thorough knowledge with an inherent sympathy to the community.96 While Canadian Jews managed to integrate into all sections of Canadian society, and even produced literary works of fiction in which the struggles and dramas of the North American Jewish individual were explored in engaging and emphatic ways, the history of the group, of the community as a social organism, had not yet received sufficient attention. The CJC’s had to therefore, according to Hayes, find ways to encourage Jewish academics to turn to the research of Canadian Jewish history: “our number one priority is the training of Jewish historians who will not write about the canal systems of Canada or the fur trade…Until this is done, Jewish history will result in fragmentary bits and pieces”.97 Hayes recognized that from within the ranks of the CJC, no one possessed “the kind of crisp, polished English we would like to see reflected in any history under our auspices”.98 Rome’s English was “too turgid” and “circumlocutory”, Abe Arnold did not possess proper academic credentials and all of the others who published monographs and books on topics related to Canadian Jewish history up to this point, never managed to produce, according to Hayes, anything more than a “lackluster performance”.99

These comments, which Hayes made during the late nineteen-seventies, reflected his ongoing sense of frustration with the lack of progress within the field of Canadian Jewish historiography. Although the journal of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society began operations in 1976 and offered a steady publication venue, it still did not manage to attract many academic contributions and included, for the most part, materials written by those from within the CJC circle. The academic historians that Hayes hoped to draw did not hurry to turn their attention and skills towards Canadian Jewish history per se: Tulchinsky concentrated on trade and economic history, Abella on the labor movement and Troper on broader immigration and settlement perspectives. Furthermore, also the

96 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, “Writing a History of the Canadian Jewish Community”, October 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 97 Hayes, “A View on Canadian Jewish History”, P. 8. 98 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, “Writing a History of the Canadian Jewish Community”, October 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 99 Ibid.

123 other memory-related projects that Hayes was involved with seemed to be stuck. There was still no Canadian Jewish museum, and no Jewish history booklet was yet published as part of the ‘Canada’s Ethnic Groups’ series, even while other ethnic groups – Hayes mentioned the Scots, Ukrainian Polish and Japanese – already managed to publish their histories as part of the series. Even a smaller project, like the effort to write the history of the CJC, did not amount to much more than several drafts and half-finished manuscripts, nor did Hayes manage to capture the attention of any academic historian to take on the job.100 Increasingly worried for his, and the CJC’s legacy, Hayes came to believe that a proper and functioning archival infrastructure was a necessity if wanting to draw serious historians to the field that he cared so much about.

Just like Hayes, also Rome regarded Canadian Jewish history as fundamental to the understanding of the overall Canadian national growth. Canadian history, he declared, could not be properly understood without placing the Ezekiel Hart oath debate as a fundamental stage in the opening up of the Canadian political system to minority groups.101 Still, Rome’s perception of the Canadian Jewish historical experience and the ways in which it should be interpreted and presented, was different from Hayes’. For him, the fundamental interpretive framework for Canadian-Jewish history was not the geographic and legal frameworks of Canada and not the ability to maintain the right balance between the two sides of the identity hyphen. Rather, Canadian Jewish history had to be “viewed and defined…as an element of another, broader entity – the world- wide millennia-old Jewish people”.102 Rome was convinced that it was “world conditions that decided Jewish actions in Canada”103 and as a result, one was not able to properly understand or interpret Canadian Jewish history without obtaining an intimate knowledge of the roles of other centres of Jewish habitat, in Europe and later in Israel, in framing Canadian Jewish life.104 For instance, Jewish participation in the Canadian labour

100 Ibid. 101 David Rome to Alan Rose, November 30th, 1981 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 102 David Rome, “Problems in Canadian Jewish historiography” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 3, 9). 103 Ibid. 104 David Rome to Harry Gutkin, October 9th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1).

124 movement could not be adequately appreciated if told through the lens of labour history. Instead, according to Rome, it could be properly understood only if interpreted as a part of “the emotional history of the modern Jew”.105 The same was true for many other events and social trends that Jews were part of in Canada, but that needed to be contextualized according to the global Jewish experience. Even Canadian anti-Semitism, Rome insisted, could not be separated from its European origins which meant that, during the 1930’s, “the Nazi threat was well heard by Canadian Jews”.106 Canadian Jews, according to Rome, brought “Jewish concepts to Canadian soil”107 and these made them clearly discernable from their fellow countrymen. Another example, close to Rome’s heart, was the field of literature, where, he claimed, Canadian Jewish authors constituted a separate branch - in themes, structures and modes of expression - within Canadian, and North American, literature.108 The importance of the Canadian context was therefore in that it provided a case study for Jewish history: “Canada’s middle position in terms of geography, politics, and constitution…and its ties with all the mainsprings of European civilization – reflected through the prism of Jewish experience - may shed unknown light on the eternal and cherished entity of Israel”.109

Furthermore, Jewish history, according to Rome, also provided the primary roadmap through which one could make sense of their Jewish identity. As noted by historian Ira Robinson, this was the prevailing view within the secular Zionist social milieu that Rome came from: Jewish history as the ‘sacred text’ that substituted religious faith.110 This

105 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 9, P.8. This is probably a reference to Irving Abella’s focus on labour history. 106 Pathways to the Present, P. 6; See also Canadian Jewish Archives, The Congress Archival Record of 1934, Listed by David Rome with a forward by Victor Sefton, New Series, 6, 1976, P. 3. 107 David Rome, The Early Jewish Presence in Canada, (Montreal: Bronfman Collection of Jewish Canadiana, 1971), P. 1. 108 David Rome, Jews in Canadian Literature, A Bibliography, (Montreal: Montreal Canadian Jewish Congress and Jewish Public Library, 1964) P. ix. 109 David Rome, “Canada’s Jews on Canvas of World Jewry”, Congress Bulletin, October 7th, 1948, P. 17. Interestingly, Rome’s appreciation of the MHSO’s director, Robert Harney, had to do with the latter’s recognition of these broader – continent wide – framework of some of the immigrant groups to North America. See David Rome to Robert Harney, June 6th, 1983 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2). 110 Ira Robinson, “David Rome as Historian of Canadian Jewry”, Canadian Jewish Studies, 3, (1995), P. 6.

125 worldview was reflected in several references that Rome made and that attributed holiness to the historiographical task. For instance, he described historian Benjamin Sack as a priest who was “single-minded, driven to the perfect service of the highest cause”.111 And if history was a religion, the CJA was a temple: playing a “sacred role”112 for the community after years in which “the sanctity of ‘Jewish heritage on paper’ have found no protector”.113 Rome even had to turn to religious metaphors when referring to the volunteers that he once found throwing away archival materials from the CJA and whom he described as “moneychangers in the temple”.114

In contemplating the question of the purpose of Canadian-Jewish history, Rome combined the Canadian context with the broader framework of the Jewish North American diaspora. For the most part, Jewish migration to North America was, as for most other immigrants, a result of a search for better lives and economic opportunities in a just and democratic society where they would be able to practice their faith in freedom and dignity.115 North America thus provided its Jews with the opportunity to remain “at the same time very proud of [their] Jewish nationality – and be remarkedly modern”.116 Nevertheless, the European Holocaust, as part of the ongoing and mysterious drama of Jewish history, transformed, according to Rome, the destiny of North American Jews and offered them a much more serious, and collective, role in the fate of their nation. In the post-Holocaust Jewish world, now devoid of Eastern European Jewry which provided world Jewry its main source of national and cultural energy, the two young centres - in Israel and North America – both of which consolidated just a short time before the Holocaust, had suddenly found themselves responsible for the continuation of Jewish life. However, each centre had to face its own detrimental challenge: while Israeli Jews had to

111 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 4, P. 2. 112 David Rome to M. Husid, September 7th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA 3, 1). 113 David Rome, “National Archives”, 1980 draft report for the CJC Plenary (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2). 114 Janice Rosen, “David Rome: The Omnivore of Jewish Canadiana”, P. 3. 115 David Rome, “Problems in Canadian Jewish Historiography” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 3, 9). 116 As the young David Rome described David Ansell whose records collection was one of the first to be acquired by the CJA (Rome, The David A. Ansell Collection, P.3).

126 overcome constant threats to their physical survival, North American Jews faced with a spiritual challenge: finding a way to maintain “Jewish vigour and creative survival” in a world of “technological monotheism and uniformity”.117 That was the challenge to which Rome dedicated his life and public career, and as the years went by, he became increasingly worried about the future. His biggest concern was the possible breakage in the sense of historical linkage and continuity between the generations, a crucial element in the forming of Jewish identity in a world devoid of religious authority. How could one overcome the vast gaps between the North American and Eastern European Jewish experiences and offer a coherent historical framework that would allow inter- generational identification?118 One of the answers, according to Rome, rested with the local experiences, and especially the ones faced by the immigrating generation, that had to become a crucial component in the education of future Jewish Canadian-born generations. That was the way through which one could “place modern Judaism in an American context”, and in order to do that, a priority had to be given to the building of a sustainable archival infrastructure that would serve to encourage and support those who would take on the task of capturing this narrative in the future.119

Rome’s own historiographical output focused mostly on the nineteen thirties: a period that he perceived as the most challenging for Canadian Jewry and as the one that could provide the community with most lessons for the future. It was “a crucial and formative period in our annals…[and] many of our present realities were then shaped”.120 All across the country, Canadian Jews were faced with overt, unabashed anti-Semitism, forced to realize, like many of their European counterparts, “their helpless and isolated condition” and how exposed they were, even when living in a democratic society.121 In that, “the Canadian condition” Rome declared “was not different from other lands. Hitler counted

117 David Rome, “A Jew Comments on Plural Cultures” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 1,3, P. 4). 118 David Rome to M. Batshaw, August 10th, 1971 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 119 David Rome, “A Jew Comments on Plural Cultures” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 1,3, P. 1). 120 Canadian Jewish Archives, The Congress Archival Record of 1934, new series, 6, 1976, P. 3. 121 Canadian Jewish Archives, Jewish Archival Record of 1935, New Series, 7, 1976, P. vii.

127 correctly on many national traditions in his plans”.122 Worst still, one “searches the record in vain for evidence of action by the community” but finds only confusion.123 Unprepared to meet these new realities, Canadian Jews lacked central leadership, and because of that, were unable to influence their government or form a confident dialogue with broader segments within Canadian society. The historical lesson, according to Rome, was clear: only the 1934 rejuvenation of the CJC and the unity and sense of purpose it helped cultivate in the following years transformed the Canadian Jewish experience and brought it to its current, dignified state.

This historiographical framework, of a community that constantly struggles for cultural independence, helps understand Rome’s insistence on a national perspective for Canadian Jewish historiography. It also helps to explain his affinity towards French- Canadians, whose condition, he believed, shared many similarities with the Jewish one. Both communities tried to maintain diasporic culture and identity after being “left on their own” by the cultural centre from which they originated (thus equating French Canadians after the British conquest with North American Jews after the Holocaust).124 Jews, more than others, Rome claimed, should be appreciative and supportive of French Canadian efforts to “fight for cultural existence in a uniforming world” and imitate their unwavering insistence on maintaining independent institutional cultural mechanisms.125 Likewise, the struggle for a Jewish state, the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language and the Israeli embrace of democratic secularism, could all be inspirational, Rome believed, to many Quebec nationalists and allowed for many points of contact and identification between the two communities. As for the many accusations of French-Canadian anti- Semitism, Rome argued that one must remember that in Quebec antisemitic attitudes never turned into physical violence, that postwar anti-Semitism has been on constant decline and that the contemporary French-Canadian cause was built on national, rather

122 Canadian Jewish Archives, Our Archival Record of 1933, Hitler’s Year, New Series, 5, 1976, P. 6. 123 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 7, P. x. 124 David Rome, “Quebec – L’Actualite, The cultural aspect”, Viewpoints, 4, 3, (1969), Pp. 45-46. 125 David Rome, “Memo on Jewish program for our future in Quebec”, December 30th, 1968 (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 2, 10).

128 than religious, foundations, and so, Jews could, and should, sympathise with it despite the bumpy past.126 Hayes, as already noted, was just as sensitive to the French-Canadian cause as Rome and believed that there were many parallels to be made between the groups. He too, asserted that French Canadian fears of cultural assimilation “should not seem strange to the Jewish psyche” and that their struggle provided hope that even in North America “it was possible to retain one’s heritage and preserve one’s traditions” through many generations.127 The chapter’s next section turns to explore how these deeper motivations that Hayes and Rome shared, manifested themselves in their archival related choices and decisions.

5.4.1 The CJA, 1970-1981: Competition with PAC and Inability to Professionalize

In his address during the opening ceremony of the Bronfman House, Samuel Bronfman declared that “the history of Congress may not be as well known as it should be”. The CJA, as a “central gathering and distribution point for all information related to Canadian Jewry”, was supposed to help remedy this situation and make sure that history would reflect the CJC’s - and Bronfman’s own – decisive roles in the unification and strengthening of Canadian Jewry.128 However, Bronfman’s vision for the new CJC headquarters as the central governance mechanism for the community proved to be already out of sync with the contemporary needs and priorities of the community. The same trend was clearly mirrored within the archival realm. As a result, the decade that began on the year in which the Bronfman House was inaugurated was marked not by

126 David Rome, “Review of Michael, G. Brown ‘Jew of Juif? Jews, French Canadians and Anglo-Canadians, 1759-1919’”, American Jewish Archives, 41, 1, (1989), Pp. 100-108. 127 Saul Hayes, “Bill 22 – Some Myths and Some Realities”, Congress Bulletin, December 1974, Pp. 1-2; See also David Rome, “Quebec – L’Actualite, The cultural aspect”, Pp. 50-51. 128 Samuel Bronfman, Introduction. Official Opening, Samuel Bronfman House; Commemorating Fifty Years of Service by the Canadian Jewish Congress, Montreal, May 24, 1970, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress., 1970), P. 3; “Samuel’s Bronfman’s Remarks: CJC’s Role Today and Tomorrow”, Congress Bulletin, June 1970. P.4.

129 consolidation and professionalization of archival work, but rather, by on-going struggles over jurisdictions and ownership. These struggles, carried out mostly by Hayes and Rome, were conducted against PAC and its active program of acquisitions of Jewish materials, against Jews in other Canadian cities who questioned the CJA’s self-imposed designation as a national archive, and internally within the CJC, against those officers and decision- makers who remained apathetic towards Hayes and Rome’s belief that an independent archive was one of the core services that the CJC had to provide to the members of the Canadian Jewish community.

After the fanfare of the Bronfman House opening ceremony had ended, more than two hundred boxes, filled with organizational records, correspondences, letters, photos and private files that were gathered and left unsorted through the last thirty-five years made their way to their new home from various storage sites across Montreal. The publicity that accompanied the move even helped attract new deposits to the CJA collection – most notably, the documents that were gathered by Benjamin Sack for his research on nineteenth-century Canadian Jewish history, and that were donated to the CJA by his wife. The CJC’s archives committee was reassembled as the CJA’s governing body and Evelyn Miller, who served as the JPL’s acting archivist was assigned, on a part-time basis, to the task of sorting out the materials before a permanent archivist is hired. However, the archives committee soon discovered that a suitable candidate, possessing the linguistic and professional skills to match its demands, was not easy to come by.129 By 1971, Miller, overwhelmed by the quantity of documents that she had to deal with and disappointed by the lack of progress on behalf of the CJC leadership, described her time with the CJC in a report she entitled “an archivist’s nightmare”.130 Miller criticized the absence of any organizational attention and proper budgetary allocations on behalf of the CJC towards the archival program, without which, she warned, the CJA would remain an archive in name only. In time, others came to share Miller’s disappointment. Professor

129 “Minutes of Meeting, Research and Archives Committee”, June 25th, 1970 (ADCJA, DA 11, A, 1). 130 Evelyn Miller, Canadian Jewish Congress Archives Report 1970-1971, (LAC, Stephen Barber Fonds, MG31, H113, 14, 11).

130

Moshe Davies, head of the centre for contemporary Judaism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the guest speaker at the 1971 CJC plenary assembly, warned CJC members that no rigorous historical scholarship could be written without a proper archival infrastructure to support it.131 Also the chairperson of the newly convened archives committee, Victor Sefton, also warned CJC officers that unless something was done in order to advance the CJA, “by default, Canadian history will continue to be written without an adequate input of Jewish content” and as a result, “we will suffer for it, and so will our children”.132 The harshest criticism came from Toronto Rabbi Stuart Rosenberg following a research trip that he made to the CJA.133 In an opinion piece published in the community’s most popular newspaper, the Canadian Jewish News, Rosenberg described the sight of hundreds of closed boxes with no person on site knowing what materials they contained. Rosenberg declared that this was ‘a scandal’ and ‘cultural calamity’ and demanded, on behalf of community members, immediate action in order to resolve the situation.134 His call, as well as the others appeals noted above, remained, for the most part, unaddressed during the rest of the decade.

The vacuum created by the absence of a professional archivist was partially filled by Saul Hayes and David Rome. Hayes, who never regarded archival activities as a priority during his long tenure as the CJC’s director, became increasingly involved with the CJA after the move to the Bronfman House and his retirement and shift to the role of organizational consultant. In 1972 Hayes asked David Rome who parted ways with the JPL after serving more than twenty years as its executive director, to rejoin the CJC on a part-time basis and continue the task of weeding and sorting the CJA’s archival holdings. Rome, whom Hayes regarded as “the most knowledgeable person on Canadian Jewish history”,135

131 Report of the Archives Session, CJC 16th Plenary Session, 1971 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 132 Victor Sefton to Murray Brass, December 7th, 1976 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 133 Rosenberg’s The Jewish Community in Canada, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1970) was the first work on Canadian Jewish history to be published outside of the purview of the CJC. It was heavily criticized for its inaccuracies within the CJC circles, especially by Abe Arnold. The book hardly acknowledges the CJC’s role in the community’s development. 134 Stuart Rosenberg, “Lack of Jewish Archives”, Canadian Jewish News, December 17th, 1971. P.6. 135 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 16th, 1974 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

131 agreed and remained affiliated with the CJA for the next twenty-four years, until the last year of his life. For the remainder of the decade, the two shared a semi-formal responsibility for the CJA. Hayes focused on acquisitions, mainly trying to persuade, based on his reputation, potential donors to deposit their records within the CJA. Hayes also acted as an advocate for the CJA’s interests on both internal organizational and community forums and represented the repository in discussions and negotiations with PAC. Rome focused on studying the documents and on cataloging and publishing those documents that he perceived to be as having the most appeal and historical value. Continuing and expanding Rosenberg’s Canadian Jewish Archives publication initiative, Rome added forty-seven more booklets to the series between 1974 and 1993. Some of these booklets contained narratives, but most still consisted of not more than a selection of primary sources, copied, arranged and sorted according to a topic or a year, picked from a range of different CJA collections, and published with a short introduction written by Rome in order to contextualize his choices. Although somewhat unusual, these publications seemed to be a natural fit for Rome who was not a professional historian as they helped him avoid extensive writing, while still enabled him to communicate to his audience the general framework of his historiographical worldviews through his choice of the records that he included in each booklet.136 Thus, somewhat paradoxically, Rome’s commitment to the publication effort, coupled with his background as a librarian, meant that the nature of most of his work was non-archival and even anti-archival: arrangement of files and documents according to the topics of his intended publications (for example: CJC inauguration; debates over the education of Jewish children in Montreal; Anti-

136 Several people noted Rome’s unclear writing style. Hayes remarked that Rome’s writing was “turgid” and “circumlocutory” (Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, “Writing a History of the Canadian Jewish Community”, October 11th, 1979, ADCJA, DA3, 1). See also “Review of The First Two Years: A Record of the Jewish Pioneers on Canada’s Pacific Coast by David Rome, W.N. Sage”, The Canadian Historical Review, 24, 1, March 1943, Pp. 73-74). Rome was also not well versed in the demands of academic writing – when asked to submit references in order back some of his claims, he insisted that “to include in this paper each of the sources for each fact…would lose the subject matter of the paper…and would turn it into an encyclopedia” (David Rome to Jonathan Plaut, October 11th, 1977, LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F13, 11, 10).

132

Semitism in Canada during the nineteen thirties), in contrast to established and accepted principles of archival arrangement.137

The bulk of CJA holdings was, naturally, made of internal CJC records, given the principal place that the CJC occupied within the community’s organizational infrastructure. This meant that the CJA was able to offer a relatively thorough representation of Jewish community life since the nineteen thirties. Hayes also succeeded in securing several other essential collections from the period preceding the CJC’s founding. In 1971 he managed to acquire, in a public bid, the personal papers of Samuel Jacobs, one of the first Canadian Jewish MP’s. Unfortunately, as he spent more than the entire annual archives budget on the purchase, Hayes had to turn to private donations in order to complete the transaction.138 Two other significant collections joined in 1974: the records of the Canadian branch of the Jewish Colonialization Association (JCA) and the personal papers of Simon Belkin.139 Hayes was also instrumental in the acquisition of the records of the National Council of Jewish Women in Canada and of several papers from the De Sola family.140 Hayes also negotiated the transfer of the massive records collections of the Jewish Immigrant aid Service (JIAS) and the Baron the Hirsch Jewish family services to the CJA - even if these transfers materialized only after his death.141 Thus, Hayes helped

137 See for example correspondences from David Rome to Saul Hayes November 6th, 1972 and March 21st, 1973 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1); and Saul Hayes to Alan Rose for Members of the NEC of the CJC, January 12th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2). 138 Saul Hayes to Senator Lazarus Phillips, July 15th, 1971 (ADCJA, Acquisitions, Collections by name folder). Samuel W. Jacobs (1871-1938) was an MP and prominent member of the Canadian Jewish community throughout the earlier part of the 20th century. 139 The JCA was UK based organization that helped finance Jewish agricultural settlements across the world. It supported several Jewish colonies in Western Canada and as such, its records were deemed crucial for portraying Jews as not being confined to urban centres. Belkin (1889-1969) was the JCA’s executive director in Canada as well as one of the CJC’s founders. The CJC also helped publish Belkin’s book on Jewish immigration and settlement in Canada (Simon Belkin, Through narrow Gates: A Review of Jewish Immigration, Colonization and Immigrant aid work in Canada, 1840-1940, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Colonization Association, 1966). 140 Abraham De Sola and his son Clarence were Rabbis and communal leaders during the later part of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. 141 Negotiations with JIAS began already in 1974 (Hayes to Kage, April 24th, 1974, ADCJA, DA11, A, 2) but Joseph Kage, executive director of JIAS did not agree to transfer the records to the CJC until a professional archivist was hired (Joseph Kage to Saul Hayes, April 10th, 1974, ADCJA, DA11, A, 2).

133 secure some of the CJA’S core collections and established its focus on Jewish national organizations and on the period of demographic growth and organizational consolidation of Canadian Jewry. Hayes openly admitted that he was uninterested in the records of synagogues or other religious organizations. These, he argued, were part of local experiences and should not to be considered, except in particular instances, to be under the purview of the CJA.142

As noted, one of the main reasons for Hayes’ commitment to the CJA was his desire to publish his memoirs - side by side, or as part of, the publication of a rigorous, academic, study of twentieth-century Canadian Jewish history.143 Although he retired from his role as the CJC’s national director in 1973, Hayes remained involved with the organization, maintained an office in the Bronfman House and kept on voicing his opinions on most matters that the CJC was involved with. His growing concern with the question of the archives made him realize that as long as the CJA’s collections were not adequately processed and made accessible, the historiographical tasks he wished to promote would not be completed. As a result, Hayes regularly sent memos and requests to the CJC directors, demanding solutions to the CJA’s “current haphazard situation which can not go on anymore”.144 He explained how the CJA was useless “not because it does not exist but because at the rate we are going – we will be six feet under before we have a proper inventory”145 and asserted that “if the treasure is hidden in dozens of cartons…and if nobody ever gets to it, it is not worthwhile having archives at all”.146 With time, and as he realized that his demands for proper funding and professional staff remained unmet, Hayes grew increasingly frustrated. Associating the apathy towards the CJA with what he perceived as a more general short-sightedness on behalf of the CJA new leadership,147

142 Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23). In the letter Hayes made it clear that: “it is with the national organizations that we are mostly concerned with”. 143 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 10th, 1974 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2); Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, June 28th, 1979 (ADCJA, Saul Hayes Personalia, ZB, 5). 144 Saul Hayes to David Rome, “Archives: Inventory and Cataloging”, August 29th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 145 Saul Hayes to National Officers of the CJC, November 1st, 1972 (ADCJA, DA 11, A, 2). 146 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 11th, 1979 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 14). 147 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, November 6th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1).

134

Hayes blamed CJC officers for losing “the feeling for the importance of the continuity of the community”,148 and for making the organization lose sight of its broader vision and raison d’être by trying to “take the cheap way out”.149 After several donors began to question the reasons for the lack of progress with regards to cataloguing and public access to their records, Hayes declared that he would no longer risk his reputation and integrity by being associated with the CJA and that he would stop from trying to persuade potential donors to entrust their records to the archive.150

Another vital factor in Hayes’ increasing interest in the CJA during the nineteen seventies was related to the turbulent political situation in Quebec. Throughout the decade Hayes called for Quebec’s Jews to remain patient and cautious in their reactions to the increasingly nationalistic sentiment that seemed to be sweeping over the province. He also committed himself to efforts to ease any possible tensions between the Jewish community and the French-Canadian majority (an effort that Rome was happy to join and contribute to as well).151 The CJA fitted into this broader effort for reasons that were both symbolic and practical. An archive – and especially when operating under a national mandate - symbolized the long, inseparable presence of Jews in the province, as well as their essential role in its history and their commitment to its future, whatever political and cultural direction this future may take. Hayes believed that maintaining the position of the CJA as a national archive for Canadian Jewry would, during a time in which cultural symbols carried immense importance, imply to all those who might doubt it, that the

148 Saul Hayes, “budget on archives”. n.d. (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 3). 149 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 11th, 1979 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 14); Saul Hayes to Stephen Speisman, December 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 150 Saul Hayes to David Rome, October 25th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1); Saul Hayes to Alan Rose and Stan Urman, September 27th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 19). Hayes shared his frustration with people both inside and outside of the CJC. See for example: Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 16th, 1974 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1); Saul Hayes to National Officers of the CJC, November 1st, 1972 (ADCJA, DA 11, A, 2); Saul Hayes to Stephen Speisman, October 15th, 1979 (OJA, Ben Kayfetz fonds, 62, 95-2, 6); Saul Hayes to Arthur Pascal, September 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 2). 151 Saul Hayes, “Are Jews of Quebec an Endangered Species?”, Jewish Historical Society of Canada Journal, 1, 1, (1977), Pp. 24-34; Saul Hayes, “The Jewish Community in a Changing Quebec”, Congress Bulletin, June 1973, Pp. 12-13; Saul Hayes, “Bill 22 – Some Myths and Some Realities”, Congress Bulletin, December 1974, Pp. 1-2.

135

Jewish commitment and loyalty to the province remained firm and unwavering. Furthermore, the need to maintain institutions that were clearly marked as Jewish was also related to his fear that Quebec’s traditional provincial support frameworks which, unlike other Canadian provinces, allocated funds according to religious denomination, would not be too drastically transformed as part of the readjustments of the relationships between the province, the federal government, and the other groups that resided in Quebec.

PAC’s interest in Jewish materials, an interest that grew and increased as the decade progressed, was another source of frustration for Hayes. PAC’s aggressive acquisition campaign, coupled with the lack of progress within the CJA, drove more and more Jewish donors, institutional and individual, to donate their materials to PAC.152 Hayes traveled to Ottawa twice in order to meet with Wilfried Smith, the Dominion Archivist, in an effort to reach a cooperative arrangement for the collection of Jewish materials, but as he was well-acquainted with the civil-service mentality, he knew that Smith would not be able to agree with any precedents that might affect PAC’s relations with other ethnic communities. Thus, unlike David Rome and Stephen Speisman, Hayes did not implicate PAC in the loss of Jewish materials. Although he admitted that PAC tended to take advantage of its ability to offer bigger tax credits to donors of archival materials, Hayes directed his anger at CJC officers and towards what he perceived to be their lack of commitment to their role: “I can not agree with those who blame the national archives…we are to blame…Congress for years had ignored [this issue] and failed to act”.153 Upon reporting back on his meetings in Ottawa, he claimed that “there is no point to call Smith ghoulish or grave-robber. Rather, we should do our own work!”154 No one

152 Rome refused to believe that Louis Rosenberg agreed to donate his records to PAC and in a letter to Ben Keyfetz blamed PAC for tricking Rosenberg into doing so, August 25th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds ,70-6-2). 153 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, November 3rd, 1976 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1). See also Hayes in the minutes of the October 21st, 1976 meeting of the Jewish Historical Society of Canada (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2). 154 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, November 14th, 1977 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2).

136 forced, Hayes argued, Canadian Jews to donate their records to PAC - they simply were not offered a better solution by their community representatives.155

Hayes believed that the responsibility for the valid existence of the CJA was shared by community members – through a commitment to donate their records to it – and by the community’s leadership that had a duty to provide members with proper archival services. Each side had a moral obligation to maintain its part of the deal. Community members who chose to donate their records to PAC, be it because of “cupidity” or because they were flattered by the thought that they would be remembered as significant figures in Canadian history disappointed Hayes, but he knew that there was not much that he could do or argue against their decision. Instead, he pointed his criticism towards the CJC and its leadership.156 Even during the CJC’s earliest days, Hayes declared, while still working “under the most frantic circumstances…of pressing concerns and constant series of emergencies that allowed little leisure for historical perspective”,157 the organization “never neglected its cultural interests and its duties to the heart of Canadian Jewry” and even if not always manifesting this sense of responsibility in concrete actions, the organization kept on “recognizing the fundamental importance of preserving and identifying the archives of Canadian Jewry”.158

However, the current lack of commitment to the archival program meant that the CJC was losing its grip on its higher purpose. It might still “provide for marches, demonstrations, and resolutions on current events”, but betray its own “eternal values [as displayed by] the archive program”.159 Every CJC plenary session since 1934, Hayes announced, committed itself to support the archival program and by doing so, charged

155 Saul Hayes to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut, Stephen Speisman, David Rome, January 10th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 156 Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23). This was probably a reference to Rabbi Gunther Plaut who chose to donate his records to PAC. 157 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 1, P. 1. 158 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 1, P. 1. 159 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, June 8th, 1976 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1).

137

CJC officers with the responsibility to steward the community’s documentary heritage. Now, after many years of service, and while entering a critical time in the community’s history, the CJA was, at last, able to offer the Canadian Jewish public solid facts “on the provenance of Canadian Jewry…[as a way that would help] guide future policies”.160 Discontinuing this service equaled to a betrayal in the organization’s heritage and responsibility and would lead to a future in which “Congress would be like all other organizations”161 and to a “Jewish community, two hundred years old…not able to run its own show and take care of its own shop”.162 Hayes thus plugged the uncertainties concerning the CJA’s future into his broader criticism of what he perceived to be the short-sighted view of the CJC’s role, as taken by its new organizational leadership. In a 1979 letter to Alan Rose, then CJC director, Hayes indicated that the CJA was housed in the Bronfman House for almost a decade already, yet still did not become a functional repository. This situation, he claimed, was a clear marker for both the lack of commitment on behalf of the new leadership, as well as an example for the CJC’s worrying inability to transform resolutions into actions.163 Coupled with the officers’ desire to reach an agreement with PAC, these were signs for, according to Hayes, to “a dereliction of Congress duties”.164

Rome, who described the CJA as “a lien between the CJC, community members and the intellectuals” was, of course, in full agreement with Hayes.165 He claimed that “to abnegate [the archival program] would constitute a dereliction of our duty and…erase every resolution since 1919”.166 Simply put, the CJA was for Rome “one of the CJC’s most useful and permanent accomplishments” and one of the foundations to the CJC’s

160 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 11th, 1979 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 14). 161 Saul Hayes to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut, Stephen Speisman, David Rome, January 10th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 162 Ibid. 163 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, September 11th, 1979 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 14). 164 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, June 8th, 1976 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 165 David Rome to Murray Brass, October 5th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 166 David Rome to Alan Rose, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10, 13).

138

“responsibility of stand, factual base and restraint in position”.167 Through accumulation and distribution of authentic and trustworthy documentation on Canadian Jewry, the CJA “made impossible the falsifications of the past…which have for so long used against us”168 and helped the CJC pursue policies that were based on facts, logic and rigorous sociological insights, leading Canadian Jewry into its current, dignified state.169

Although the accelerating rate of PAC’s acquisitions and Hayes’ constant reminders created a general sense of discomfort within the CJC’s leadership and helped to maintain the CJA on the CJC’s broader organizational agenda, no concrete and practical resolutions were established. An unsuccessful bid against PAC for the records of Montreal’s first synagogue, Sheerit Israel (also known as The Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue), of which Hayes was a member, was the last straw for Hayes. At the next CJC directors meeting he argued that the archives question could not be postponed any longer: the CJA should either be adequately funded or “go out of the archives business” and transfer its materials, together with endowment funds, to PAC, thus “making the time-honored and historical interest of Congress in the archives of the Canadian Jewish community, but a memory”.170 Nevertheless, the other officers were left unconvinced by Hayes’ rhetoric and eventually decided to ask the CJC’s president, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, to travel to Ottawa, meet with Smith and try, yet again, to find a mutually satisfactory solution.171 This decision marked the first time that Hayes was not the person to be delegated the task of meeting with Smith, and he later admitted to being shocked by the officers’ decision. Hayes promised to fight against any potential future plan to get rid of the CJA and avowed to push, during the coming 1980 CJC plenary assembly, for a resolution that would “absolutely frustrate the actions of those who wish to divest the Jewish community

167 David Rome, April 1939, “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews” (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1).; “Report to Mr. Saul Hayes from D. Rome”, December 7th, 1972 (ADCJA, DA 11 A, 2). 168 “Draft of Report of Archives to the 1980 CJC Plenary session”, Attached to a letter from David Rome to Stephen Speisman, February 26th, 1980 (OJA, Sous-Fonds, 64-4, 5). 169 David Rome to Irving Abella, “Institute of Canadian Jewish Studies”, June 30th, 1986 (ADCJA, DA11.3, 2). 170 Saul Hayes to David Rome, “Archives: Inventory and Cataloging”, August 29th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 171 Minutes of the Meeting of CJC national officers, November 13th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). Plaut had already began the process of donating his own records to PAC by then.

139 of its archives”.172 On January 8th, 1980 Hayes sent the other members of the archives committee the draft for his proposed resolution. The document stated that the CJC needed to declare the archival program as one of its principal objectives and as such, to allocate it a proper budget that would allow it to sustain itself and fulfill its duties as “the hallmark of a cultured, civilized, Jewish community”.173 “No other Jewish community in the west” Hayes made sure to announce, “turns its archives to non-Jewish sources”.174 Unfortunately, Hayes was not able to lobby for this resolution as he died on January 12th, 1980, four days after sharing this draft.

Given the timing and circumstances, Hayes’ death seemed to have been more decisive for the fate of the CJA than the resolution that he planned to introduce. Plaut’s meeting with the Dominion Archivist resulted with the latter managing to convince the Rabbi that a transfer of the core CJA archival holdings to PAC would offer the best way to enhance research on Canadian Jewry. Smith sent a formal request for the CJA’s core collections and suggested that the CJC would only maintain ownership of its internal organizational records. Smith also promised to prioritize the cataloguing and publishing of finding aids for all the collections that would be transferred to PAC.175 However, Smith’s letter was sent just a couple of days before Hayes death; it could not have arrived at a worse time for its cause. Hayes’ draft resolution was the last document he produced and as a result, turned into a spiritual will which was impossible to ignore. Already in the February 1980 officers’ meeting, still under the cloud of Hayes death, the option of commemorating Hayes by creating a charitable endowment whose funds would support the CJA’s budget was discussed.176 The next officers meeting, two months later, committed to prioritizing the CJA and agreed to allocate funds that would enable the repository to hire a professional archivist. Jonathan Plaut, Gunther Plaut’s son and the chairman of the CJC’s

172 Saul Hayes to Stephen Speisman, December 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 173 Saul Hayes to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut, Stephen Speisman, David Rome, January 10th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 174 Ibid. 175 Wilfried Smith to Rabbi Gunther Plaut, January 9th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 176 Minutes, National Executive Meeting, February 10th, 1980 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 20).

140 archives committee, participated in the meeting and reported to the other committee members that out of respect to Hayes memory and legacy, “the officers demonstrated their commitment” to the CJA and that “it was clear from the tone of the meeting that the archives remain in business”.177

Although Hayes’ draft resolution was not discussed during the plenary session that year, the meeting ended with historian Irving Abella taking on the chairmanship of the archives committee. Abella, who was already in the later stages of researching Canadian government policies towards immigration requests by European Jews before and during World War Two, brought with him not just the credentials of an academic historian but also the understanding of the immense importance of community records for historians. After a few more months - that also included a couple of resignation threats – Abella was able to secure the hiring of a professional archivist – Judith Nefsky, who joined the CJA on April 1981. Within a year’s time, Nefsky’s professional capabilities and Abella’s reputation helped the CJA to secure the long awaited transfer of the JIAS records and even more importantly, a substantial three-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) in order to produce “research tools for the study of immigration, reception and integration of Jews to Canada”.178 The funds were allocated to the cataloguing of the CJA’s major collections: the records of the CJC, JCA, JIAS and United Jewish relief. For David Rome this turn of events and especially the grant, marked a clear victory over PAC: government funds awarded to the community, helping it secure its most valuable and fundamental archival collections and, by doing so, assuring that no serious historical research could be conducted on Canadian Jewish history without its author having to visit the CJA.179

The SSHRC grant, as well as the immense impact that Abella and Troper’s publication of None is too Many generated, helped to secure the CJA’s place as one of the CJC’s core

177 Jonathan Plaut report of officers meeting of CJC, April 21th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). 178 1983 Archives committee report to the CJC plenary (ADCJA, Congress Plenary Assembly files). 179 David Rome to Irving Abella, “Long Range Community Planning”, May 1st, 1984 (ADCJA. DA11 A, 2).

141 programs. Nefsky spent the next few years establishing the CJA’s professional foundations – she developed orderly acquisitions policies, security measures, and proper record keeping practices, sorted and catalogued the collections, and even introduced a program for computerized retrieval system for the records.180 The CJA’s professionalization process was also evident in the close ties Nefsky developed with other elements within the Montreal and Quebec archival community. By 1992, after Jean Poirier, a board member of the Archives nationales du Quebec (ANQ) joined the CJA’s advisory committee, the CJA received the status of ‘partnership archive’ with the ANQ181. The fact that a professional archivist was now on board, coupled with the CJA’s growing reputation motivated other Jewish organizations to deposit their records at the CJA.182 With time the CJA also became involved with several other initiatives such as the collection of Holocaust-related materials, collection of materials pertaining to Sephardi Jews and the creation of an oral history program.183

Why did it take more than a decade after the move to the Bronfman House for the CJA to become a functioning archival repository? The answer seems to be the result of a number of factors. Firstly, ownership of documents, especially following the CJA’s success in acquiring several archival collections during the early years of the nineteen-seventies, satisfied the expectations of the CJC’s leadership. This sense of accomplishment was a direct offspring of the initial perception of the CJA’s mission, as displayed in the early CJC resolution to fight neglect and loss of historical materials, rather than to utilize these

180 Judith Nefsky to Murray Brass, May 25th, 1981 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1981); Judy Nefsky to Irving Abella, “Re the National Archives Program”, May 4th, 1981, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1981); Judy Nefsky to Stan Urman and Murray Brass, “Re Computerization in the Archives”, August 12th, 1981 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1981); Judith Nefsky to Irving Abella, “Re Future of the National Archives”, March 22nd, 1984 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1984). 181 Judy Nefsky to Irving Abella, Report on meeting with Quebec archivists, February 21st, 1983 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1983); Judith Nefsky to Irving Abella, Jim Archibald, David Rome and Stephen Speisman, Report on meting of Robert Gordon (PAC) with the Montreal region archivist group, November 24th, 1983 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2, 1983). 182 For example: The United Restitution Organization, the National Council of Jewish Women, Montreal’s Temple Emanuel Bet Shalom and The Hebrew Sick Benefit Society of Montreal. Bnai Brith, on the other hand, decided to donate the records of their national office to PAC. 183 Minutes of the Quebec region archives committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, January 20th, 1988 (ADCJA, DA11, 3, 1, 2); “Canadian Jewish Congress National Archives Oral History Program”, June 20th, 1986 (ADCJA, DA11, 3, 1, 2).

142 records for historical research. The general sense within the CJC leadership was that ownership of the physical documents was the main priority of an archive, and that sorting, cataloguing and providing access to these records, all of which demanded funds and expertise, could be tackled at some still undetermined point in the future, after other, more pressing, community priorities were addressed. Of course, the constant financial pressures experienced by the organization during the nineteen-seventies, as well as the possible antagonism that Hayes’ ongoing interventions and demands had created, did not make the road for the eventual professionalization of the CJA’s any smoother.

Secondly, the linking of the CJA with the long process of building the Bronfman House as the new CJC headquarters proved to be another obstacle on the way to professionalization. It seems that the anticipation for a designated space postponed any other archival-related initiatives in Montreal for a very long time. An example can be taken from a report written by Victor Sefton after his first visit to the Bronfman House. Sefton noticed that “[the archives] might be a space they [CJC officers in Montreal] don’t know what to do with and they are anxious to use…and so, they are pressured to collect”.184 All in all, it seems the top-down approach that was a result of the decision to make the CJA a core element within the Bronfman House did not allow space, during the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies, for the growth of any other potential grassroots archival and public memory initiatives in Montreal. The need to offer systematized archival services moved higher on the CJC’s agenda only after an alarming number of materials made their way to external repositories. However, by this point, the financial challenges that the CJC began to face did not allow for easy solutions and the fact that David Rome was already employed by the CJA, even if on a part-time basis, did not help to resolve the situation.185 Eventually, it was only the timing and the effect of Hayes’ death that tipped the scales and convinced CJC leadership to commit to turning

184 “Jewish Historical Society”, a memo by Victor Sefton, January 12TH, 1971 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-2). 185 When Lawrence Tapper, the archivist that was employed by PAC in charge of their Jewish collection offered his services to the CJA – he was turned down due to a lack of available funds. See Lawrence Tapper to Saul Hayes, November 8th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1).

143 the CJA into a viable and functioning archival repository. There was still a long and complicated process ahead, yet once the commitment was there, it remained firm even during later years, years that witnessed the CJC’s continued decline, loss of power and final disbandment in 2010, eventually leaving the CJA as the last functional element of the organization, just as Hayes had predicted almost forty years earlier.

5.4.2 The Challenge of Maintaining the CJA’s Position as a ‘National Archive’

As already mentioned, two principles guided Hayes and Rome in their archival endeavours. Firstly, the duty to sustain a functional and independent Jewish archival repository in Montreal and secondly, the principle that such an archive had to maintain a national, Canada-wide focus. Only if adhering to these two principles, the two believed, could future historical scholarship on Canadian Jewish history be appropriately contextualized. They thus envisioned the CJA as “the centre for the archival interests of the rest of the community”, dedicated to “locating and securing materials on Canadian Jewry” from all over Canada.186 That was the only way to achieve an historiography that would “systematically evaluate each document and each emerging fact and place it in the context of the totality of the national perspective” and allow an integrative understanding of the community’s history – one that would not be possible to achieve if working through a network of regional community archives.187 This vision created apparent frictions with the archival endeavours that began to emerge in other regions across Canada. For example, an enquiry sent to David Rome from the newly formed Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia wondered if materials concerning the province’s Jewish history were held by the CJA and if so, whether these could be transferred to BC. Rome’s answer

186 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose for Members of the NEC of the CJC, January 12th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2). 187 D. Rome to Saul Hayes, “Annex re Library and Archives”, attached to Saul Hayes to National Officers Report, January 8th, 1973 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2); See also Saul Hayes in the “Report on the National meeting re forming of National Canadian Jewish Historical Society in February 2nd, 1975, Reported to the Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia” (ADCJA, Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada box).

144 confirmed that the CJA maintained documentation on early nineteen-century Jewish settlement in Victoria, BC, but he refused the request, alleging that these materials had to remain in Montreal because they were a matter of “national interest”. Moreover, Rome added that he was not sure if he could entrust these records to others as he “does not know how serious anybody is in Vancouver about local Jewish history”.188 Rome was just as uncooperative when responding to requests to transfer Ontario-produced records to the OJA.189

As the archival activities in Toronto and Winnipeg gradually gained formality and confidence, questions regarding the CJA’s national archives model began to mount. Did Canadian Jewry really require or benefited from a national approach? And how could the CJA aspire to be a national archive if it did not even employ a professional archivist nor was driven by enthusiastic, grassroots community participation?190 These voices gained more traction after Jonathan Plaut took on the role of chairperson of the CJC’s archives committee in 1978. Plaut, the son of then CJC president Gunther Plaut, and a Rabbi from Windsor, Ontario, was completing his Ph.D. dissertation on the history of his local Windsor Jewish community at the time he assumed the role. Perturbed by Hayes’ ongoing involvement with archival questions despite not assuming any CJC official role anymore, Plaut was confident that the community’s archival programs needed to be conducted on a regional basis and that working arrangements with PAC and other local repositories were both useful and necessary.191 Plaut’s first initiative as the chairperson of the archives committee was to circulate a position paper, based on discussions he conducted with several stakeholders across Canada, regarding the restructuring of the community’s

188 Morris Saltzman to David Rome, July 18th, 1974; David Rome to Morris Saltzman, July 22nd, 1974 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 189 See MHSO Jewish Studies Committee to Prof. Robert Harney, “Re: Cooperative Projects with the Canadian Jewish Archives”, March 30th, 1978 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10, 13). 190 See for example Abe Arnold “Working Paper on Archives and Research Activities and the Development of Jewish Historical Societies”, February 1971 (JHSWC, JHC366). 191 Jonathan Plaut to Gunther Plaut, June 14th, 1978 and November 3rd, 1978 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23); Jonathan Plaut to Victor Sefton, Harry Gutkin, Evelyn Miller, Sol Edell and Saul Hayes, August 25th, 1978 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 18); Jonathan Plaut to Saul Hayes, December 17th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23); Jonathan Plaut to Saul Hayes, November 30th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23).

145 archival governance. The report recommended that the community’s long-term goal should be the establishment of five regional archives with one of the five to be designated as a ‘national reporting administrative centre’. Plaut claimed that because of the political uncertainties in Quebec and its growing separatist tendencies, the community should wait until a later date before deciding which repository – in Montreal or in Toronto – should play this role. The shorter-term priorities for the community’s archival program in Plaut’s report included the allocation of funds for the hiring of a professional archivist for the CJA and, of course, the advancement of the long-awaited cataloguing of its core collections. Apart from challenging the perception of Montreal as the centre of the community’s archival activities, the report also questioned the CJC’s ability to maintain its commitment to perform archival work on the community’s behalf. Another recommendation contained in the report was to launch a community-wide fund-raising campaign that would help secure the CJA’s future, even if this meant that the CJA would end up being taken out of the CJC’s purview.192

Both Rome and Hayes, of course, objected to Plaut’s report. Rome was adamant in his claim that the only legitimate way forward was to strengthen the CJA’s role as a national Jewish archive.193 Other regions, he insisted, did not possess sufficient knowledge, confidence, or sense of independence to enable them to take a leading role in such an endeavour. To support his claim, Rome pointed to the “horrifying” decision of the JHSWC’s to maintain Jewish materials at the Manitoba archives.194 Hayes, although less harsh, displayed the same mindset and claimed that outside of Montreal and Toronto there were simply not enough qualified people or available funds for proper community archival work to take place.195 Plaut’s suggestions, Hayes warned, provided solutions to the wrong problem. The issue was not the locations, but the budgetary allocations - the Jewish community did not need to rethink the structure of its archival programs, but

192 National Archives Committee, “Report to National Executive Committee of the CJC”, n.d. (LAC, JP Fonds, M31, F13, 10, 17). 193 David Rome to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut August 29th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 194 Ibid. 195 Saul Hayes to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut, August 29th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 2).

146 rather, to understand the importance of these programs and increase their funding. Hayes therefore recommended the CJC officers to reject Plaut’s report and only endorse the report’s national fund-raising campaign initiative which, Hayes believed, could help cement the CJA’s position as a national archive.196

The tension between Montreal and the other regions was evident also in the debate over other public memory initiatives such as the discussions over the national Museum portion of the Bronfman House complex - an initiative that eventually failed to deliver.197 When the CJA incorporated in 1968 it had done so under the title “Jewish Museum and Archives of Canada” and the two elements were supposed to complement each other as part of the making of the Bronfman House into a centre of Canadian Jewish culture. Hayes took upon himself to advance the Museum program, but after the passing of Sam Bronfman found out that other Bronfman family members did not agree to the Museum plans that he submitted. While Hayes was struggling with differing opinions on the scope and structure of the planned museum, a successful exhibition on Canadian Jewish life in Western Canada was produced in Winnipeg. The exhibition, titled “Journey into our Heritage” later made its way, supported by governmental multicultural grants, to Toronto, Ottawa, and Tel Aviv. One of the results of the exhibition’s success was a discussion over the necessity of a national Jewish museum in which the members of the JHSWC offered their own take on the topic: the establishment of three regional museum spaces (in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg) that would cooperate and interchange exhibitions and programs.198 Furthermore, Harry Gutkin, the curator and leading spirit behind “Journey into our Heritage” warned Hayes that without grassroots support and active cooperation of Jewish communities from other parts of Canada, the national museum plan was bound to fail.199 Eventually, the continued disagreement of several Bronfman family members to the plans provided to them by Hayes, the idea of

196 “National Archives Report” by Saul Hayes, October 5th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 2). 197 Phyllis Lambert to Peter Swann and Allan Bronfman, June 16th, 1975 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 198 Abe Arnold, “Jewish Museums Drive Urged”, June 1979 press release (AM, AA Fonds, P5110). 199 Harry Gutkin to Saul Hayes, May 2nd, 1973 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1).

147 establishing a national museum was scrapped altogether, but at that point it already became clear to Hayes that he was not able to count on community-wide support for a Montreal-based initiative that aimed to have a national scope.200

A similar kind of conflict over jurisdictions was evident in the discussions that preceded the 1976 creation of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society (CJHS). The initial motivation to form a national historical society came, like many other initiatives, from Winnipeg’s JHSWC. During the group’s early years, besides relying on the enthusiasm of its founding members, growth and sustainability were achieved mostly through governmental – both federal and provincial - monetary support. To be eligible for further funding, the JHSWC had to demonstrate a national impact for its programs and that they were endorsed by broader segments within the community.201 Like most other community-wide initiatives the first address was the CJC and at its 1971 plenary session members of the JHSWC introduced a resolution in support of the creation of a national historical society. The resolution was accepted and envisioned the CJHS’ mandate as helping to promote, coordinate and administer various community history-related projects, including “the efforts to intensify acquisition and collection of materials, to develop satisfactory working relations with PAC and other archives, museums, and associations and encourage historical writing”.202

Abe Arnold, who already drafted a proposal for the organization’s constitution, envisioned the CJHS as a “truly all-Canadian” federation of independent regional historical societies, without “any group imposing itself or even appearing to do so”. In that, Arnold’s vision intended for each region to be free to decide how to conduct its work according to

200 Saul Hayes to Charles Bronfman, June 7th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1); A more detailed account on Hayes frustration with the entire process see “Memorandum”, June 29th, 1977 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 201 Officers of the JHSWC to Sol Kanee, National President of the CJC, October 4TH, 1973 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1). 202 Abe Arnold to Monty Berger, December 22nd, 1971 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1).

148 local and regional interests and priorities.203 Arnold also envisioned the CJHS as “true to the folk origins of the CJC”,204 and hoped it would stimulate amateur initiatives, rather than focus on the promotion of historiographical output by professional historians. Furthermore, he advocated for the CJHS to have a stake in the governance of the community’s archival work. In that, Arnold aimed to redistribute current CJC’s budgetary allocations for its different archival programs and to turn some of the funding that was given the CJA’s publication program towards stimulation of regional acquisitions activities and to the production of a unified list of Canadian-Jewish archival holdings. But Hayes and Rome had their own, different priorities as they believed that the discussions over the formation of a national historical society presented a chance to bolster the CJA’s position as a national archive. Both men insisted that the CJHS’ budget had to remain completely separated from the budget of the CJA’s budget – mostly so that Rome’s publication project could continue unaffected.205 Both also disagreed with Arnold’s vision of amateur historiography and insisted that the CJHS had to focus on encouragement and promotion of academic research on Canadian Jewish history.206

The debates between the groups continued also after the CJHS’ 1976 inauguration, as most of the contested points were left unresolved.207 Still, the ongoing discussions proved to Hayes and Rome yet again that they faced a real opposition to the idea of Montreal, and the CJA, as a centre of archival activities. Although Hayes proposed himself as the historical society’s first president, he was not elected to the position, partly on account of

203 “Draft Constitution of the Jewish Historical Society of Canada”, October 26th, 1976 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1; “Proposal for a National Jewish Historical Society” (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-3); Abe Arnold, “What kind of Jewish Historical Society do we want”, May 18th, 1976 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1); Abe Arnold “A Jewish historical society in Canada, Pristine or Prolific?”, July 1974 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1). 204 Abe Arnold “A Jewish historical society in Canada, Pristine or Prolific?”, July 1974 (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1). 205 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, February 17th, 1975 (OJA Sous-Fonds, 1, 64-4); “Report on the National meeting re forming of National Canadian Jewish Historical Society in February 2nd, 1975, Reported to the Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia” (ADCJA, JHSWC box). 206 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, February 17th, 1975 (OJA Sous-Fonds, 1, 64-4); Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, April 15th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2); David Rome to Victor Sefton, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2). 207 Abe Arnold to Victor Sefton, June 12th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-2); Abe Arnold to Stephen Speisman, March 8th, 1976 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-3); Abe Arnold to Milton Harris, June 17th, 1975 (JHSWC, JHC420); I. Wolch, N. Arkin and H. Gutkin to Victor Sefton, April 9th, 1976 (ADCJA, JHSWC box).

149 the resistance to his “central office mentality”, which meant that Arnold’s vision of local and regional activities as the cornerstone for the CJHS, triumphed.208 The rift between the two groups grew even wider after the CJHS 1979 annual conference at which Arnold invited Walter Neutel and Robert Harney to a panel that discussed the community’s archival program. Rome, furious by the fact that “strangers” were invited to advise the community on how to deal with its archives, distanced himself from the CJHS from then onwards and, instead, turned his attention to the newly established Concordia University’s Centre for Jewish Studies. When he looked back at these events more than twenty years later, Arnold concluded that Rome orchestrated the crisis in order to ensure Montreal remained at the centre of the community’s archival decision making and concluded that the CJHS’ inability to sustain itself was directly related to its failure to obtain a stake within the CJA’s governance.209

5.4.3 The CJA as a Marker of Maturity and Dignity and its Relationship with Canadian Jewish Historiography

Already noted in an earlier section was the importance that both Rome and Hayes assigned to the writing and publishing of works on Canadian Jewish history. When Rome accepted Hayes invitation to rejoin the CJC, he declared that his goal was to help create an archival infrastructure that would “encourage and facilitate” the writing of twentieth-century Canadian Jewish history.210 A community archive, Rome stated, would allow the community to achieve “authority of its own history” while “remaining the

208 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, June 8th, 1976 (ADCJA, MC25, 1,7); Evelyn Miller to Stephen Speisman, June 25th, 1976 (OJA, Sous-Fonds, 64-4, 1); Evelyn Miller to Abe Arnold, September 11th, 1976 (AM, AA Fonds, P5111); Evelyn Miller to Victor Sefton, November 21st, 1976 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 209 Evelyn Miller to Victor Sefton, January 15th, 1980 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-1); Harry Gutkin to Jonathan Plaut, April 14th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15); Abe Arnold to Victor Sefton, March 30th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15). Abe Arnold, “Paper for the 25th Anniversary Session at ACJA Conference: Professional Historians and Gifted Amateurs in the Founding of the Canadian Jewish Historical Society” (ADCJA, MC25, 1, 1). 210 David Rome to Saul Hayes, June 15th, 1972 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

150 custodian of its own records”, as well as help “separate the academic from the vulgar” and replace “sentimental nostalgia” with a clearer understanding of the processes that allowed the community’s growth.211 But the CJA’s role was, according to both Hayes and Rome, bigger than just to encourage works of history. It was also supposed to serve as a guide that would offer the framework for future works of historiography, one that would make sure these works maintained both the CJC and the national dimension of the Canadian Jewish experience at their core. Only a nationally-administrated archive could help historians capture the broader perspectives of the Jewish experiences in Canada and point to the CJC’s role as the community’s central agent of growth.212 In other words, the institutional governance of the archive was deemed as instrumental to the direction of the scholarship it would help to produce.

According to Hayes, the CJA’s goal was therefore to “organize the documentary foundations of Canadian Jewry…place it in the context of the totality of our national perspective”, and thus, provide historians the context of a committed, unified, nationally bounded community with a shared vision that transcended regional geographical boundaries.213 The community’s story was not, and should not, be portrayed as a story of several small, faith-based, communities, defined and challenged by their local, immediate surroundings. Only a national archive, a place where “the moulders of Canadian Jewry rub shoulders with…many hundreds of near-anonymous activists of Jewish organizational life” would allow for proper, inspiring interpretations of the dramas of Canadian Jewish existence.214 Only a national archive could point to the fact that “within the extensive borders of the Canadian nation there have been played the dramas of the meetings of strangely distant Jewries: from London, from Prussian towns, from Vilno and

211 David Rome, “Records and Documentation of the Jewish Community”, October 20th, 1968 (JPL, 00104, 1968-1973).; David Rome to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut August 29th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 212 Saul Hayes to Suzanne Hunter, December 4th, 1979 (MHSO, Researchers, Suzanne Hunter Files). 213 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose for Members of the NEC of the CJC, January 12th, 1975 (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-6-2); See Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23). 214 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 1, P.3.

151

Casablanca”.215 If such records were held in other, smaller and separated archival spaces, or in non-Jewish repositories, how could a historian capture the broader context of Jewish independence and interests that stretched far beyond the Canadian border? The CJA was an essential buffer between the community story and those who would interpret it in the future and would serve to show that the Canadian Jewish story included not just “the meetings of Canada’s Jews with their fellow citizens and with the Canadian government”, bu also their roles “in the councils of world Jewry, in Israel, in international relief, in the world struggle for peace, for Jewish rights and for human rights”.216

Although Hayes and Rome never doubted the notion of the archive as a space that facilitates empirical historical research and is committed to maintaining the authenticity of the records under its care, they were both sure that because it was designated as a Jewish community archive, the CJA’s institutional provenance created another layer of context. This context would disappear if the same records were consulted within another archival environment. To explain this belief, Hayes used the JCA collection, which, he argued, if accessed through PAC, would be understood as another case study of the many settlement-supporting ethnic organizations that operated in Canada. However, if the same records were encountered within the CJA, they would tell a different story: pointing also to the JCA as the direct predecessor to the CJC in community leadership, as well as to other themes, such as the Jewish ‘back to the land’ principle.217 The CJA was therefore more than an accumulation of resources. It provided a fundamental layer of context and interpretation for the events whose memory was kept within its walls, a context that would be much harder to extract if the records were placed within a non-Jewish archive or even within a local Jewish archive that was not able to represent the fuller, national context of the Canadian Jewish experience.

215 ibid, P.2. 216 Ibid, Ibid. 217 CJC Memorandum from Saul Hayes, October 25th, 1978 (ADCJA, JCA Files).

152

These ideas, together with Rome’s historiographical commitment to the global frameworks of Jewish history, meant that his vision for the CJA was a very broad and comprehensive one.218 If Canadian Jews were part of a global Jewish culture that maintained an independent vision of its history and destiny, then the CJA had to commit to providing a total and comprehensive representation of Jewish experiences in order to fulfill its goal. Thus, unlike his other fellow activists who perceived the Jewish archive as dedicated only to the collection of records and historical materials produced within and by community members, Rome’s vision was much broader. The CJA, he argued, had to locate, acquire and contextualize:

“all evidence of Jewish presence in Canada - even antedating the actual arrival of Jews to Canada…materials on Jews in France and England interested in Canada, legalization in Europe banning Jews to come to Canada, awareness of Jews and Jewish religion, including ideas about the holy land - in Canada and in early Canadian literature and art…Jewish themes in the writing of non-Jewish Canadians, and Jewish presence in the Canadian mind…and reactions [within Canada] to world problems concerning Jews”.219

Just as PAC maintained copying offices in London and Paris, so, according to Rome, the CJA needed to search for records from all over the world, from “Czarist consular offices and shipping manifests [to European] antisemitic leaflets”. All these records and documents had to, according to Rome, be copied and brought to the CJA for future study and further interpretation.220 Thus, the CJA, as Rome perceived it, had to collect and own antisemitic materials, files and information on Canadian prime-ministers and cultural figures and their perceptions of Jews and Judaism, “information clippings from Canadian press on Jewish interest and court records involving individual Jews and even “school

218 I use the term ‘comprehensive’ in order to avoid the term ‘total archives’ which was, as noted earlier, associated with a concrete policy of PAC. 219 David Rome to Murray Brass, October 5th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1); David Rome, “Records and Documentation of the Jewish Community”, October 20th, 1968 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00104 (1968-1973)). 220 See for example Rome at the 1979 Saskatoon conference discussion (transcript of the discussion over coordination and cooperation, July 4th, 1979 (AM, AA Fonds, P5110); See also David Rome, “Records and Documentation of the Jewish Community”, October 20th, 1968 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00104, 1968-1973).

153 reports, including…work by children”.221 It was Rome’s belief that “all materials on Canadian Jews must be integrated with general Canadian materials and with the materials on Jewish historical experience in other lands and other times”, regardless of their genre or format, as well as “integrated with a book collection of art, artifacts, historical museum objects, and other memorabilia”.222 Thus, as a principle, no kind of material was out of the purview of a Jewish archive. Only a comprehensive collection could shape a robust, independent, and confident historical consciousness that would help to overcome those who maintained only limited perceptions of Jewish life. If Canadian Jewry agreed to maintain just a small, isolated collection, the result would be that “we might find ourselves in terms of research, in a ghetto within a ghetto within a ghetto, completely devoid of any relevance or perspective”.223

As part of this vision, Rome envisioned the CJA as part of a broader Jewish memory infrastructure and as a cornerstone for “a centre for scholarship and research for Canadian students of Judaism”.224 Such an endeavour, he believed, would put Canadian Jewry “on par with the prime Jewish research institutions of Jerusalem, New York, and Wilno”.225 His goal was therefore not to offer a voice for Canadian Jews within the Canadian context, but vice-versa, to research and integrate the experiences of Jews in Canada into the broader story of world Jewry. Just as PAC was a government agent in the battle over Canadian identities and collective memories, the CJA served the same task on behalf of Canadian Jewry - a pro-active agent for the promotion of a national Jewish

221 David Rome, “Records and Documentation of the Jewish Community”, October 20th, 1968 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00104, 1968-1973). 222 Ibid. See also David Rome to M. Batshaw, August 10th, 1971 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 223 David Rome, “Records and Documentation of the Jewish Community”, October 20th, 1968 (JPL, 00104, 1968-1973). 224 See Rome’s April 1939 report “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews” (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). During Rome’s tenure as the JPL’s director the library offered many evening courses on topics such as history, literature and language skills. 225 The quote is taken from Rome’s April 1939 report “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews” (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). The references are of course to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to YIVO. This notion accompanied Rome throughout his life, see also, David Rome to Irving Abella, “Long Range Community Planning”, May 1st, 1984 (ADCJA. DA11 A, 2) and “Draft – ‘Beth Haotzar’ – Institute for the Study of Canadian Jewry”, November 18th, 1985 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 2).

154 culture.226 Jewish identity could only be promoted through “the context of a living, engaged, functioning and central Jewish institution”, which meant that the plan to donate some of the CJA’s collection to PAC was therefore akin to “tearing off limbs and organs from the body”. 227 Any records that would be sent to PAC, “far away from their natural habitat and hundreds of miles from any substantial Jewish community” would lose their affinity with the community and without this connection, Rome concluded, could not be appropriately researched and interpreted according to their essential Jewish context.228

The CJA’s task was therefore to direct the frameworks of the historiographical output on Canadian Jews by offering a specific context to the records there were deposited under its care. The Jewish context of a record was achieved by its inclusion within a Jewish archive and if placed outside of the CJA most chances were that this context would be lost. The aggregation, the physical proximity and the community’s intellectual control over these records were the elements that would allow the historian to interpret them in a Jewish context and offered the records their real provenance and meaning. Undersetting this frame of mind also helps clarify why Rome found original order or any other archival principles less relevant or useful.

Another argument both Hayes and Rome repeatedly used in order to justify the need to maintain an independent community archive was that it would symbolize the community’s “entitlement of record”.229 The CJA, and the motivation behind it, mark - for Canadian Jews, as well as to other Canadian citizens – the community’s pride in its past achievements, its ongoing historical continuity, and overall maturity as a group on the Canadian public scene.230 Previous generations of Canadian Jews, according to Hayes,

226 David Rome and Judith Nefsky to Stan Urman, “Directions for the National Archives”, February 11th, 1982 (ADCJA, DA 11A, 2). 227 David Rome to Alan Rose, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10, 13). 228 Ibid. 229 David Rome to M. Batshaw, August 10th, 1971 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 230 See the transcription of the February 1975 meeting of the national archives committee (OJA, VS Fonds, 70-7-2).

155 enjoyed Canada’s “clean air of opportunity and freedom…[but] were absorbed in the urgencies of subsistence” and so, were not able to develop, as a national community, a sense of belonging, confidence, and worth.231 Amongst other domains, this lack of confidence was manifested in the absence of a drive to preserve evidence of their communal experiences. Whether speaking from an individual or community perspective, Hayes argued, only once feeling comfortable enough in one’s place does the desire to document one’s life and preserve materials attesting to one’s past, surfaces. Furthermore, Hayes explained, it was also “characteristic of the central European society whence they came” that Jews usually did not possess “the pride of family that would place memorabilia as escutcheons”.232

The 1934 creation of the CJA had, therefore, provided the community with “an instrument and a symbol of our valid existence and our profound roots in this country…showing the dignity, the foresight and the sound administration of the great Jewish institutions…and a measure to their respect and care of their recorded heritage”.233 This meant that, “apart from the physical”, the CJA promoted “the psyche of the community…a sign that a dignified, important and mature group in Canadian life has a great faith in the Canadian future and an abiding loyalty to its existence”.234 The CJA was therefore “our duty as one of the important Jewries of the world”235 and this awareness became even more significant as time went by as within a multicultural society the commitment to maintain an independent archive became a question of amour propre – of a community that is proud to maintain its past - instead of agreeing to be part of seventy-two other ethnicities represented at PAC.236

231 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 9, P.1. 232 Ibid. 233 Saul Hayes to Lazarus Phillips, September 11th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1, 2). 234 Saul Hayes, “Report of the Executive Vice President to the 15th Plenary Session of CJC, 1968” (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, Box 129, 2, CJC Plenary Sessions). 235 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, “Archives”, November 6th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 236 Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23).

156

Just like Hayes, also Rome assigned the CJA an intrinsic value and believed that it carried a symbolic significance that was just as important as the usage of its services. The act of documentation was a shared historical characteristic that “going back to the bible days, has been one of the great distinctions of our nation”.237 As a result, “it is the obligation of honour…to perpetuate and respect the documents which record – in whatever manner – the lives and tradition of the community. Failure in this regard is a self-inflicted mark of dishonour.”238 Such an emotional portrayal of the links between the archive, the records, and the community was most evident in Rome’s reaction after he heard that the records of Canada’s first synagogue were deposited at PAC. Rome declared that the need “to go begging to PAC for permission to see” these records, was “a stain on Canadian Jewry and its communal honour”.239 Already during the nineteen forties, shortly after he joined the CJC’s archives committee, Rome claimed that the CJA was not just one of the CJC’s most significant accomplishments but also a result of “the growing awareness of Canadian Jews of their own existence as a community”.240 In essence, “the same growing awareness by Canadian Jews of their existence as a community and of their group responsibilities which found expression in the organization and growth of the CJC, showed itself in the desire to establish an institution to collect and preserve the historical records of its past and serve as a scholarly centre of research”.241 After “generations of Jewish pioneers passed without an attempt to record their contributions to Canadian life”,242 the community had reached a maturity that was marked, both practically and symbolically by the creation of the CJA. “Canadian Jewry needs to understand”, Rome declared, “that its archives, like its Congress, is not a matter for one man or committee, but is a communal and public trust, to ourselves and to posterity…a matter of our communal honor...if we do not treat ourselves with respect, what can we expect of others?”.243

237 Rome to Murray Brass, October 5th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 238 Ibid. 239 David Rome at the 1979 Saskatoon conference discussion, transcript of the discussion over coordination and cooperation, July 4th, 1979 (AM, AA Fonds, P5110). 240 David Rome, April 1939, “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews” (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 241 David Rome, April 1939, “The Development of National Archives for Canadian Jews” (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 242 Ibid. 243 Ibid.

157

5.5 Conclusion: Jewish Community Archival Work in Montreal

This chapter explored the archival work conducted by and within Montreal’s CJA during the nineteen seventies. The chapter’s findings were positioned in relation to the archival mentalities of the two individuals who directed the repository, Saul Hayes and David Rome. The review began with the 1934 establishment of the CJA as a dedicated unit within the newly rejuvenated CJC and as a central ‘resting place’ for Jewish records from across Canada, during a period when Montreal was the undisputed demographical and cultural centre of Canadian Jewish life. During these early years the repository was perceived as an agent in the effort to promote a sense of national Canadian-Jewish identity and so, imagined and portrayed as a vehicle against neglect and loss of materials of historical importance, as well as a mechanism that could support more accurate portrayals of Canadian Jews – for both internal and external audiences - in face of ongoing and overt anti-Semitism. After a short and energized period of activity during the late nineteen thirties, CJC’s resources turned to more pressing and immediate priorities, and the CJA was removed from the organization’s immediate agenda.

Three decades later, after several years of planning, the CJC’s new headquarters, the Bronfman House, opened in downtown Montreal in 1970. The building was envisioned as a home for a future research centre dedicated to the study of Canadian Jewry and the CJA as the foundation from which this centre could later grow. Saul Hayes and David Rome, two members of the CJC’s ‘old guard’, took joint, semi-official, responsibility for the CJA and tried to revive it as a national repository for Canadian Jewry. But the two encountered difficulties on several fronts: from PAC’s success in acquiring many significant Jewish archival collections – most of which came from Montreal; from the Jewish archival initiatives in Toronto and Winnipeg that developed their own working models and priorities; and even from closer to home, from what they perceived as apathy on behalf of the CJC leadership towards their pleas to turn the CJA into one of the CJC’s main

158 priorities. As a result, for more than a decade after the Bronfman House was opened, the CJA did not manage to become a functional archival repository. In that, Hayes and Rome’s decade-long struggle on behalf of the CJA was blended into other debates on the community’s agenda at that time: the contested role of Montreal as the centre of Canadian Jewry and of the CJC as its national representative; the intervention of the Canadian state in issues relating to preservation and promotion of ethnic culture; and the challenges arising from the question of how to maintain coherent and meaningful Jewish identities in an increasingly open society.

At the core of Hayes and Rome’s archival mentalities lay their commitment to providing a lasting mechanism through which to interpret the community’s past as a way to prepare future generations of Canadian Jews to the challenges of living meaningful Jewish lives in a multicultural and open society. At that, both men agreed that the creation of functional public memory institutions and especially the publication of rigorous, scholarly historiographical works was a crucial task – telling the story of the Canadian-Jewish ability to maintain coherence and a sense of purpose in the face of multiple, ongoing disintegrative pressures. For Hayes it was crucial that future historiographies would portrays a ‘correct’ history of Canadian Jewry: that they would not distort or marginalize the CJC’s and Hayes own part in it. Rome, a very historically conscious person, shared this sense of urgency, but from a somewhat different perspective. Worried about what he perceived as cultural trends of “technological monotheism and uniformity”244, Rome was afraid of the loss of sense of Jewish particularity. He thus believed that an independent archive would provide the means to emphasise the distinct nature of Canadian-Jewish experiences and help to maintain this notion for the future, as part of Canadian Jewish accountability towards global Jewish history. Furthermore, his belief that “there is a major Jewish aspect of records” and “vast areas of non-institutional archives which concern Jewish people”245 made it inconceivable for him that any real understanding or accurate

244 David Rome, “A Jew Comments on Plural Cultures” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 1,3, P. 4). 245 David Rome to Joseph Kage, May 27th, 1969 (JPL, 1000A, 9, 00103, 1960-1969).

159 interpretation of Jewish records could be exercised if conducted not under the direct governance of the organized community.

At the same time, Hayes and Rome also perceived the CJA as a symbol of Canadian-Jewish dignity and as a manifestation of the community’s growth and maturity. They interpreted the failure of Jews to understand the need to maintain their records within the community, and the failure of community leadership to offer them a proper archival service as a sign of a failure to understand the wholesomeness of Jewish identity, and so, as a step backwards towards much less sophisticated Jewish life, and a betrayal of the long-established commitment and duty of the CJC towards Canadian Jewry. Making a conscious decision not to support the CJA as a core component in community life, was akin to relegating the Jewish experience to its local and religious manifestations, a grave mistake that would carry dire consequences in the future.

To fulfill its role as a national archive that can support the ability of Canadian Jewry to remain united in purpose and vision, the CJA, as Hayes and Rome regarded it, had to act as a comprehensive archive – representing Canadian Jewry as a unified organism and as part of global Jewish civilization. This meant, for Rome, that the CJA had to also collect and own records that were produced by non-Jews – if they related to Jews, as well as documents that were created outside of Canada – if and when these could help promote historical knowledge on Canadian Jewry. Such perspectives, both Rome and Hayes agreed, would not remain viable if records were kept by PAC whose mandate and intellectual framework were the promotion of Canadian national history. As Rome wrote, historians of Canadian Jews were faced “consciously or otherwise, by alternatives of perspective. These choices determine the conclusions at the end of the studies and the sources and materials they will seek out at the beginning”.246 Historians who would take a national perspective (Rome named it “Christian histories”), or a Marxist perspective – i.e. perceiving economic divisions and class struggles as the drivers of historical action,

246 David Rome, “Problems in Canadian Jewish Historiography” (ADCJA, David Rome Personalia, ZB, 3, 9).

160 would probably “determine that there is no valid and meaningful history of the Canadian community” and that Jews do not comprise of a group worthy of its own history.247 Only an independent, confident, and comprehensive Jewish archive would help historians avoid such conceptualizations.

In what turned out to be the last document he produced during his lifetime, Hayes wrote that “while much of the work of Congress, though vital, is of transitory nature, our activities in the field of archives is of a lasting nature. It would be false to future generations if we allow the archive program to be subverted by the constant attention to daily programming of another nature”.248 But as shown above, it took more than words to place the CJA back on the CJC’s agenda - and it was Hayes death, just a few days after he wrote these words, that was the real catalyst for the chain of events that eventually made the CJA into a functional and professional archival repository. To add yet another historical perspective, today, almost forty years after the events described in this chapter, and eighty-five years after the CJC’s 1934 resolution to create a national Jewish archival mechanism, the CJA remains the only functional unit of the former CJC and so, just as Hayes expected, outlived the organization that gave birth to it.

247 Ibid. 248 Saul Hayes to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut, Stephen Speisman, David Rome. January 10th, 1980 (LAC, GP Fonds, MG31, F6, 130, 15).

Chapter 6: Toronto, the Ontario Jewish Archives, Stephen Speisman and the Autonomous Approach to the Community’s Archives

6.1 Introduction

This chapter is dedicated to the first decade of archival work conducted by Toronto’s organized Jewish community, and to tracking the motivations, worldviews, and belief systems that guided this work. There were two major elements that shaped the character of Toronto’s Jewry archival landscape during these early years: first was the decision to establish and maintain a dedicated archival repository – the Ontario Jewish Archives (OJA)1 - and to employ a professional archivist to administer this repository. At the time, no other organized Canadian Jewish community had committed to such a structured solution to the question of collection and preservation of local Jewish records. The second element was the fierce competition that ensued between the OJA and the Multicultural History Society of Ontario (MHSO) over the collection and ownership of Jewish archival materials from across the province. This competition, apart from reflecting the unique archival mentality that guided the Jewish archival program in Toronto, also helped consolidate the OJA’s position as one of the essential services that the organized community provided its members

Throughout the period covered by this chapter, the person who led the OJA’s development and professional direction was Dr. Stephen Speisman, the institution’s

1 For convenience, throughout the chapter the community’s archival repository is referred to as the OJA, even though the institution has undertaken several name changes through the years. Upon inauguration, the archive was named ‘The Canadian Jewish Congress Central Region Archives’. In 1976, after the repository became part of the newly formed Toronto Jewish Congress, its name was changed to ‘Toronto Jewish Congress / Canadian Jewish Congress Central Region Archives’. The name being too cumbersome, the repository began to be referred to as the Ontario Jewish Archive and that was also the name under which it incorporated in 1977. See Sol Edell to Rose Wolff, December 10th, 1979, (OJA, Sol Edell fonds (SE), 4, 10, 14); Minutes of the Archives committee, January 29th, 1980 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1). In 2014 the name was changed to the Ontario Jewish Archives, Blankenstein Family Heritage Centre. See also: http://www.ontariojewisharchives.org/About-Us/Our-History.

161 162 founding director and chief archivist. Speisman was initially hired by the archives committee of the local Canadian Jewish Congress Central Region office (CJCCR) on a part- time basis in 1973, when the OJA was established. He was granted a full-time archivist position in 1976 and remained in this role for the following twenty-four years. Speisman was also a trained historian, having earned his PhD from the University of Toronto in 1977, the first student to dedicate their doctoral research to Toronto’s Jewish history. Speisman’s thesis was published as a 1979 book titled The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937, republished in 1987, and to date, remains the only scholarly book-length publication dedicated solely to the early history of Toronto’s Jewry.2

Naturally, several other individuals participated in the various community archival and public-memory initiatives alongside Speisman. The most notable of those was Victor Sefton, a local engineer who, during the first half of the nineteen seventies, acted as the chairperson of the archives committees for both the Toronto Jewish Historical Society (TJHS) and the CJCCR. Following the OJA’s establishment, Sefton became the chairperson of its new board of directors and in 1976 was also appointed as the first president of the national Canadian Jewish Historical Society (CJHS). Through these roles, Sefton played an active part in the administration and coordination of several archival and public memory projects within the community and his name appears in many of the correspondences between the OJA and the MHSO, the Public Archives of Canada (PAC), and prospective donors of archival materials. However, Sefton, who was more composed and patient than Speisman, mostly echoed, within the domain of archival decision-making, what were, for the most part, Speisman’s views. It was Speisman who authored all internal position papers and policy documents and neither Sefton, nor any of the other community

2 Stephen Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979). Speisman concluded his research in 1937, the year in which Toronto’s United Jewish Welfare Fund was established. Beside several other, non-academic, reviews of Toronto’s and Ontario’s Jewish history. For an account dedicated to the organizational history of Jewish Toronto between 1933 and 1948 see Lipinsky, Imposing their Will. For a short, general, introductory review see Gerald Tulchinsky, “The Jewish Experience in Ontario to 1960”, in Patterns of the past: Interpreting Ontario’s History, ed. William Westfall, Laurel MacDowell, Roger Hall, (Toronto: Dundrum Press, 1996), Pp. 301-327.

163 members mentioned in this chapter, matched Speisman’s dedication, commitment and professional knowledge of the archival realm.

Unlike Abe Arnold in Winnipeg or Saul Hayes and David Rome in Montreal, Speisman did not take an active part in contemporary Jewish public life and community debates. Besides his book and several articles and book reviews, he did not leave behind him a substantial amount of published materials that could aid the researcher to thoroughly asses his broader worldviews regarding Jewish identity, community structures or other contemporary concerns. On the other hand, Speisman’s long tenure at the OJA means that there exist several documents that he authored regarding the repository’s policies, procedures and daily administrative and organizational affairs, documents that offer a solid basis through which to reconstruct his views and overall approach towards archival work.

Overall, Speisman was especially vociferous in his opposition to what he perceived to be external, undesired, interventions with the archival work conducted by and for the community. He perceived Canadian Jewish history as a constant struggle against forces of assimilation and disintegration and regarded the OJA as a vital agent in the struggle to preserve a coherent and independent Jewish identity and thus treated the repository as a real-life extension of his historiography. His archival mentality therefore reflected his belief in the inherent and necessary Jewish communal autonomy. The archive provided evidence to the ability of Jews to unite, organize and advocate for themselves as a distinct group and so, the OJA was, for Speisman, not just a source for future historiographical outputs but also a vehicle through which to direct such potential future research. Furthermore, the OJA served not just as a necessary tool for the writing of local Jewish history but also as a means to encourage historical consciousness - a sense of pride and self-respect which, according to Speisman, was especially paramount to Toronto’s Jewish community given what he perceived to be the relatively poor starting point of its cultural background. The community’s willingness to own and safekeep its historical records

164 symbolized the commitment - by both community members and their representative institutions - to embrace their Jewishness as a wholesome and self-sustaining identity framework. Speisman therefore perceived the existence of the OJA as a marker of maturity and responsibility that would help prepare Toronto’s Jewish community for its emerging role as the leading centre of Canadian Jewry. In order to better unpack Speisman’s archival mentality, the chapter combines a review of the OJA’s establishment and early days with a discussion of Speisman’s historiographical output as a way to explain the agency behind the creation and development of Toronto’s Jewish community archives.

6.2.1 Archival Work in Toronto: The Creation of the OJA

Jewish settlement in Toronto dates back to the beginning of the nineteenth century with the arrival of several Jewish merchant families to the city. Toronto’s first congregation, a symbol of established and sustainable Jewish life, was founded in 1856.3 In subsequent years Toronto accommodated a small, relatively wealthy and culturally integrated Jewish community. Like many other North American urban centres, the end of the nineteenth century saw the transformation of the community’s demographical and cultural character as a result of the mass migration of Jews from Eastern Europe. Although the city was not a highly desirable destination during the initial years of this immigration wave, Toronto’s steady growth and increasing economic opportunities resulted in a constant flow of Jewish immigrants throughout the first half of the twentieth century, with numbers peaking during the years that immediately followed the two world wars.4 These immigration waves transformed the Jewish presence in Toronto and made it much more substantial and visible – both as a percentage of the city’s population and in absolute numbers.5 Generally, Toronto’s Jews followed the same settlement patterns

3 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, Pp. 22-23. 4 Ibid., Pp 69 -78. 5 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 153-158.

165 displayed by many other North American Jewish communities: steady upward mobility that shifted habitats from inner-city, poor working class enclaves into newer, middle-class neighborhoods and gradual integration into the city’s professional and business communities. By the nineteen-seventies, domestic Jewish migration from Montreal, combined with Toronto becoming the preferred destination for new Jewish immigrants, resulted in the city becoming the undisputable demographic centre of Canadian Jewry.6

Also from an organizational perspective, Toronto’s Jewry did not differ much from most other Jewish urban centers across North America, and the community supported the same familiar mix of religious, educational, welfare and cultural organizations.7 A local federation of Jewish welfare organizations was established in 1917 and was further expanded in 1937 when it took on the name United Jewish Welfare Fund (UJWF).8 All other Canadian-Jewish national organizations: B’nai Brith, the Jewish Immigrant Aid Service (JIAS) and the Federation of Canadian Zionists maintained branches or offices in the city. The Canadian Jewish Congress operated its ‘Central’ region (as in Central Canada) office in Toronto since the organization’s rejuvenation in 1934.

With regards to archival-related initiatives in Toronto, Speisman asserted that until the early nineteen-seventies (corresponding with the beginning of his own involvement with the OJA), preservation of Jewish records in the city happened only as a result of chance or mistake.9 Speisman argued that this was a result of “the very nature of the local Jewish community [in Toronto]” that “precluded an historical consciousness which existed in many American cities and might have generated an interest in the preservation of

6 Ibid, P. 165; Harold Troper, “The Canadian Jewish Diaspora: A Tale of Two Cities”, Canadian Issues, 2005, P. 19. 7 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 155-165; See also Lipinsky, Imposing their will, for a fuller account on the growth of these organizations before, during and immediately after the Second World War. 8 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, Pp. 262-265. 9 Stephen Speisman, “The Keeping of Jewish Record in Ontario: Toronto Jewish Congress / Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region Archives”, Archivaria, 30, 1990. The article was published in an issue dedicated to religious archives in Canada.

166 materials”.10 The reason for this unfortunate state was that “Toronto was a working-class community, too preoccupied with earning a living to be concerned with the recent past and perhaps preferring to consign those difficult times to oblivion”.11 The absence of a demographically substantial settlement of Jews from Sephardic or German origin in the city – groups that usually “had the leisure… and the self-esteem to undertake at least genealogical and filiopietistic works” was the main reason, according to Speisman, that hardly any historiographical initiatives were part of the cultural life of the city’s Jewish community.12 In other words, most members of Toronto’s Jewish community did not possess the necessary sophistication, time, self-pride, or expendable resources to appreciate the value of preserving evidence of their historical experiences. According to Speisman, this state of affairs changed only after the establishment of the OJA, as with it, “the systematic collection of Jewish archival materials in this city begun in earnest”.13 Even if somewhat biased - designated spaces for retention of organizational records existed in both of Toronto’s flagship synagogues, Beth Tzedek and Holy Blossom - Speisman was correct that no systematic, community-wide approach to the preservation of historical materials was in place. Likewise, no thought was given to the topic of access to communal historical records for the purpose of research or historical enquiry.

Although Toronto’s Jewish community did not support many public memory initiatives, the city was still home to the longest-serving Jewish historical society in Canada – the Toronto Jewish Historical Society (TJHS). Active since 1945, the TJHS had never been incorporated and remained amateur in both scope and mandate throughout its many years of existence. Its members showed little to no interest in local history, or in any other hands-on historical initiatives, and the group’s activities amounted to meetings in private houses to hear lectures and discuss topics pertaining to general Jewish history.14 Things

10 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, P. 5. 11 Ibid. Pp. 5-6. 12 Ibid. P. 5. 13 Ibid. P. 6. 14 See Victor Sefton to Hilary Jenkinson, December 28th, 1961 (OJA, Victor Sefton fonds (VS), 70-7-1). Jenkinson served as the president of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and Sefton described, in the

167 began to change during the early nineteen-seventies after TJHS members, caught up in the larger awakening of ethnic consciousness in Canada, decided to establish an archives committee in order to begin a project of collection of historical materials. Sefton, under whose chairmanship this plan was initiated, attributed this decision to the sense that “original members are getting older” and that as the builders of Toronto’s community, they became concerned with “preserving for posterity their knowledge …of Toronto’s Jewish history”.15

The first meeting of the TJHS archives committee took place in March 1971. Participants, sharing a sudden sense of urgency, agreed to “get to the materials first and then worry about how to handle them”.16 However, the limited scope and capabilities of the TJHS meant that the organization was not able to offer any start-up budget and so, rather than discuss concrete steps or contemplate the establishment of an independent repository, participants focused on the more general, theoretical need to collect community records. The only practical decision taken in the meeting was to appeal to the CJCCR office for support. However, also this request, sent by Victor Sefton as the head of the TJHS archives committee, did not indicate any desire to establish an independent community archive. Instead, Sefton requested that the CJCCR endorse a proposal to one of the formal archival repositories to host community records so that these could be “stored in a central area and eventually indexed for the benefit of the Jewish community”.17 Somewhat curiously, the TJHS archives committee members decided not to advertise a request for the donation of materials so that no “other organizations get into the act”.18 No specific reference was made as to who might these other organizations be, but, presumably, this

letter, the TJHS’s functions and interests. The file also contains several brochures referring to the TJHS’ annual activities. 15 Victor Sefton to Myer Scharzer, executive director of the CJCCR, June 28th, 1971 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 16 “Minutes of the first meeting of the archives committee of the Jewish Historical Society”, March 29th, 1971 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 17 Victor Sefton to Myer Scharzer, executive director of the CJCCR, June 28th, 1971 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). I did not find any direct reference but can assume that this request was influenced by the working model that was already established within Winnipeg’s Jewish community. 18 Ibid.

168 decision concerned the efforts of Montreal’s CJA to gather archival materials from across Canada as part of its move to its new location at the Bronfman House.

At approximately the same time as the TJHS, also the CJCCR decided to establish an archives committee, and it did not take long for this new committee to take over the TJHC’s one.19 Sefton, who was appointed as the chairperson of this new committee as well, was quick to send a widely distributed appeal to various community leaders, asking them to contact the committee before disposing of any potential archival materials.20 The letter did not indicate any plan to establish an independent community archive but rather, focused only on the general need to preserve materials of historical value. Also a following review that the committee produced concerning the community’s archival needs did not envision an independent community archive and only sought to “encourage deposit of original documents in general archival repositories such as PAC, Ontario archives and University collections” as “care of archives and manuscripts requires special facilities and expertise” which the CJC did not possess.21 The only clue to some kind of internal community archival mechanism was the suggestion that copies of certain materials would be provided to a “Congress archival clearing house”, as well as to the National Archives of Israel, as a basis for a future “union list of Jewish Canadian archival holdings and manuscripts”.22

In February 1972 Sefton, together with representatives from other ethnic communities, was invited to attend an information session on PAC’s newly established National Ethnic Archives (NEA) program. Reporting on the event, Sefton appealed to CJCCR officers to

19 Speisman argued that “Sefton orchestrated a merger of the two archives committees” (in “The Keeping of Jewish Records”, P. 161). The OJA’s website declares that “At a CJC Central Region Officers’ meeting in 1973, TJHS president Victor Sefton proposed that the Historical Society’s Archives Committee become an official arm of the CJC”. (http://www.ontariojewisharchives.org/About-Us/Our-History). I did not find any specific reference to these events in the primary sources. 20 Victor Sefton to Presidents of Community Organizations and Congregations Toronto and Presidents of Regional Communities, March 16th, 1972 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 14). 21 “Draft policy statement on Archives”, March 27th, 1972 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 22 Ibid.

169 decide whether “our policy will be to let Ottawa store the originals…or whether, in fact, we wish to deal with Ottawa at all”.23 Sefton’s words were the first hint that an independent archival solution was in the works and, as it coincided with Speisman’s joining the archives committee, it seems safe to assume that the notion of staying at arm's length from the public archives can be attributed to his influence. From then on, both Speisman and Sefton remained steadfast in their opinion that Jewish historical materials should only be managed “through the aegis” of a Jewish archive and that the community had to try and avoid any involvement with governmental archival programs as “the fewer partners involved - the more independence and control we have over our materials”.24 This conviction was to remain the OJA’s guiding principle in subsequent years.

In the meanwhile, several other grassroots public memory initiatives were taking place around the city. Cyril Troster and Susan Cohen, two University graduate students, received a provincial government grant to help them conduct oral history interviews with older members of the community and were looking for a place to store and preserve their tapes.25 Oral history interviews were also conducted by Professor Dov Noy, a scholar from the Hebrew University that visited Toronto as part of a North America research trip dedicated to the collection of ethnographic materials from Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. Noy’s success in administering a large number of interviews in a relatively short period impressed Sefton and helped him conclude that a professional was needed in order to help promote the community’s archival program.26 In a meeting that brought together all those who were involved with these various projects, participants agreed that a central mechanism had to be established in order to avoid duplication of efforts and inform community members on the projects that were taking place across the city. They

23 Victor Sefton to Myer Scharzar, February 17th, 1972 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 14). 24 “Minutes of the CJCCR archives committee”, December 4th, 1973 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-1). 25 “Report submitted to the meeting of the CJCCR executive committee meeting”, April 27th, 1973 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-1). Troster later became an OJA board member and remained active with the OJA in subsequent years. 26 Victor Sefton to Myer Scharzar, June 22nd, 1972 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2).

170 further agreed that there was a “tremendous need” in Toronto for the collection and preservation of community-related archival materials.27

Hence, after many years of indifference and neglect, a clear commitment to conduct archival work emerged from several different sources within Toronto’s Jewish community. This trend was motivated by a sense of generational change that was taking place within the community, as well by an awareness of other memory initiatives that were beginning to take shape across Canada, either by other Jewish communities or by the formal, governmental repositories. Both trends were, of course, underlined by the broader awakening of interest in local and ethnic history across Canada and North America.28 But why did Toronto’s organized Jewish community, unlike those of Montreal and Winnipeg, committed itself to establish an independent community archive and to employ a professional archivist to administer it? This is where local factors come into play. Firstly, unlike other formal archival agencies, at this point of time, the Archives of Ontario perceived its role to be solely dedicated to provincial government records and did not show interest in cooperating with the Jewish, or any other ethnic, community.29 Secondly, as Toronto was still home to a relatively substantial number of Jewish organizations, all those who were involved with the process agreed that it was imperative for collected materials to remain within the city rather than sent to Montreal’s CJA or to PAC in Ottawa. Furthermore, the officers’ meeting that approved the OJA as a new CJCCR operative unit included Ben Kayfetz, Johnathan Plaut and J.B. Salsberg – all of whom were committed to local history and became enthusiastic supporters of the initiative, presumably at least partly because they hoped to enjoy it for their own writing and publication initiatives.30

27 “Minutes of a meeting of people interested in archives for the Jewish community”, May 17th, 1973 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 28 Roberto Perin, “Clio as an Ethnic: The Third Force in Canadian Historiography”, The Canadian Historical Review, 64, 4, (1983), Pp. 441-467. 29 Minutes of the archives committee, September 5th, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1); Speisman referred to this topic also in the minutes of the archives committee from September 12th, 1974 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7- 2). See also the historical background chapter, P. 84 regarding the reasons for establishing the MHSO instead of conducting the collection of ethnic materials through the Archives of Ontario. 30 “CJCCR, minutes of the meeting of officers committee”, July 20th, 1973 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). Plaut was researching the history of Windsor’s Jewish community for his PhD thesis; Kayfetz, a community worker,

171

Additionally, Speisman’s firm advocacy, sense of commitment and actual capability to serve as a community archivist, were also a crucial motivating factor in the decision. Of course, it did not hurt that the initial operating budget Sefton submitted to the CJCCR did not include any rent-related costs and included only the purchase of filing cabinets and the salary of a part-time archivist. The reason was that Speisman and Sefton managed to secure, free of charge, a room at the basement of the Shaarei Shomayim synagogue located at 470 Glencairn Boulevard and the site became the OJA’s first home when it began its operations in June 1973.31

6.2.2 The OJA’s Early Years, Priorities and Policies

Shortly after the establishment of the OJA, Speisman submitted to the CJCCR’s archives committee his proposal for what should be the organization’s goals and priorities.32 Speisman suggested that the OJA’s primary goal should be “to preserve and encourage the preservation of material relevant to the history of Jews within the area designated as the central region”.33 Two other goals were to become “a central clearinghouse for researchers in the field of Canadian Jewish history” and “to encourage the preservation of buildings of historic merit within the region”.34 Speisman also outlined the more immediate priorities of the new institution, the first of which was to inform community members of its existence, followed by a list of the most desirable intake of future acquisitions – with a focus on local Jewish newspapers and published materials. The document offered no restrictions on the kinds of materials the OJA was interested in. published several articles on Jewish Toronto and Ontario histories; Salsberg, at the time a journalist, also published several historical reports on Jewish involvement in local Toronto and Ontario politics and labour movements. 31 Minutes of the CJCCR archives committee, June 22nd, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 32 “Aims and Priorities - Congress Archives” (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). The document is undated and carries no author name but was found together with the minutes of the July 30th, 1973 meeting of the CJCCR archives committee. The minutes included a discussion, led by Speisman, of the document, and so, it can be assumed that it was used as a handout that Speisman provided to the other participants. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

172

Instead, Speisman declared that the archive “should be prepared to receive whatever is offered”. The document did not suggest or include any policies concerning access rights.35

Although the OJA began its operations as a unit within the CJCCR, it was apparent to all those involved that its mission was far greater than just the preservation of CJCCR records. When asked about his acquisition policies, Speisman answered that he was interested in “anything relevant to Jews of Ontario from very far back until the present”36 and that, “the collection was intended to encompass not merely the records of sponsoring organizations – but all aspects of Jewish life in Ontario”. He even mentioned “bottles produced by Jewish soft drink manufacturers” as a desirable object for the OJA.37 Likewise, Speisman explained that ephemeral materials such as “yesterday’s brochure on the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day” could offer evidence for future historians on “the commitment of Toronto’s Jewish community to Israel”.38 This holistic approach was reflected also in Speisman’s proposed inventory manual which included the following eight sections: immigration and settlement; associations, societies and institutions (sub- divided into ten sections of secular activities); religious institutions; sports and recreation; industry and commerce; individual records; military records, and CJCCR records.39

Speisman made it clear from the outset that the OJA’s role would encompass “wider functions than merely store materials”.40 The repository had to also “make the public aware of the necessity to preserve the records…of the various Jewish organizations”41 and support the education of Toronto’s Jews to become more “historically conscious”.42 For that reason, according to Speisman, the establishment of a community archive was “in

35 Ibid. 36 Minutes of the archives committee, November 6th, 1974 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 37 Speisman, The Keeping of Jewish records, P. 161. 38 Preface, “Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR. Toronto”, March 17th, 1974 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 39 CJCCR Archives, Manuscript Inventory Outline, n.d. (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 8). 40 Stephen Speisman to Jonathan Plaut, October 16th, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 41 CJCCR Archives committee report, part of chairman’s report 1971-1974, June 1974 (LAC, Canadian Jewish Congress fonds, MG28 VR, box 6). 42 Stephen Speisman to Jonathan Plaut, October 16th, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1).

173 itself an historical occurrence” since the realization of the need to preserve historical materials marked a new sense of worth that community members were now able to assign to their records and to their historical experiences.43 As a physical and intellectual resource centre, Speisman argued, the OJA provided an answer to the problem of Toronto Jews having “little documentary substance to our existence here. We have contributed much to this city and continue to do so - but we must take concrete steps to preserve our composite picture”.44

Speisman’s view of the OJA as more than just a repository was also reflected in the variety of the other public-memory initiatives and activities that the OJA was involved with during those years.45 Apart from traditional archival tasks, during the first decade of its life the OJA offered walking tours of the old Toronto’s Jewish neighborhoods (under the title ‘Sense of Spadina’); led a campaign for the preservation of a downtown synagogue building (the Keiver Synagogue on 25 Bellevue Avenue); mounted several photographic exhibitions; supported a grassroots effort to locate and document old synagogues across the province; and produced a documentary movie on the history of the community. Speisman never shied away from such projects, but rather, took on a leading role in all of them.

One of Speisman’s first initiatives as an archivist was to arrange a day-long conference to which he invited representatives from more than forty local Jewish organizations. The conference’s goal was to educate community members about the importance of archival work and share with them specific preservation practices.46 The conference was supplemented by several trips Speisman made across Ontario, reaching out to Jewish

43 “Introduction” by Stephen Speisman, Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR. Toronto, March 17th, 1974 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 44 Ibid. 45 Memorandum from Victor Sefton to Milton Harris on future activities of the archives, August 7th, 1974 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). The meetings of the archives committee often revolved around such other projects, rather than dedicated to archival work par-excellence. 46 “Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR, Toronto, March 17th, 1974” (OJA, Sous- fonds, 1, 1).

174 organizations, learning about their holdings and advising them on the archival options that were open to them. In these meetings, Speisman advocated the view that Jewish materials did not necessarily have to be deposited within the OJA, as long as the repository was notified of their existence and that the collections stayed under the care and control of the organizations that produced them – i.e., that they “remained in Jewish hands”.47 Speisman also tried to encourage Jewish organizations throughout Ontario to use the same system of classification for their historical materials.48 His mission to educate community members about the necessity of preserving historical materials was also directed at CJCCR officers, from whom he demanded to establish proper procedures for the transfer of inactive records and documents to the archive, as well establish clear access restriction policies.49 Overall Speisman was praised for his energy and commitment,50 but his activism was also a subject of criticism. He was accused of selective approach towards the researchers he allowed to access the OJA materials and blamed for his inability to separate between materials considered as owned by the OJA and those owned by himself.51 Others complained on his lack of interest in materials that he regarded as not complementary enough of the community’s image or those that were produced by elements - such as members of the radical Jewish left – whom, he believed, did not represent the Canadian Jewish community and so, should not become part of the OJA.52

47 Stephen Speisman to Sam Filer and Yehuda Lipsitz, January 22nd, 1979 (OJA Sous-fonds, 5, 5); Stephen Speisman to Michael Furst, February 5th, 1979 (OJA Sous-fonds, 5, 5). 48 Stephen Speisman to Abe Arnold, August 23rd, 1973 (JHSWC, JHC421). 49 Stephen Speisman to Milton Harris, September 16th, 1975 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2); Stephen Speisman to Chairmen of Central Region Committees and related staff, October 28th, 1974 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 50 See for example CJCCR Chairman’s report#8, 1971-74 term. June 1974 (LAC, CJC fonds, R5417-0-6-E, box 6, Central region reports). 51 Alan Rose to Stephen Speisman and David Rome, October 18th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1); Minutes of the meeting of the archives committee, January 8th, 1975 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 52 See for example the correspondence between Abe Arnold and Rabbi Reuben Slonim in the Winnipeg chapter, Pp. 231-232 and J.B. Salsberg’s article on the Canadian Jewish News, June 28th, 1979, in which Speisman was blamed for not pursuing materials that might point to any “wrongdoings by the community”. See also the same day response from Ben Kayfetz to J.B. Salsberg, June 28th, 1979 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 14).

175

The nucleus of OJA’s holdings consisted of two collections. The first included materials that Speisman gathered for his doctoral research – made mostly of transcripts and tapes of oral history interviews he conducted, as well as a collection of about 3,000 photographs. The second collection consisted of the accumulated records of the CJCCR, and its sorting and cataloguing became the first project undertaken by Speisman after the OJA’s inauguration. All the OJA’s annual reports until 1976 – the year in which the MHSO began its activities - did not mention any additions to its collection. However, from 1977 onwards, following the publicity and growing intensity of the competition with the MHSO, archival collections from a variety of Jewish organizations began to make their way into the repository. The largest of these were the records of the Narayever and Adath Israel synagogues, the Toronto Hebrew Benevolent Society, the Toronto Jewish Medical Association, the Hebrew National Association - Folks Farein and Hadassah Wizo of Toronto. Several individual donors deposited their personal records at the repository as well, beginning with individuals affiliated with the CJCCR and later reaching wider circles of Jewish political and business figures including judge Sydney Harris, politician John Glass, lawyer Edward Gelber, businessman Lipa Green and educator Betty Goldstick.53 Other significant sources for the development of the collection were the institutional and private records donated by members of the rapidly shrinking smaller Jewish communities outside of Toronto such as Brantford, Welland, Owen Sound and several others.54 The OJA also accepted donations of books and other publications on general Jewish history and initiated a project that aimed to document attitudes towards Jews gleaned from national and local newspapers coverage of Jewish-related topics.55 Overall, the growth and diversification of the OJA’s collections during the late nineteen seventies points to its growing capability to act as a representative community organization.

53 “Report to the CJC 18th plenary”, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); Report to TJC, May 1978 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); Report to TJC, February 1979 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1); Report to the CJC general assembly, May 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 54 Apart of the annual reports mentioned above, see also Minutes of the archives committee, March 3rd, 1976 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1) and Speisman’s The Keeping of Jewish records. 55 Minutes of the archives committee, September 5th, 1973 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1).

176

It did not take long for the OJA to find a more suitable space for its purposes and by 1974 it moved to the second floor of the CJCCR offices, located on 150 Beverly Street in Toronto. Another organizational change took place in 1976, just before the intensification of the OJA’s activities, when the CJCCR office transferred most of its functions to the local Jewish welfare federation and together created the Toronto Jewish Congress (TJC). About 80% of the OJA’s budget was now allocated from the TJC, which also meant that Speisman was hired on a full-time basis. Theoretically, as a joint program, the TJC portion of the budget was supposed to be applied towards Toronto materials while the remaining portion of the budget, covered by the CJC, to materials from the rest of Ontario – but this division was not much more than a theoretical construct and the OJA welcomed any materials it saw fit, regardless of their geographical origin.56 The constant growth of the OJA from 1977 onwards served as a crucial factor for receiving a designated space in the new community centre building that was opened on north Bathurst Street in 1983.

Broadly speaking, the principle that guided Speisman’s work, and through him the institutional policies and the OJA’s mission, was the perception of archival work as an educational, proactive effort to increase the awareness of community members to the value of their own experiences as Canadian Jews and so, to the need to preserve historical materials. In summarizing his first months on the job, Speisman reported that his goal to “create historical consciousness” among community members “was proceeding well.”57

6.3 Speisman’s Historiographical Worldviews

Speisman’s archival mentality, as this chapter argues, developed as a real-life manifestation of the same assumptions that guided his scholarly work and historiographical output. In order to make this connection, this section is dedicated to a

56 Stephen Speisman to H. Teather, September 4th, 1986 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 5, 9). 57 Stephen Speisman to Jonathan Plaut, October 16th, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1).

177 review of Speisman’s historiographical worldview, based, for the most part, on his book, The Jews of Toronto, a history to 1937. In the book, Speisman presented the history of Toronto’s Jews as an ongoing struggle for the preservation of independent and confident Jewish identity, challenged by anti-Semitism on the one hand, and assimilatory and disintegrative tendencies on the other. These two forces, Speisman contested, posed a constant threat to the community, as well as been the driving force that helped shape its agenda and actions. Speisman’s historiography therefore concentrated on the establishment and gradual growth of a functional and competent community organizational infrastructure as the primary weapon in the struggle against these two challenges. The community’s story began with the arrival of the first Jewish families to Toronto and the creation of synagogues and other religious orientated institutions – be it for Kosher slaughter or Jewish burial grounds – and from this starting point, continued to grow through the establishment of an ever-increasing number of welfare and education organizations. Speisman concluded his book with the 1934 reinvigoration of the CJC as a national representative mechanism for Canadian Jewry and with the 1937 creation of the UJWF as an amalgamation of Toronto’s Jewish welfare federation with several other local community organizations.

The fundamental urge behind the Jewish endeavour to organize and unite – and therefore, of Canadian Jewish history in general – was, according to Speisman, an affinity with, and commitment to, Jewish religious values. Although not necessarily the case in the present, historically, Speisman argued, religious obligations provided the foundation for both one’s sense of personal Jewish identity, as well as for Jewish community life, and as such, offer the key through which to understand and interpret broader occupational and economic trends of Jewish settlement in Toronto. This general framework guided both the topics Speisman chose to include in his study, as well as his analysis, with three- quarters of the book’s chapters dedicated to the roles of the community’s religious organizations. Speisman argued that observance of religious laws such as the prohibition of work and travel on Saturday, the duty to attend synagogue service on Jewish holidays,

178 and the keeping of Jewish dietary laws serve to explain social phenomena such as the reluctance of Jews to be employed by gentiles, the abundance of small, individually owned garment shops, , and the tendency to crowd in small urban clusters.58 This commitment to religious values also served, according to Speisman, as the strongest glue to hold Jews together during the years of influx of incoming immigrants. The considerable differences between the various factions within the community – the variety of places of origin, ideological worldviews and economic capabilities – meant that loyalty to religious values was the only instrument through which unity could be achieved and as such, provided the basis on which the later growth of a Canadian-Jewish ethnic secular identity was established.59 As a result of Speisman’s emphasis on the community’s religious elements, published reviews of The Jews of Toronto, while commending Speisman’s meticulous research and ability to offer a rigorously documented research without building on any prior published scholarship on the topic, also deemed this focus as problematic. Speisman’s lacking exploration of secular and cultural manifestations of Jewish life was criticized as a diluted representation of the local Jewish experience. As alleged in the review by University of Toronto historian J.M.S. Careless, “The Jewish labour movement, radicalism, socialism, secularism, are seldom treated…In fact, one might say that Dr. Speisman’s view is decidedly main-line and religiously oriented”.60

Overall, Speisman’s history of the Jews in Toronto was a story that echoed a common framework within Jewish historiography: a community’s struggle for survival.61 In this case, the story was set within the context of a modern and democratic society and so, could not focus on physical survival. Instead, Speisman turned his attention to cultural assimilation as the main threat to Jewish survival. This meant a constant, permanent

58 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, Pp. 71-74; P. 82. 59 Ibid. P. 87; Pp. 189 – 191. 60 See J.M.S Careless, “The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937, Stephen A. Speisman (Review)”, Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 4, 1, (1980), Pp. 95-98; Donald Avery, “The Jews of Toronto by Stephen A. Speisman (Review)”, The Canadian Historical Review, 62, 2, (1981), Pp. 213-214; Abe Arnold, “Book comment: The Jews of Toronto”, Western Jewish News, October 25th, 1979. 61 For a discussion of the meta-narratives of Jewish historiography see Moshe Rosman, How Jewish is Jewish History, (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2010), Pp. 66-74. [In Hebrew].

179 threat, even if it manifested itself differently through the years and according to the changing economic and sociological circumstances. During the community’s early days of settlement, the main challenge Toronto’s Jews were facing was to reject the assimilative tendencies of many community members as a result of the small number of Jews in the city.62 Social pressure caused, as Speisman explained, “an attempt to emulate the non- Jews in order to gain acceptance…members of the old community were actually ashamed to admit that they were Jewish”.63 The next generation, the relatively poorer, working- class immigrants from Eastern Europe who made up “the next community”,64 faced the same pressures, only this time “the trend towards assimilation was promoted in the public schools” where the need to trade a sense of Jewishness for social acceptability was coupled with “a tendency for the young to see Judaism as another element among the countless restrictions insisted upon in the home, and so, to reject it outright”.65 Overall, although differently manifested across the generations, the assimilatory challenge remained a constant, ongoing danger for Jewish life.

Speisman also dedicated an entire chapter in his book to the several Christian missions that were active in Toronto and to their eventual failure to persuade a significant number of Jews to embrace the Christian faith.66 He portrayed Jewish anti-missionary sentiment as one of the main principles that were able to unite affluent and lower-class Jews, new immigrants and more settled ones, and as the force that motivated community members to act – thus portraying, again, the religious commitment as the prime cause for uniting Toronto’s Jewish community. Speisman also attributed the eventual failure of the Christian mission to the Jewish ability to recognize the threat and to offer a response: the

62 Speisman, “Antisemitism in Ontario: The Twentieth Century” in Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation, ed. Alan Davies, (Waterloo, ON: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1992), P. 1. Page numbers are taken not from the published article but from a version found in Speisman’s files: (OJA, 2009-2-6, box 1). 63 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto, P. 63. 64 Ibid, P. 69. 65 Ibid. P. 153. & P. 279. 66 Ibid. Pp. 131-141.

180 establishment of independent charitable and educational institutions to support the young and the poor - those who were the mission’s prime target.67

The other side of the coin was the threat of anti-Semitism. Speisman claimed that anti- Semitism persisted as a social and intellectual phenomenon for many years in Toronto and across Ontario, even if it remained, for the most part, beneath the surface, and manifested itself in much less vulgar and explicit ways than what most community members were accustomed to from their places of origin. Still, facing many social barriers due to their identification as Jews, a lot of community members were tempted to believe that cultural assimilation would help them integrate into the general society.68 This desire to integrate, coupled with the prevailing anti-Semitic tendencies in the city contributed to a “lack of confidence and maturity on the part of the Jewish community” and became a source for diminished affiliation with Jewish values and traditions. As an example for this phenomenon, Speisman offered the visit of the Russian-Jewish violinist Jascha Heifetz to Toronto and the marketing of his shows as a Russian – rather than Jewish – musician. By comparison, Speisman pointed to a 1924 visit to the city by a famous Italian opera singer and the pride and excitement that this visit aroused within the Canadian-Italian community.69 More importantly, this lack of self-esteem caused Toronto’s Jews to be ill- prepared when anti-Semitic sentiments began to be openly displayed during the early nineteen thirties. Besides the lack of a central organizational mechanism, the weak and hesitant Jewish response was a result of the low esteem with which community members perceived their own culture and identity. Thankfully, and in contrast to the experiences of most other world Jewries during that period, Canadian Jews enjoyed the general backing of the mainstream media, were protected by their government and did not suffer from physical violence. Nevertheless, the lesson learnt was that Canadian Jews should not rely on the goodwill of gentiles for support. The revitalization of the CJC and the creation of the UJWF were therefore, according to Speisman, the proof that Canadian Jews

67 Speisman offered examples of schools (Ibid. P.170) and the YMHA (Ibid. P.183). 68 Ibid. Pp. 119-124; Speisman, Antisemitism in Ontario, P. 3, P.6, Pp. 13-14. 69 Speisman, The Jews of Toronto. Pp. 322-323.

181 understood that an independent, efficient and determined Jewish institutional advocacy and support infrastructure, was crucial in times of need. This was also the period that Speisman chose to end his book with.

The rich and varied organizational mechanisms that provided guidance and purpose to its members stood, according to Speisman, at the heart of the Canadian Jewish historical experience. The option to blend in and lose one’s Jewish identity was open to almost all Jewish individuals in North America. Such processes were supported by an inherent lack of Jewish self-esteem (especially for non-religious Jews) and by the “imported rhetoric” of Jewish socialists and communists.70 The man lesson of Jewish history was that only a strong and self-aware organizational infrastructure, one that could impose a sense of pride and purpose, based on three millennia old religious loyalties, could provide Toronto’s Jews the strength to resist and overcome the challenges that surrounded them – whatever form these took in the past – or may still take in the future. The Canadian Jewish historical experience that Speisman narrated was therefore not just one of overcoming the challenges of immigration, but of the ability to do so while sustaining a strong affiliation with Jewish values and religious traditions through active participation in Jewish organizational life.

Speisman concluded that the struggle was still far from over, nor will it ever be. Both the UJWF and the CJC helped to fight overt anti-Semitism but did not yet manage to provide the entire community a sustained sense of unity or confidence. He concluded his book with the claim that “integration into North American society did not ensure physical and spiritual survival…The future of Toronto Jewry depends upon its ability to deal with its problems as a total community”.71 In other words, the changes that were taking place within the Canadian society of the nineteen seventies, the time in which Speisman’s book was published, were a new manifestation of the ongoing threat to the continuation of

70 Ibid. Pp. 96 – 97; Ibid. Pp. 109-110. 71 Ibid. P. 342.

182

Jewish life, just as potent as the threats that were experienced by previous generations. Winning this round of the never-ending struggle depended on the ability to maintain a wholesome, independent and confident Canadian Jewish identity and organizational infrastructure. This sense of ongoing threat was a crucial element in Speisman’s thought and provides a key to understanding his perception of his own role, as a historian and as an archivist, in assuring the ongoing survival of Toronto’s Jewish community.

6.4.1 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Archivist and Historian Combined

In the preface to The Jews of Toronto, Speisman mentioned that “the absence of a comprehensive body of documentary evidence” was one of the major obstacles he encountered in his research.72 Being the first to approach the history of Toronto’s Jewry from an academic, scholarly perspective, Speisman’s professional experience as a historian was characterized by the need to work without much of a supportive archival infrastructure. As a result, he found obvious the fundamental relationship between the existence of an archive and the ability to produce rigorous historiography. Primary sources, he announced, were “the grist of a historian’s mill”73 and “the quality of historical work depended greatly on the quality and quantity of the original sources the historian has access to”.74 In a review of Benjamin Sack’s post-humous second volume of History of the Jews, Speisman assigned the book’s deficiencies to Sack’s inability to engage with a sufficient number of primary sources and concluded that as a result, the book “whets the appetite” but is not suitable for serious historians”.75 Speisman offered a similar critique to Harry Gutkin’s Journey into our Heritage book. The lack of footnotes and references to

72 Ibid. P. 5. 73 Ibid, Ibid. 74 Memorandum 1971, no title, (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 75 Stephen Speisman, “Sack, B.G. Canadian Jews Early in This Century. Reviewed by Stephen Speisman”, Canadian Jewish Historical Society, 1, 1, (1977), P. 49.

183 the sources of the quotations and photographs in the book hindered, Speisman argued, the ability to accept it as a serious historiographical endeavour.76

Trained as a historian, Speisman dedicated his professional career to the OJA, and by doing so, developed a worldview that perceived the roles of the historian and the archivist as complementary, both serving the greater cause of promoting the community’s historical consciousness. Most historians, Speisman argued, were eager to provide their readers lessons from the past but often had to be reminded that this was just one of the two duties that their profession vowed to fulfill. Before serving as a teacher, the historian “must get the facts right”.77 Only after establishing the factual foundations, could historians proceed to analyze, reach conclusions, build a thesis and present the lessons that they believed could, and should, be learned from the past. However, in order to accomplish the first task, and especially when engaging with less explored subjects, the historian relays on the archivist. It is the archivist who “very often will determine what is going to survive for the people who are writing history” and who carries the “onerous responsibility” of deciding what they “feel to be of historical significance”.78 In a field such as Canadian Jewish history, still in its “infancy”, Speisman argued, the archivist was just as essential as the historian in determining the direction of future historiographical output.79 In other words, only once the archivist performed the essential work of selecting, securing and contextualizing the facts, could historians turn to their other duty – determining and disseminating the lessons to be learned from these events. Recognizing this fundamental importance that Speisman attributed to the archival endeavor, and his perception of the archivist as a mentor, rather than as an objective assistant, within the historiographical process offers the right context through which to interpret his archival mentality.

76 Stephen Speisman, “Harry Gutkin: Journey into Our Heritage Reviewed by Stephen Speisman”. Canadian Jewish Historical Society, 4, 2, (1980), P. 135. 77 See the transcript of “The Writing of Jewish History Symposium”, Learned Societies, May 29th, 1978, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.

184

6.4.2 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Relations with the MHSO

When Speisman published his outline regarding the OJA’s early days, he avoided mentioning the fierce competition that ensued between himself, as the OJA’s director, and the MHSO over the collection of Jewish archival materials.80 Nevertheless, the ongoing disputes between the two organizations were a crucial factor in ensuring the growth of the OJA, and offer the best source through which to explore Speisman’s archival mentality.

Already noted was the fact that the government initiatives to collect ethnic archival materials were crucial in stimulating the decision to establish the OJA. However, as the NEA’s directed its attention towards materials of national significance, most of its interfaces with the Canadian Jewish community took place in Montreal. The only direct interaction between Speisman and the NEA happened after the agency published an ad in the community’s leading newspaper, the Canadian Jewish News, in which it expressed interest in accepting donations of historical materials from community members. In a letter to Walter Neutel, the NEA’s director, Speisman declared that he was “both gratified and concerned” by this new interest in Jewish historical materials and suggested that all future donations to the NEA of Jewish materials from Ontario should be “channelled” through the OJA.81 Neutel’s polite, yet firm, response stated that the PAC was committed to “meet the need for better documentation of our social and cultural history” for all Canadian citizens and so, would need to maintain its “interest in dealing and collecting archival material from the Jewish community”. As a result, Neutel concluded, it was likely that some “amount of overlap” would occur.82

80 Speisman, The Keeping of Jewish Records in Ontario. The article was published in 1990, more then ten years after these events. 81 Stephen Speisman to Walter Neutel, October 23rd, 1973 (OJA Sous-fonds, 3,9). 82 Walter Neutel to Stephen Speisman. November 6th, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 3, 9).

185

Although this exchange did not end up causing any particular incidents, Speisman remained cautious of what he regarded as pouching in his field and when the Ontario government announced the establishment of the MHSO during the fall of 1976, he was quick to respond. A letter from Victor Sefton to Robert Harney, the MHSO’s director, declared that the Jewish community was pleased to learn about the new initiative and that the OJA’s staff looked forward to a fruitful cooperation with it. Still, the letter added, the MHSO board needed to know that a Jewish community repository had been successfully performing archival duties on behalf of Ontario’s Jews for a few years already.83 In his reply, Harney assured Speisman that he was well aware of the excellent work performed by the OJA and that he was confident that there were many more venues through which the Jewish community and the MHSO would be able to cooperate.84 The exchange was followed by a meeting between Speisman and Harney, during which Harney affirmed that the MHSO had no desire to conflict with the work conducted within and by the organized community bodies.85 Reporting back on the meeting, Speisman declared that the MHSO had “no intention of going into competition” over Jewish records and that Harney recognized the OJA as the official archive of the Jewish community.86 But this part of Speisman’s report seems to have been a matter of wishful thinking on his part, as there is no written indication of such recognition by Harney. In fact, the very idea that the OJA could serve as a sole community representative soon became one of the principal points of contention between the two organizations.

It took the MHSO several more months after its inception to hire and train its researchers and eventually, during the summer of 1977, its campaign to acquire records and archival collections from Ontario’s diverse ethnic groups began in earnest. The first incident between MHSO researchers and Speisman, although indirect, had to do with the records of Toronto’s oldest synagogue, the ‘Holy Blossom’. Given the historical and symbolic

83 Victor Sefton to Robert Harney, December 7th, 1976 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 84 Robert Harney to Victor Sefton, December 14th, 1976 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 85 Robert Harney to Stephen Speisman, March 9th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 86 Minutes of the archives committee meeting, February 8th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2).

186 significance of the synagogue’s records, it was initially approached by the NEA with a request to donate its records to PAC.87 Learning about this request, Speisman asked the synagogue’s officers to meet with him before they reached any decision on this matter of “profound importance”.88 Although no direct record on the contents of this meeting was found, shortly afterwards Speisman received a letter from the congregation’s president thanking him for his input, but advising him that after much consideration, he decided that the synagogue’s organizational records were “an important part of Canadian history”89 and so, should be made available to the general public and donated to one of the formal archives. However, heeding Speisman’s advice that it was desirable for these records to remain local and in proximity to local researchers, the synagogue decided that instead of sending its records to Ottawa, they would be offered to the MHSO.90

This failure to secure the records of Toronto’s first synagogue was a personal failure to Speisman and signaled the deterioration of the relationship between the OJA and the MHSO. In the months to follow Speisman began an uphill battle against MHSO researchers who approached, under the mantle of the province’s commitment to its history, a great number of Jewish organizations, from schools to retirement homes and from orthodox congregations to workers unions, in Toronto and the rest of the province.91 In many cases, these approaches were favourably received by community members. As discussed earlier, there were several reasons behind these generally accommodating responses: the desire for the records to be preserved by capable, government-funded, organizations, the lack of knowledge about the existence of the OJA, and the animosity,

87 Lawrence Tapper to M. Olsberg, Executive director, Holy Blossom Temple. April 13th, 1977 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 13). 88 Stephen Speisman to John Geller, April 20th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 89 John Geller to Stephen Speisman, June 6th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 90 Ibid. Nan Egier, the MHSO researcher who helped acquire the records was also a member of the cogeneration. 91 For a list of the records acquired by the MHSO – and which were not later transferred to the OJA – see http://ao.minisisinc.com/scripts/mwimain.dll/1536837613/1/19/20644?RECORD&DATABASE=DESCRIPTI ON_WEB_INT.

187 mostly from those affiliated with the radical left, towards the CJCCR as the OJA’s parent organization.

The sense of being under attack on what they perceived as their own domain brought Speisman and Sefton to demand an immediate reaction from CJCCR leadership.92 As a result, three letters, drafted by Speisman and signed by the CJCCR’S chairman, Sam Filer, were sent. The first letter was addressed to the MHSO’s board of directors and demanded the organization to respect the right of the Jewish community to collect and own its historical materials – a duty, the letter asserted, that was assigned to the OJA by community members, and so, made the repository into “the recognized archive of the Jewish community”. Filer appealed for MHSO officers to understand that this was “a matter of principle” and that their “undermining” actions, rather than contribute to the common good, amounted to “a disservice to the Jewish community”.93 Filer demanded that all the Jewish-related materials that were gathered so far by the MHSO be transferred to the OJA, where “our staff is anxious to assist you in your work, but can only do so under these conditions”.94

The second letter was addressed to Robert Welch, Ontario’s Minister of Culture and Recreation.95 Filer commended Welch on the initiative to collect and preserve ethnic archival materials but insisted that the Jews of Ontario did not require this kind of support as they already possessed an “approved archival program”.96 Filer shared with Welch the fact that the community “has become increasingly disturbed” by recent developments, and specifically by the fact that “a provincially-supported project…undermines, the archival program of the Jewish community rather than assist it”.97 He concluded the letter by asking the minister to look into the issue of government employees “soliciting Jewish

92 Victor Sefton to Milton Harris, June 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 93 Sam Filer to T.G. Rachwal, August 29th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 94 Ibid. 95 Sam Filer to Robert Welch, September 2nd, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid.

188 historical materials in an apparent competition” with the OJA.98 The letter thus contained a clear political threat.

Filer’s third letter, addressed to “members of the Jewish community of Ontario”, was published in the local Jewish press and on synagogue billboards in Jewish neighborhoods.99 This public appeal asked community members to refuse requests to donate their records, or even to be interviewed for an oral history program made by any agency that was external to the Jewish community. The letter claimed that such projects were “an encroachment on the legitimate preserve of the community” and “a disservice…public funds being used to compete with our own archival program rather than assist it”.100 Members were requested to donate their records solely to the OJA and to do so as a matter of principle and out of their sense of duty and obligation towards their community.101 There was just one, small yet meaningful, difference between Speisman’s draft and Filer’s published appeal. While the final version included the claim that “Jewish historical materials ought to rest with the Jewish community”, Speisman’s draft indicated that “Jewish historical material ought to remain the property of the Jewish community”.102 The different wording represents a somewhat different perception regarding the meaning of records ownership: the term ‘property’ not only assigns a much stronger and more inherent bond between the records and the community than the mere ‘rest’, but also shifts the initial ownership rights over these records from their creators to the more abstract entity that is represented in the term ‘Jewish community’.

As an additional step, the CJCCR’S executive committee published, in both June and November of 1977, resolutions encouraging Ontario’s Jews to donate their materials to

98 Ibid. 99 Sam Filer to the Jewish Community of Ontario. September 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid.

189

Jewish archives and not to any governmental agencies.103 MHSO leadership, of course, did not anticipate, nor was it comfortable, with this backlash and with the background political pressure that accompanied it. Harney declared that he “would be content for all Jewish material…to go to Congress archives” but only “as long as…true public access” to the records was provided.104 In October 1977 the MHSO’s board passed a resolution in which it agreed to coordinate the collection of Jewish materials with the OJA but, at the same time, demanded the fulfilment of two conditions before any future cooperation could take place.105 Firstly, it asked for an OJA acknowledgment that Jewish donors had the right to deposit their materials “where they wish” and secondly, that the OJA would commit to providing “effective and open access” to its holdings and not add any additional access restrictions on top of those that were stipulated directly by the donors.106 The resolution was sent to the OJA, accompanied by a personal letter from Harney to Speisman.107 The letter noted that MHSO board members experienced significant difficulties in reaching the resolution. Some board members, Harney indicated, felt that such a compromise “would threaten the very fabric of multiculturalism” as public policy by setting a potential precedent for “fifty-odd little ethnic archives which would make chaos of both archival practice and multiculturalism as a value”.108 Other members were, according to Harney, “perplexed” regarding “why a group of Canadian citizens will be so suspicious of a public institution”.109 Harney added that although he understood the unique sensibilities and intense emotions that Canadian Jews maintained on this matter, the entire MHSO board found that telling “donors of Jewish origin” that they were not free to choose where to deposit their records is “abhorrent in a democracy” and even, “has the terrifying ring of a Nuremberg statute”.110 Harney also made sure to remind

103 Minutes of the meeting of officers, TJC, June 20th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); TJC meeting of the executive committee, November 17th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 104 Robert Harney to Ben Kayfetz, September 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 105 MHSO resolution of the board, October 13th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds. 2, 6). 106 Ibid. 107 Robert Harney to Stephen Speisman, October 17th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid.

190

Speisman that the CJCCR was not, nor could it claim to be, a representative of the entire community.111

The following months witnessed efforts to solve the situation and build cooperation- enhancing mechanisms between the two organizations. Still, two issues remained unresolved: the OJA’s demand to be acknowledged as the default repository for any Canadian-Jewish material and the MHSO’s demand for free and open access to the OJA’s materials, excluding any restrictions that were a result of donor’s discretion. The two sides met in person in December 1977 and this time managed to draft an agreement.112 The MHSO agreed to transfer all original Jewish materials it collected to the OJA, short of any materials that donors specifically requested to stay with the MHSO. At the same time, the MHSO maintained the right to create and own any copies of these collections – as well as copies of some of the materials from the OJA’s collection. The two sides also reached a compromise regarding access – Speisman agreed to allow access to the OJA’s materials – even if without committing to anything more than the general “make the materials available to the public”. It took several more months to fine-tune the agreement, and after another meeting with Speisman in March 1978, MHSO representatives, despite still refusing to acknowledge that the OJA had any “prior right” to the records, agreed that the OJA would be presented to all potential donors as the “most suitable” solution for Jewish records.113 Following a few more disagreements and angry letters exchanges,114 by September 1978 Harney announced that the MHSO had finally “given up any attempt to carry on any general research and gathering within the Jewish community” as it “can not hope to function as an alternative to a healthy Jewish archive”.115 The Jewish materials collected by MHSO researchers were later gradually

111 Ibid. 112 A memorandum of a meeting from December 1st, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). The agreement is drafted but I only found unsigned copies of it. It seems safe to assume it was never signed. 113 “Memo on cooperative projects with the Canadian Jewish archives” (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 12). 114 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, March 2nd, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6); Stephen Speisman to Robert Harney, March 15th, 1978 (OJA Sus-fonds, 2, 6); Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, June 15th, 1978 (OJA Sous- fonds, 2,6). 115 Robert Harney to Stephen Speisman, September 25th, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6).

191 transferred to the OJA, and those that remained in possession of the MHSO as a result of specific donor requests, were later sent to the Archives of Ontario as part of the bigger MHSO collection. Subsequent years saw the eventual waning of the MHSO’s budget, as well as of public enthusiasm for initiatives of its kind and, although remaining functional, the organization eventually stopped any active collection efforts. In 1986, when Speisman was asked to support MHSO’s candidacy for the Heritage Canada Foundation exceptional service award, he was happy to support the nomination, commanded the MHSO for its activities but made sure to mention that the Jewish community had never required or expressed a need for its services and support.116

6.4.3 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Ownership as a Matter of Principle

Insistence on direct community ownership and intellectual control of Jewish archival materials was the principle that guided Speisman’s response to the collection efforts of the Canadian governmental agencies. Although, and maybe because, he witnessed the enthusiasm with which many community members welcomed these external archival collection efforts, the notion of Jewish records making their way into non-Jewish repositories deeply perturbed him. The language he used when referring to such incidents testifies to the significance that he attributed to the topic. For instance, Speisman used the term Hillul Ha’Shem (blasphemy) to describe the donation of synagogue records to PAC and later blamed the national archives for applying “ghoulish and aggressive grave-snatching tactics” in their efforts to acquire Jewish records.117 He further accused PAC that it was “raiding our materials”, and that Jewish archival collections were held in Ottawa “as ransom”.118 Of course, according to Speisman, the

116 Stephen Speisman to Robert Bowes, Heritage Canada foundation, June 24, 1986 (OJA Sous-fonds, 6, 9). 117 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Saul Hayes, Jonathan Plaut, David Rome, Victor Sefton and Cyril Troster. October 2nd, 1979 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 13); Stephen Speisman to Ben Kayfetz, October 19th, 1976 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 118 Stephen Speisman to Sam Filer, September 19th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1); Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Cyril Troster, April 14th, 1983 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 13).

192

MHSO’s “encroachment”, was just as despicable.119 Even if the usage of such a language was mostly a rhetorical device through which to stimulate others - prospective donors or Congress officers - into action, Speisman made sure to portray the situation as a struggle over a scarce and vital resource, and as one that would have a direct effect on the future survival of the Canadian Jewish community.

Overall, according to Speisman, choosing to donate one’s records outside of the community was a sign of either moral weakness, leniency towards assimilation or a lack of proper understanding of the commitments that made up a functional and healthy Jewish community. Thus, in his effort to understand why Jews agreed to donate their records to non-Jewish repositories, Speisman made a distinction between two kinds of people. The first group was made of those who were motivated by financial gain – i.e., the preferred tax rate a Canadian citizen was able to receive if choosing to donate archival records to the crown rather than to a private institution. According to Speisman, this was a sign of the donor’s short-sightedness: people who “sold their heritage for a mess of pottage”120, as a reference to the biblical story of Esau and Jacob and a symbol of the moral weakness of those who abandon tradition and heritage for immediate gratifications. The second group was made of those who “for personal or ideological reasons [were] hostile to Congress and to the legitimately organized Jewish community as a whole”.121 In that case, donating records outside of the purview of the community was a sign of assimilation, of Jews who either deliberately distanced themselves from their Jewish identity, or at least, failed to acknowledge the full range of commitments that their Jewish identity implied.

Why was direct ownership of the historical record so crucial? Besides its value to the quality of future Canadian Jewish historiography, Speisman offered several other

119 Sam Filer to Robert Welch, September 2nd, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 120 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Sam Filer, Milton Harris, Jonathan Plaut, David Satok, Victor Sefton, Cyril Troster, Rose Wolfe, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 121 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, June 21, 1979 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 13).

193 answers, both practical and principal, to this question. Most paramount was the issue of security. The OJA, according to Speisman, was part of the commitment of the organized community bodies to protect the wellbeing of present and future Jewish community members. Writing about the need to preserve records, Speisman claimed that “when it comes to preserving the physical evidence of our immediate past, the Jewish community of Ontario has been notably careless”.122 But this carelessness was not a reference to the physical protection of the records, but rather, to the potential security of community members themselves. Only direct ownership and control of the archival record could ensure that the content that was inscribed on them would not be used, now or in the future, to harm the community’s reputation and the well-being of its members.

Not having concrete examples of previous cases of mishandling of Jewish records in Canada, Speisman portrayed this need for security as a lesson learned from Jewish historical experiences in other places, as well as a future-facing concern. Speisman wrote that “there is always the possibility…that the time will come when agreements [with government archives] will no longer be honoured and the materials [i.e., Jewish records kept in governmental archives] be used to discredit Jews and alienate them from the rest of the population. No matter how unlikely this possibility, our history demands that we be cautious”.123 In a letter to the director of the Toronto branch of Hadassah-Wizo, Speisman warned that it would be a mistake to deposit the organization’s records with PAC because one of the essential lessons from Jewish history was that “misused information, places us as a community – in jeopardy”.124 If “documents of sensitive nature” were kept outside of the community’s direct control, how could one assure that proper access restrictions would always continue to be respected? That sometime in the

122 “Archives, by Stephen Speisman, archivist, CJCCR” (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1). These seem to be notes that Speisman prepared for an address or talk offered to a Jewish audience regarding community archives. 123 “Position paper on the relationship between Jewish organizations and public archival institutions. By Stephen Speisman, director, CJCCR Archives”, February 24th, 1975 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 124 Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4, 9). Hadassah-Wizo ended up donating their records to the OJA.

194 future the records would not “be used for purposes inimical to our interests”?125 or guarantee that even the original owners of these materials would always be able to access them?126 Speisman’s letters to Hadassah-Wizo and to the Zionist Canadian Federation also hinted that since an essential portion of the work of these organizations involved the transfer of charitable donations outside of Canada – mainly to Israel – public access to their records could turn, in the wrong hands, into accusations against Jewish dual loyalty and serve as a potential risk to future generations of Canadian Jews.127

This line of thought corresponded with the OJA’s declared policy that it was better for Jewish organizations, and individuals, to hold on to their records, even if not donated to the OJA, then to let them slip out of Jewish control. In a correspondence with a prospective donor, Speisman argued that there was no way one could guarantee that current comfort level of Canadian-Jews would last forever and that this made the maintenance of records within the community a moral obligation. Archives were a unique domain of social activity – they aimed for posterity. As such, any archival-related decision required an extra layer of caution and an appreciation of potential future risks. One of the most painful and potent lessons of Jewish history, Speisman argued, was that physical violence and harassments followed lies, propaganda, and wrong, twisted information. How would the community be able to defend its reputation and integrity, contradict and refute accusations with hard facts, if it did not maintain the basic requirement of direct ownership over its historical records?

But security was not the only reason for the need to maintain the records under Jewish care. One of the main challenges that Speisman faced when he tried to persuade potential donors to deposit their materials with the OJA concerned the superior professional capabilities of the formal archives. Speisman offered several answers to this challenge.

125 Ibid. 126 Stephen Speisman to Len Goodman, president of Adath Israel congregation, November 28th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 4, 9). 127 Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9); Victor Sefton to P. Givens, President, Canadian Zionist Federation, February 23rd, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2).

195

Firstly, only under the aegis of the OJA could one find the necessary familiarity and ability for rigorous intellectual control over the records. “Who”, Speisman asked, “better than the Jewish community, can interpret the materials?”128 PAC employed just one archivist who could deal with its Jewish materials, and the MHSO, although employing Jewish researchers to collect materials – did not hire an archivist who was familiar with these materials.129 The superior capabilities of the official archives were therefore true in theory, but not when tested according to the specific requirements posed by the records of an ethnic community. Understanding of Yiddish and Hebrew, familiarity with the people mentioned in the records and with their familial backgrounds were all issues that required prior, insider, knowledge that did not exist in sufficient levels outside of the internal context of the community. What was therefore the point, Speisman asked, to give away the records if “nobody there knows anything about the community or about the material”?130

Moreover, Speisman argued, the political motivations behind the decision to collect ethnic archives meant that government interest in Jewish records and the newly available budgets that gave birth to this interest – were just temporary fads. Only the OJA offered Jewish donors an “abiding interest” in their records, an interest that was opposed to PAC’s “civil service judgment” or the “political opportunism” behind the MHSO.131 Speisman argued that “it is common knowledge” that employees within governmental archival agencies did not care much for ethnic archives and were only motivated by the political climate and available budgets.132 The OJA, on the other hand, would not, and could not, lose its interest in Jewish records, because it had no other commitments or causes other

128 Ibid. 129 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Sam Filer, Milton Harris, Jonathan Plaut, David Satok, Victor Sefton, Cyril Troster, Rose Wolfe, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 130 Minutes of the meeting of the archives committee, September 12th, 1974 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 131 Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9); Victor Sefton to Milton Harris, June 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 132 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Sam Filer, Milton Harris, Jonathan Plaut, David Satok, Victor Sefton, Cyril Troster, Rose Wolfe, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3).

196 than the preservation of these records.133 Speisman was confident that sooner or later “enthusiasm would wane”, as political conditions would change, multicultural budgets would dry up and with them, any kind of interest by the formal archives in Jewish or other ethnic records.134 This was yet another reason why it would be a grave mistake for community members to cooperate with these efforts – yet another example of the assimilatory temptations that were continually knocking on the community’s doorstep and that required a strong sense of confidence and purpose in order to be resisted.

Speisman also addressed the selective nature of government acquisition policies and contrasted it to the OJA’s all-embracing responsibility towards the entire community member base. Although that was not entirely the case, at least with regards to the MHSO, he still claimed that the official archives cared only for “the cream”: the prominent members of the community and the ones who had the most effect on Canadian society.135 The OJA, on the other hand, was obliged to represent “the entire spectrum of Jewish life” and so, regarded all community members as part of an organic whole.136 Donation of records to external archives would, therefore, harm, in the long run, the ability to properly portray Canadian Jewish history. Besides implying that those who chose to donate their records to the OJA were only second best to those who decided to hand their materials to the formal archives, the division would also potentially distort any contextual understanding of the activities of some community members by estranging their life stories from the Canadian-Jewish context and instead, positioning them as part of a national or provincial context. When all was said and done, Speisman insisted, the only place that was familiar with these records, who knew which information was sensitive and how to interpret and determine the significance of each collection and record group,

133 Victor Sefton to Milton Harris, June 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 134 Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9); Victor Sefton to Milton Harris, June 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 135 Ibid. 136 Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9).

197 was the OJA – simply because these records, as he emphasised, represented “our history”.137

6.4.4 Speisman’s Archival Mentality: Community Ownership as a Natural Right

The CJCCR officers resolution that called for Ontario’s Jews to donate their historical materials to the OJA, also implored the organization’s archives committee to try and establish cooperative relationships with any of the formal archives who displayed interest in these materials.138 However, for Speisman, the need to maintain Jewish records within the community was not a matter of negotiation. Rather, it was “a matter of principle” that the OJA would maintain “exclusive control over the collection of materials”.139 In other words, the OJA, as a representative of the organized community, possessed, according to Speisman, a proprietary claim over all Jewish records. This position made any potential understandings with the MHSO very hard to reach because as much as the MHSO was open to innovative ideas concerning provenance and collection priorities, there was no way that it could comply with the notion of entities other than the records owners taking charge of archival-related decisions.

The notion of community stake in Jewish records can, again, be traced back to Speisman’s broader historiographical framework. As already noted, his interpretation of Jewish identity perceived it as based on mutual assistance and sense of obligation between community members through participation in organized community life and on the ability to create functional representational mechanisms. The archival domain was not different. The OJA, as a unit within the CJCCR, became Toronto’s Jewry archival

137 “Position paper on the relationship between Jewish organizations and public archival institutions. By Stephen Speisman, director, CJCCR Archives. February 24th, 1975” (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). For the quote see Stephen Speisman to B. Levy, October 12th, 1977 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9). 138 TJC meeting of the executive committee, November 17th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 139 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, March 2nd, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 4, 9).

198 representative “by virtue of our position in the Jewish community and our prior activity in the field [of archives] across the country”.140 Entrusted with the mandate to care for the community’s long-term interests, the OJA maintained, according to Speisman, an inherent stake in all archival-related decisions simply because these could impact not just the producers of the records - but the entire community. Although Speisman never defined the limits of this stake, his notion that unlimited public access to archival records might place community members in jeopardy meant the OJA had the right to intervene at any stage of the archival decision-making process.

Furthermore, according to Speisman, the OJA’s “prior right” to Jewish records could be employed whether their producers and owners agreed with it or not. After all, most people could not be fully aware of the potential implications of such decisions. Therefore, based on the bonds of mutual responsibility between all community members and on the potential dangers posed by the metaphysical, cyclical nature of Jewish history, archival- related decisions could not be left to the discretion of individuals or organizational decision-makers but had to involve the OJA as a representative of the broader interests of the community. In fact, Speisman argued, it would even be advisable to diminish, as much as possible, community members discretion regarding the repository of choice so that the OJA’s prior right to the materials does not become a matter of debate.141 “Our goal”, Speisman argued, was “to be the recognized repository for Ontario Jewish material…we therefore must minimize acquisitions – even copies – by the MHSO”.142 Negotiations were futile “unless basic principles regarding legitimacy are agreed…and that is why [the MHSO’s] poaching is such an affront”.143

140 Stephen Speisman to Robert Harney, October 25th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 141 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, March 2nd, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 4, 9); Minutes of the archives committee, February 14th, 1979 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 142 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, November 29th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 143 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, November 18th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6).

199

Speisman therefore portrayed the deposit of one’s records at the community archive as a symbol to their commitment to the continuation of Jewish life.144 The OJA “could only be successful with the support of local Jews” who acknowledge “the responsibility to ensure that material goes to a Jewish archive”.145 A letter from Sefton to a prospective donor stated that “the work of the MHSO is potentially inimical to our interests and…harmful to the Jewish community. I trust that as a responsible member of the community, you will be guided accordingly”.146 It was also clear to Speisman that the same commitment had to be shared by the leaders of the organized community who had to provide community members with personal examples. He thus consistently asked CJCCR officers “to take a stand” and apply political pressure against the MHSO in support of the notion of the OJA’s prior right over Jewish records, rather than try and reach compromises.147 However, just like Hayes and Rome in Montreal, Speisman was deeply disappointed with what he perceived as the lack of understanding on behalf of the community’s leadership of the matters that were at stake. Frustrated, he claimed that lack of action equals to an acknowledgment that the Jewish community mechanisms were second best to the governmental agencies, and worse still, an admission that the organized community was incapable, or even unwilling, to care for its own heritage.148 The worst case scenario was, of course, when CJC officers themselves decided to donate their records outside of the community.149

Just like in Montreal then, also in Toronto, Speisman posed the question of the archives as a benchmark through which to measure the capability of the CJCCR officers to fully understand their responsibility towards the community and the CJC’s original mandate.

144 Victor Sefton to Milton Harris, June 15th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 145 Stephen Speisman to the editor of the Canadian Jewish News, June 21st, 1978 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4, 9). 146 Victor Sefton to S. Levitt, September 2nd, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-2). 147 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, March 2nd, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6); Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, June 15th, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2,6); Stephen Speisman to David Satok, August 17th, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2,6); Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, November 18th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2,6). 148 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Sam Filer, Milton Harris, Jonathan Plaut, David Satok, Victor Sefton, Cyril Troster, Rose Wolfe, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 149 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, August 11th, 1975 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1); the Minutes of the meeting of Jewish historical society of Canada, October 21st, 1976 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4,9).

200

In a letter to Saul Hayes following the donation of the records of Montreal’s Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue to PAC, Speisman declared that fighting government agencies was a difficult, yet not impossible, task. The Canadian Jewish community had already proven in the past that it was capable of uniting and fighting for greater causes. Using himself as an example, Speisman reminded Hayes that he had to deal with “a barrage of innuendo and outright vituperation directed against me personally and against the OJA and its work”150 and that he managed to eventually “drive the MHSO from the field by simply taking the uncompromising stand that the Jewish community is the legitimate repository for Jewish materials and that others ought to get out of the business”.151 Speisman’s message was clear: those, like himself and Hayes, who understood the gravity of the situation and just how high were the stakes, had to go on and fight for what was rightfully theirs. That was the only way forward, not just for them, but also for the CJC, and the entire community if wanting to maintain respect, recognition and legitimacy as part of the continuation of full and wholesome Canadian Jewish community life.

However, although Speisman consistently opposed any external interventions with the community’s archival duties, he was also aware of the practical benefits that the state could offer the community’s archives, if and when a more acceptable working model could be reached. He thus offered several suggestions to what he regarded as the proper model for the relationship between the community and governmental archival institutions. Speisman’s view was that if a Canadian ethnic community displayed an interest in preserving its archival materials independently, and especially if it maintained a functioning archival institution, the state had to honour this interest and commit to supporting it. Overall, Speisman claimed, besides acknowledging the principle priority of the community’s interests, the state had to recognize the inherent differences between the needs and sensibilities of the individual ethnic groups – and respond to them accordingly by adjusting and flexing governmental programs. It was a grave mistake to

150 Stephen Speisman to Saul Hayes, November 12th, 1979 (OJA Sous-fonds, 5, 9). 151 Ibid.

201 bundle all communities into one multicultural entity and to offer the same solution to all, regardless of size, location, capabilities and community preferences.

Speisman offered several roadmaps to possible agreements.152 All suggestions followed a similar pattern – the default for all Jewish materials was to be deposited within a Jewish community archival institution. The Jewish archive would always maintain “the right for first refusal”153 and remain the preferred solution, unless, for some reason, the materials got lost if not finding their way into a formal archive. Even in such a case, the organized Jewish community, according to Speisman, had to retain certain rights over the materials – mainly, the right to withdraw records from the official state archive, the right to make copies and the right to impose restrictions on access and use.154 The government archival agencies had to notify the Jewish archives on all the approaches they made to potential Jewish donors, and after that, the community archives could voice their concerns and advise the donors on alternatives. The community concerns had to be heeded by the official archives.155 Any person or organization whose records were more attuned towards the service of the community, should not be approached at all by the formal archives. Furthermore, even if some records were eventually to make their way into the public archives, they still had to be “channeled through”, or at least evaluated by, the community’s archives regardless of their final destination.156 Speisman also insisted that all of these factors had to become formal, contractual and signed obligations and that, as

152 “Position paper on the relationship between Jewish organizations and public archival institutions. By Stephen Speisman, director, CJCCR Archives”, February 24th, 1975 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, February 9th, 1978 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4, 9); Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, March 11th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 153 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, March 11th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 154 Stephen Speisman to Irving Abella, July 6th, 1978 (OJA, SE fonds, 4, 10, 13); Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton re proposal of Dominion archivist, March 11th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 155 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, March 11th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, February 9th, 1978 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4, 9). 156 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, April 20th, 1977 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2); Stephen Speisman to Walter Neutel, October 23rd, 1973 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 3, 9).

202 a result of the new Canadian archival landscape, it became crucial for every Jewish community to maintain an archival repository as part of its service mandate.157

One of the main recommendations of the 1980 Wilson report (also known as the Consultative group report) on Canadian archives, was to shift the Canadian archival landscape into a more decentralized system. The report was wholeheartedly welcomed by Speisman who declared that it offered “a refreshing change” because, at last, a point of view other than that of the government was taken into account.158 In fact, Speisman declared, this new structure was the right way for a real promotion of the multicultural ethos in the archival domain, as it could help foster, “amicable cooperation” between all Canadian archives, something that could happen only if “PAC and provincial archives eschew the total archives philosophy”.159 Only if the state recognized the legitimacy and value of non-governmental institutions, respected and supported their independence and did not try to dominate the archival eco-system, would official archives be able to “contribute in a positive way to the achievement of our common goals” and promote the multicultural spirit.160

6.5 Conclusion: Speisman’s Autonomous Approach to Community Archives

Speisman’s archival mentality was based on a unique perception of the roles of a community archive within Jewish community life. Their first role was, naturally, to serve as a necessary auxiliary tool for the writing of history – “only in this way can we tell our

157 “Position paper on the relationship between Jewish organizations and public archival institutions. By Stephen Speisman, director, CJCCR Archives”, February 24th, 1975 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2). 158 Stephen Speisman, “Individual responses to the Wilson Report”, Archivaria, 11, (1981), P. 30. For the report: Canadian Archives, Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Chairman Ian Wilson (Ottawa: The Council, 1980). See also Millar, “Discharging Our Debt”, Pp. 122-123. 159 Stephen Speisman, “Individual responses”, P. 30 160 Ibid.

203 children, the outside world and ourselves - this is us, and be proud to do so”.161 But the writing of history was just one part of the broader domain of public memory that the archive aimed to serve and promote. The OJA’s broader mission was to support the growth of Toronto’s Jewry historical consciousness and through it, its sense of pride and worth. Referring to Canadian Jewry’s contribution to the establishment of The Museum of the Jewish people in Tel Aviv (also known as Beit Hatefuzut’ - Museum of the diasporas), Speisman argued that it was “important to remember that museums do not emerge full-blown or from a vacuum. They are possible only because Jewish communities have preserved their own historical records and have not relied upon outside agencies to do so”.162 The OJA was a vital agent through which to cultivate such a sense of historical consciousness in Toronto, and Speisman saw its promotion as his greatest mission. Toronto’s Jewry was, not long ago, a group of individuals for whom “writing history would seem to be a radical thing”.163 It comprised of working-class members who managed to build an impressive organizational infrastructure – but, compared with other major centres of North-American Jewry, maintained a much lower sense of value and self- esteem, as evident by the small number of worthy cultural outputs they managed to produce. The establishment of a functional archive, of an institutional commitment to preserve their stories was a sign of change, of maturity and of a realization and appreciation of the community’s past and present achievements. Moreover, it symbolized Toronto’s Jewry acknowledgment of its new role as a centre of Canadian Jewish life – equal, if not suppressing Montreal, and Speisman perceived himself as one of those who prepared the ground for this change.

Another crucial role for the OJA was to mark the community’s autonomy and commitment towards future generations. Speisman noted that during the time that he worked on his doctoral dissertation, no dedicated, structured system for the preservation

161 “Preface”, Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR. Toronto, March 17th, 1974 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 162 Stephen Speisman to the editor of the Canadian Jewish News, June 21st, 1978 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 4, 9). 163 The Writing of Jewish History Symposium, Learned Societies, May 29, 1978 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

204 of historical materials existed and so, when offered materials for safekeeping, he usually had to decline. This experience helped him understand, he wrote, that an independent archival institution, created as a joint communal effort, was a core community responsibility and a necessary tool in the ongoing struggle to maintain a sense of Jewish autonomy and separate identity.164 The archive offered a chance to “honor our parents' accomplishments, pass our heritage to our children and…demonstrate our own pride in our background”.165 While still taking part in the threatening process of multiculturalism, a community archive provided an anchor, a commitment to the idea that Jews were different from other ethnic groups in Canada – that they were committed to their past and wished to maintain an affiliation with that past that went beyond the multicultural matrix.166 An independent community archival infrastructure would help set the boundaries between Canadian Jews affiliation to their state and their commitment to their community and direct the context of future historiography: of Jewish autonomy and of the Jewish ability to organize and unite as the source and the foundation of Jewish history.

Examining Speisman’s archival mentality from a broader, more chronologically distanced perspective, two more conclusory insights present themselves. Firstly, that the threat, real or imagined, posed by the official archives was the primary vehicle through which Speisman was able to win recognition for the idea of the OJA as an official Jewish community repository and as one of the core services that the organized Jewish community had to offer its members.167 The sense of struggle and competition helped “to make the public aware of the necessity to preserve the record”,168 and provided a platform through which many more collections could be acquired and later on, helped

164 “Archives” by Stephen Speisman, archivist, CJCCR. n.d. (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 165 “Preface”, Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR. Toronto, March 17th, 1974 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1, 1). 166 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, March 2nd, 1978 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2, 6). 167 Stephen Speisman to Victor Sefton, November 18th, 1977 (OJA Sous-fonds, 2,6). 168 CJCCR Archives committee report, part of chairman’s report 1971-1974, June 1974 (LAC, Canadian Jewish Congress fonds, MG28 VR, box 6); Minutes of the archives committee meeting. November 24th, 1976 (OJA Sous-fonds, 1,1).

205 the OJA to receive a dedicated, well-equipped space within the new community centre once it was built.169 Secondly, the self-assurance that Speisman displayed in his discussions with official government agencies and his confidence that “as Canadian citizens we are entitled to archival service – the question is if it is in our interest, to use it”170 – was a trait not displayed by members of the older generation who were involved with the community’s archival endeavours – even if they shared Speisman’s views. At that, Speisman’s confidence to publicly display his identity as a Canadian Jew also testifies to the inevitable, multi-dimensional progress of the process of Jewish integration into the accommodating Canadian society.

169 Stephen Speisman to Saul Hayes, November 12th, 1979 (OJA Sous-fonds, 5, 9). 170 “Position paper on the relationship between Jewish organizations and public archival institutions. By Stephen Speisman, director, CJCCR Archives”, February 24th, 1975 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-6-2).

Chapter 7: Winnipeg, the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, Abe Arnold and the Integrative Approach to Community Archives

7.1 Introduction

The archival landscape that was created by Winnipeg’s Jewish community was a product of two core decisions. The first was to conduct all local archival collection work - as well as other public memory initiatives - under the auspices the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada (JHSWC), an organization that was established in 1968 by local Winnipeg cultural activists and amateur historians. Although the JHSWC originated from the city’s Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) office, it immediately incorporated as an independent program and began working externally of the CJC. The second decision was not to establish an independent archival repository but instead, to maintain the historical materials that were collected by the JHSWC within the Archives of Manitoba. These two decisions created a working model that was different from the ones developed by Montreal and Toronto Jewries, where all archival-related functions were administered through a dedicated repository that operated as a unit within the local CJC office.

Nevertheless, just as in Montreal and Toronto, also in Winnipeg a particular individual stood out as a major driving force behind the growth, and eventual shape, of the local archival landscape. Here it was Abraham Arnold, the JHSWC’s first executive director, who played this role. Arnold was born in Montreal in 1923 and was raised and educated in the city before he moved to Vancouver in 1949 to become an editor for a local Jewish newspaper. Arnold came back to Montreal in 1960, assumed the role of public relations director of the city’s Jewish Federation, but moved again in 1967, this time to Winnipeg, after being appointed the director of the CJC’s Western division, a position he held until 1975. Arnold found a home in Winnipeg and remained in it until his death in 2011. Besides holding various roles within the organized Jewish community, Arnold worked as a

206 207 journalist and public relations advisor as well as dedicated time and energy to human rights and civil liberties issues and served as the first director of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties (MARL). Throughout his life, he researched Canadian Jewish history, directing most of his attention to early Jewish settlement in Western Canada. He published a steady stream of articles as well as two books: Jewish Life in Canada (1976) and Judaism: Myth, Legend, History, and Custom, From the Religious to the Secular (1995). In 2003, he was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada.

Arnold did not work alone but as part of a group of several committed local activists and enthusiasts who established the JHSWC as a result of their desire and commitment to the promotion of local history and identity. However, Arnold’s central position within the Canadian Jewish public service infrastructure and the fact that he was the only group member who left behind him a well-documented set of ideas concerning the recommended path for the community’s archival landscape, made him into the central figure of this chapter. Besides him, the most noteworthy person for the purpose of this discussion was Harry Gutkin, a local activist who served as Arnold’s right hand and as the second executive director of the JHSWC for eighteen years after he succeeded Arnold in the role.

Following this introduction, the chapter turns to describe the inception, early years, and main activities of the JHSWC during the nineteen seventies.1 The discussion then moves to examine Arnold’s opinions and worldviews on Canadian Jewish identity, on the idea of multiculturalism, and on Canadian-Jewish historiography. The chapter’s fourth section situates Arnold’s archival-related decisions within the context of these worldviews.

1 The JHSWC’s founders published several reports describing its work and growth through the years. Arnold published a short account on this topic just a few years after the JHSWC began its operations – Abe Arnold, “The Birth and Development of a Western Jewish Archives Program”, The Canadian Archivist, 2, 3, (1972), Pp. 1-6. He returned to the subject in a 2004 conference paper titled The Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada at Double Chai (AM, AA fonds, P7263). Harry Gutkin published his own account for the 20th anniversary of the society. Harry Gutkin, “The Jewish Historical Society, 1968-1988: Twenty Years in Review”, Jewish Life and Times: A Collection of Essays and Photographs, (Winnipeg: Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, 1988), Pp. 1-4.

208

Overall, the chapter argues that Arnold’s life-long desire to author the textbook of Canadian Jewish history, his belief in the ability of Canadian Jewish history to stand out as a useful model for the promotion of Canadian multiculturism, and his critique of the existing centralized communal power structures were all reflected in the local Winnipeg archival landscape.

7.2.1 The JHSWC’s Inauguration

For most of the twentieth century, Winnipeg was home to the third largest concentration of Canadian Jews. Although, in absolute numbers, the local Jewish community was always substantially smaller than the Montreal and Toronto ones, the relative percentage of Jews within the entire city’s population was somewhat higher. In 1921, Winnipeg’s 14,450 Jews made up 8.1% of the city’s population. In 1961 the community numbered a bit less than 20,000 people and consisted of 4.1% of the city’s population. Numbers have been declining ever since.2 Moreover, since not long after the initial arrival of 260 Russian Jews to the city in 1882, Winnipeg’s Jewry became known as an exceptionally vibrant and energetic community, supporting an impressive organizational infrastructure and engaged in rich cultural and social life.3 With regards to archival-related initiatives, up until the late nineteen sixties Winnipeg’s Jewry did not develop any dedicated mechanisms for systematic collection and preservation of historical materials and no thought was given, neither by the CJC western division office, nor by any other local Jewish agency, to a need to establish a centralized records collection and deposit mechanism. Even those organizations that preserved their own records had done so without any apparent concern towards access or research needs. Many of the materials that were preserved during the period before the JHSWC was

2 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, P. 308. 3 For a detailed history of the community and of Jews in Manitoba See Allan Levine, Coming of Age: A History of the Jewish People of Manitoba, (Winnipeg: Heartland Associates, 2009); For organizational history see Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 307 – 334.

209 established were gathered by Louis Rosenberg who served as the contact person of the Jewish Colonialization Association’s (JCA) to Jewish agricultural settlements in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as performed various roles within the CJC’s western division office. After Rosenberg moved to Montreal during the nineteen-forties, he continued to approach, on different occasions, individuals and organizations from the region with requests to send him documents that he deemed to be of historical value to Montreal’s nationally orientated Canadian Jewish Archives (CJA). However, these approaches were never part of a consistent or organized collection effort.4 As a result, the 1961 publication of the first historical study of the local Jewish community, Rabbi Arthur Chiel’s The Jews of Manitoba: A social history, did not mention the CJA in its list of sources. Rather, Chiel reported that he based his research on documents he found in the Archives of Manitoba, on personal interviews he conducted and on the organizational files of local synagogues.5 Additionally, Chiel, who founded and headed the first department for Judaic Studies at a Canadian University within the University of Manitoba, did not utilize his position to advance any archival-related initiatives. Even the more coordinated collection efforts that were displayed by some other Canadian Jewish communities just prior to the 1959 celebrations of the Canadian Jewish bi-centenary did not make an impact in Winnipeg where, according to the director of the CJC western office, “while everybody agrees that this is important, they are not interested enough to devote time and energy to the collection of these materials”.6 Only in 1967, when Abe Arnold assumed the position of director of the CJC’s Western division and brought with him his commitment to Canadian Jewish historiography, as well as much-needed organizational skills and decision-making capabilities, things began to change.

4 See for example Saul Hayes to H. Frank, November 6th, 1952 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1); Louis Rosenberg to Lewis Thomas, March 17th, 1950 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1). 5 Chiel, a local rabbi, published also an earlier book, Jewish Experiences in Early Manitoba, (Winnipeg: Manitoba Jewish Publications, 1955), as part of the ‘ethnic histories’ series that was initiated by the Manitoba Historical Society. See also: Richard Menkis, “Negotiating Ethnicity, Regionalism and Historiography: Arthur A Chiel and the Jews of Manitoba: A Social History”, Canadian Jewish Studies, 10, (2002), Pp. 1 – 28. 6 H. Frank to Moshe Myerson, CJC archives committee, April 8th, 1963 (ADCJA, CJC central file, CD-C, 1, 26).

210

Arnold’s arrival in Winnipeg coincided with the planned celebrations for the centennial year of Canada’s confederation. The CJC Western division, under Arnold’s leadership, decided to mark the event by creating a public exhibition dedicated to Jewish life in Western Canada. In order to administer a campaign through which to collect the materials that were necessary for the exhibition, a formal local archives and research committee was established for the first time, and a local businessman, Nathan Arkin, was appointed as its chairperson.7 The campaign took place during the summer of 1967 and turned out to be a great success, attributed by Arnold also to the Israeli victory of the Six-Days War which boosted community members’ sense of confidence and pride in their heritage.8 The exhibition, “Ninety years of Jewish life in Western Canada”, was presented at Winnipeg’s Y.M.H.A during September 1967 and besides being well attended by community members and non-Jewish visitors alike, left all those who were involved with its production highly enthusiastic and motivated.9 Arnold understood that he had to create a sustainable institutional venue in order to channel this newly-found energy and was quick to arrange more meetings of the archives committee. It did not take committee members long to agree that the best mechanism for coordinating and administrating their initiatives would be the establishment of a local historical society. This decision, to transform the internal western CJC archives and research committee into a new, independent organization that would be open to the general public, marked the first difference in Winnipeg’s archival landscape in comparison to Montreal and Toronto.

The JHSWC held its inaugural meeting in May 1968. In the opening speech Arkin declared that although some might assume the JHSWC was a result of the enthusiasm generated by the Canadian confederation centennial celebrations, in fact, the centennial was just a trigger for a long-standing desire within the community to realize the need to preserve

7 Arkin (1906-1988) was also a member of the Manitoba historical society and served on the board of Winnipeg’s Museum of Man and Nature. 8 Abe Arnold, “The Birth and Development”, P. 2. 9 Ibid, Ibid.

211 and disseminate the history of “this community of Western Jews”.10 Arkin claimed that the moment in which a group actualizes its desire to preserve, collect and promote its history is “an historical moment” in itself, a sign of maturity and confidence and evidence to the capabilities of “our people in this land of Western Canada”.11 Arkin further argued that to preserve the energy that brought the JHSWC to life, the organization should remain committed to a grassroots ethos. The JHSWC’s continued growth and ability to fulfill its goals depended on the public – the people who would donate their materials, participate in the activities, and be willing to pay the membership fees.12 In North America, Arkin declared, historical societies were the most useful method to preserve Jewish history (most probably, Arkin referred to the ability to incorporate as a non-profit that could offer receipts for tax purposes) and so, one of the long-term goals of the new historical society was to help achieve a “complete history of Jews in North America”.13 The society’s more immediate objectives, as announced that evening, were the “collection, preservation, exhibition, publication and popularization of materials on the settlement, history, and life of Jews in Western Canada”.14

Arkin’s speech offered a glimpse into the elements that would continue to characterize the work of the JHSWC in later years: its grassroots vision and the sense of uniqueness of the western experience compared to other North American Jewish communities. The decision to work within the framework of a historical society rather than establish an independent archival repository pointed to the broader scope of activities and venues through which the organized community wished to disseminate and promote historical projects. Another source for understanding the JHSWC’s organizational ethos is found in

10 “JHSWC inaugural meeting, agenda and notes”, May 8th, 1968 (JHCWC, JHC365). The document included hand written comments and it can be assumed that although presented by Arkin, the speech was written, or at least heavily edited, by Arnold. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

212 a 1967 document that served as the basis for the organization’s constitution.15 The document suggested six governing principles for the new organization. Besides supporting the “collection, preservation and publication of materials on the settlement and history of Jews in Western Canada", it called for the arrangement of public meetings to discuss local history, for “the interpretation” of the contributions of Jews to “the development and progress of Canada”, and “the stimulation of academic research and the general promotion of knowledge over the roles of Jews in Canada”. The final constitution expanded on this last article and added to it a commitment “to promote the interchange of ideas and cultural activities…between the society and other similar institutions within or outside of Canada”.16

The JHSWC’s constitution, adopted shortly afterward, declared that the organization was meant to operate under the auspices of the Canadian Jewish Congress and be closely associated with its history and archives committee, even if providing no further details regarding the exact nature of this association. JHSWC Membership was “open, by invitation, to any person, Jewish or non-Jewish” who showed an interest in the organization’s objectives and was willing to pay the annual $5 fee.17 The society was to be governed by elected acting officers, a board of directors and a paid executive director who would be in charge of daily operations and the advancement of its goals. Nowhere was there a mention of a need, or desire, to create an independent archival institution as a way to support and promote the JHSWC’s goals.

15 “Proposed governing principles for the Jewish pioneer and Historical Society of Western Canada” (JHCWC, JHC365). 16 “Constitution and By Laws of the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada” (ADCJA, JHSWC box). 17 Ibid.

213

7.2.2 The JHSWC and the Archives of Manitoba

The conclusion of the exhibition raised the question of what to do with the materials that had been so painstakingly gathered during the previous months. As no proper storage space was available within the Western CJC office, committee members considered three potential options: to establish an independent community archival repository, to send the materials to Montreal’s CJA, or to deposit them at the Archives of Manitoba. In a September 1968 meeting of the archives committee, Arnold reported on his correspondence with Louis Rosenberg who commended the Winnipeg Jewish community on the successful exhibition and suggested that the gathered materials be sent to Montreal in order to ensure their proper and ongoing preservation (even though, at the time, the CJA could not offer any adequate archival facilities or personnel). Arnold refused Rosenberg’s request and upon sharing the details with the other committee members, declared that he would be happy to send the CJA copies of any documents it desired, but that originals had to remain in Winnipeg, as they were fundamental for the stimulation of future research into local Jewish history.18 Likewise, the committee was quick to reject the idea of establishing an independent community archive. The lack of appropriate space, professional expertise, and available funds were all mentioned as reasons to this rejection, and although amenable to the idea in general, board members agreed that such an endeavour would have to wait until sometime in the future.19 As a result, Arnold, backed by the support of the other committee members, decided in favor of the third option - the deposit of the collected materials at the Provincial Archives of Manitoba.20

18 Minutes of the meeting of the History and Archives Committee, September 8th, 1968 (JHCWC, JHC365). 19 Ibid. 20 The Manitoba provincial archives were established in 1884 but were not very active before the 1952 appointment of a first provincial archivist and Manitoba’s 1955 Public Records Act. See Marcel Caya, Marion Beyea and Stan Hanson, eds. Canadian Archives in 1992, (Ottawa: Canadian Council of Archives, 1992), Pp. 28-29; Michael Swift, “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970s: Current Developments and Trends”, Archivaria, 15, (1982-1983), Pp. 47-57.

214

Of course, such a decision required the consent of the other party, and indeed, the Archives of Manitoba (AM) had expressed such an interest almost a year earlier. In June 1967, Hartwell Bowsfield, the Manitoba provincial archivist, invited the CJC western division to deposit its archival records at his institution, mentioning that this was a custom that has been carried out “for many years by a number of other private organizations”.21 This interest in the historical records of a local ethnic community was related to Manitoba’s demographical makeup which contained a relatively high percentage of members of other ethnic groups, as well as a result of a recent program initiated by the Manitoba Historical Society to publish a series of monographs reviewing the histories of Manitoba’s ethnic communities (Chiel’s book, mentioned earlier, was one of the outcomes of this initiative). Given the open invitation and the general cooperative and amiable environment, it did not take long for the CJC’s archives committee to reach an agreement with the AM and Arnold and Arkin, who assigned themselves as representatives of the entire community, notified Bowsfeild that they agreed to “place all Jewish archival records with the provincial archive for safekeeping”.22 Thus, although Bowsfield’s initial invitation letter mentioned only the deposit of CJC records, the actual agreement was expanded to include the much broader domain of ‘Jewish archival records’ – a concept that was more attuned to Arnold’s vision of the archival needs of the community.

The agreement designated a special section within the AM dedicated to the Jewish collection. As the estimate was that more and more materials would be added in the months and years to come, the parties agreed to consider the collection as an ongoing, cooperative project. Arkin and Arnold encouraged the provincial archive to allow open access to the materials and only requested that no commercial use would be permitted without their prior consent.23 The two parties agreed that ownership of the materials

21 Hartwell Bowsfield to Abe Arnold, June 2nd, 1967 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10). 22 Abe Arnold and Nathan Arkin to Hartwell Bowsfield, July 10th, 1967 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10). 23 Ibid. A later addition to the agreement, dated June 3rd, 1970 (AM, AA fonds, P5099) requested that any usage of the materials would be reported to the JHSWC and that Arnold had a priority for using them.

215 would remain in the hands of the Jewish community and that if and when a decision would be made to withdraw the collection and transfer it to a community-owned space – no monetary compensation would be involved. The AM was permitted to copy and microfilm any of the materials it saw fit, at its own expense, and was to be designated as the owner of these copies. Although the AM did not offer any cataloguing or indexing services at the time – the agreement stipulated that an effort to perform such tasks would be favorably considered sometime in the future. Overall, the agreement provided the JHSWC with storage space, as well as with the prestige associated with an agreement with a formal Provincial archive, even if the latter did not commit to supplement, index, or create any finding aids to the collection. Noteworthily, the agreement was initiated and signed well before federal multicultural budgets helped awaken the interest of other governmental archives in ethnic materials, even if, unlike the positions taken later by the MHSO and by PAC, the AM refrained from taking an active agent in the collection of ethnic materials.

In subsequent years both parties remained content with the agreement. Although community members who donated their materials to the JHSWC were assured that eventually a permanent community archival centre would be created, a 1971 position paper by Arnold asserted that the time had come to fully integrate the Jewish collection into the provincial archives in order to assure the proper sorting and cataloguing of the materials and encourage future research projects.24 While this plan did not materialize, JHSWC’s successful experience with the Archives of Manitoba helped the organization to reach a working agreement with PAC. In 1975 the JHSWC sent to Ottawa, for microfilming and indexing, its collections that were designated as being of national importance: the records of the western division of the CJC, the records of the regional JIAS office and several smaller collections related to the western Jewish agricultural settlements. The project, fully funded by PAC, helped the JHSWC accomplish its goal of making its core collections accessible and approachable to researchers from all across Canada.

24 “Continuation of working paper on archives and research” (AM, AA fonds, P5099).

216

7.2.3 The JHSWC: Early Priorities and Working Practices

The JHSWC’s early years of operation were marked by great enthusiasm and by an abundance of initiatives and activities. General meetings, held on an almost monthly basis, were attended by a relatively large number of participants and were even compared to the pre-television days when most community events attracted a substantial number of people.25 Although the organization was independent of the CJC’s local office, the JHSWC’s constitution stated that it would fulfill the role of the CJC’s western division archives and history committee. Despite the fact that the exact nature of the relationship between the two organizations remained undefined, during the first six years of its activities the JHSWC’s budget was derived mostly from CJC’s western office allocations and supplemented by several project-specific government grants. In 1974, the JHSWC became a constituent of the newly-formed Winnipeg Community Council – a result of the amalgamation of Winnipeg’s Jewish welfare fund with the CJC western division office – but besides the fact that it now received its core funding from a different source, this change did not seem to make a significant impact on the organization.

The JHSWC’s operating procedures followed the CJC’s working models: the creation of permeant and ad-hoc sub-committees dedicated to the handling of topics and initiatives as decided by the organization’s board. Besides producing two documentary movies and developing a program of oral history interviews, the JHSWC also initiated and carried out an annual program of lectures on local history, most of which were later collected and published by the organization.26 The JHSWC also continued its collection campaigns, and with time, added more materials to the ones that it held at the AM. The core of this

25 Minutes of the general meeting of the Jewish historical society of Western Canada, December 19th, 1972 (JHCWC, Nathan Arkin Collection, JHC366). 26 The movie “An hour of a lifetime” included interviews with Jewish western pioneers; “It must be told” documented the experiences of holocaust survivors who arrived in Winnipeg after WW2. Other JHSWC initiatives, only some of which were materialized, were to publish a source book on western Canada Jewish history and a pictorial history of the region. See “Publications of the Jewish historical society”, n.d. (JHCWC, JHC343).

217 collection included the CJC’s and JIAS western division records, the records of most of Winnipeg’s synagogues and Jewish schools as well as materials gathered from other Jewish communities in the western region.

One of the other results of the decision to work under the framework of a historical society was that the organization tended to prioritize the collection of photographs, artefacts, and other exhibitable materials over textual organizational records. This issue became a matter of internal JHSWC debate, as Arnold, although not able to persuade his fellow officers, believed that archival work, rather than museum displays, should be the organization’s main priority.27 Substantial time and energy were therefore dedicated to the creation of historical exhibitions on Jewish life in western Canada. The most ambitious of these endeavours was a 1972 exhibition titled “A Journey into our Heritage” that aimed to display the change of fortunes for those Jews who replaced ‘old world’ persecutions with settlement, growth, and involvement in the Canadian west. The exhibition was displayed at the recently opened Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature and later on, through the support of federal multicultural grants, was transformed into a ‘mobile exhibition’ that toured other cities in western Canada before it made its way to Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and even Tel Aviv.28

For the most part, the suspicion and mistrust that were evident in the encounters with non-Jewish agencies in Montreal and Toronto did not exist in Winnipeg. Apart from the ongoing cooperation with the Archives of Manitoba and Winnipeg’s Museum of Man and Nature, efforts to establish working relationships with other local institutions remained a clear priority on the JHSWC’s agenda and dominated its self-image as a pace-maker for other Jewish communities across Canada.29 The results of these efforts were a formal affiliation of the JHSWC with the Manitoba Historical Society and a cooperative

27 See Abe Arnold to I, Wolch, N. Arkin and H. Gutkin, March 13th, 1973 (AM, AA fonds, P5111). 28 See the draft exhibition proposal sent to the multiculturalism grants office and the internal JHSWC report on the exhibition (both documents in JHCWC, JHC502). Later exhibitions curated by the JHSWC were “Image before my eyes” (1978); “Revisiting Selkirk avenue” (1982) and “Cross-cultural exhibit” (1983). 29 “Continuation of working paper on archives and research”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099).

218 agreement with the University of Manitoba history department whose students were awarded internships opportunities and bursaries for papers written on local Jewish history.30

In 1969 Arnold went on a tour of the Canadian west in an effort to encourage the establishment of Jewish historical societies in other western cities and to build cooperative relationships with other provincial archives. Arnold envisioned Winnipeg as a regional centre for a network of archival collection and public memory activities spread across western Canada and united by a commitment to represent the unique character and historical experiences of Jews in that region.31 Arnold managed to support the formation of local historical societies in Calgary, Regina, and Vancouver, even if only some of these remained active in subsequent years. Nevertheless, all cities adopted the historical society working model as the mechanism through which to promote local public memory initiatives. The most active of these historical societies was the one in Vancouver. Established in 1971 it shared many of the JHSWC’s interests in rural Jewish settlements and Jewish pioneer experiences. However, unlike the JHSWC, the Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia directed most of its early energy to conducting oral histories. Asked for the reasons for this policy, historian Cyril Leonoff, who headed the organization during those years, claimed that many of members of that generation “had neither the means nor the language skills to represent themselves in written records”, and so, oral histories seemed to be the best method through which to preserve their experiences and memory for future generations.32

The JHSWC continued to operate its own programs and activities for about thirty years before it amalgamated, in 1998, with two newer local memory organizations - the Jewish Museum of Western Canada and the Winnipeg Holocaust Education Centre. Together,

30 Wilson F. Green to Abe Arnold, November 21st, 1968 (ADCJA, JHSWC box); “Report on the activities of the archives and research committee, June to August 1970”, September 22nd, 1970 (JHCWC, JHC365). 31 “Report to Contributors”, November 27th, 1967 (JHCWC, JHC365). 32 “Conversation with Cyril E. Leonoff and Irene Dodek”, Pp. 135-137.

219 the three organizations formed the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, an organization that is still active today. It was also then that the Jewish community withdrew most of its materials from the AM and transferred them into a new, designated archival space within its newly built community centre.

The next section turns to explore some of the broader intellectual frameworks that guided Arnold and other JHSWC decisions makers in their archival endeavours. The discussion is divided into three topics: the notion of Western Canadian Jewish identity, Arnold’s own interpretation of Canadian multiculturalism, and his perception of the place of historical knowledge and historiography in community life. Together, these would support an undersetting of Arnold’s archival mentality – the ways in which his broader worldviews manifested themselves in the structures of Winnipeg’s early Jewish archival landscape.

7.3.1 Arnold on “the Mystique of Western Judaism”33

The prime motivation behind Arnold’s, and most other JHSWC members, archival and public history initiatives was the desire to promote knowledge about what they perceived as a distinct western Canadian-Jewish spirit and identity framework. Unlike the communities in Eastern Canada, whose members concentrated in urban centres and made a living mostly through trade and commerce, the region’s historical and geographical character dictated a different Jewish experience: one that was also shaped by farming and agricultural work, and by sharing and enduring, as equal partners, pioneering local hardships and harsh weather conditions with other immigrant and indigenous groups.

33 As the title to Arnold’s review of Western Canada Jewish history published in The Canadian Jewish Mosaic, eds. Morton Weinfeld, Irwin Cotler and William Shaffir, (Rexdale, ON: J. Wiley & Sons. 1981). Pp. 259-272.

220

Arnold, who later in his life published a book dedicated to the thesis that Jewish history was marked by the transition from a religious into a cultural, secular identity framework, believed that history and geography defined the essence of modern Jewish identities. He was thus confident that “the Canadian Jewish community cannot be described exclusively as a faith community”, an insight that helped him to point to Western Canadian Jews as a unique group and as marked by ethnic, cultural distinctiveness.34 This perspective dominated most of Arnold’s other historiographical explorations of Canadian Jewry and his general approach towards Canadian Jewish history. For example, his review of Speisman’s The Jews of Toronto, criticized the book’s focus on the religious elements of Toronto’s Jewish life and Speisman’s ignorance of the secular and cultural venues of Jewish self-expression, such as Jewish theatre or newspapers. As a result, Arnold argued, Speisman’s work failed to capture and adequately represent the full essence of Toronto’s Jewish history.35 Naturally, these beliefs also dictated the JHSWC’s direction and collection priorities. Letters sent to community members during one of the collection campaigns stated that “we would like to portray the contribution the Jewish community as manifested in all the humanity fields”36 and, even more bluntly, asked people to stop bringing liturgical and religious items and to focus instead on records and items that represented their daily lives.37

Another example to Arnold’s insistence on ethnic, secular identity as the cornerstone to the western Jewish identity was evident in the discussions between JHSWC members and the staff of the Museum of Man and Nature during the preparations for the “Journey into our Heritage” exhibition. Although the two organizations developed a cordial relationship that began even before the museum was officially opened,38 disagreements surfaced

34 See Arnold’s: “How can we revitalize Jewish community life?”, 1967 (AM, AA fonds, P5105); “What is Judaism?”, 1995 (AM, AA fonds, P5754); A Commentary on being interviewed to the B&B report (AM, AA fonds, P5116). 35 Abe Arnold, “Book Comment: The Jews of Toronto”, October 5th, 1979 (ADCJA, MC25, 1). 36 Nathan Arkin to H.L. Gelfant, June 20th, 1967 (JHCWC, JHC365). 37 See JHSWC Newsletter, February 7th, 1971 (JHCWC, JHC366). 38 Steve Prystupa, Museum curator to Abe Arnold, February 1st, 1968 (JHCWC, JHC502) and again on December 4th, 1970 (JHCWC, JHC366).

221 when they had to confront the question of which artefacts could best portray Jewish life to museum visitors. Chiefly targeting the non-Jewish visitors to the exhibition, museum staff were interested in displaying the unique elements of Jewish identity and culture and envisioned the exhibition’s focus as directed to Jewish religious traditions and rites of passage. They planned to dedicate a major section of the exhibition to traditional Bar Mitzvah and Jewish marriage ceremonies, as well as to a display of quotes from the Passover Haggadah on the background of a picture of an old Jewish orthodox man. Arnold and Gutkin strongly objected to these ideas and insisted that Jewish religious sentiments must not dominate the lasting impression that the exhibition aimed to create. Instead, they argued, the exhibition should emphasise other manifestations of Jewish identity and creative energy in Manitoba and help communicate the message that “religion was only part of the story” for Jews.39

The debate between the JHSWC and museum staff also touched on the sensitive question of homeland. While museum representatives wanted to use the theme “next year in Jerusalem” as one of the exhibition’s slogans, Arnold was horrified by the idea and pointed out that “while maintaining historical relationship with Israel…it is the role of Jews in western Canada which is to have special emphasis”.40 Arnold and Gutkin also refused to accept a suggestion made by museum staff to name the exhibition “New World Odyssey”, claiming that this was a misrepresentation that offered an “impression of semi- permanence”.41 Instead, they insisted that Jews should be depicted as “a permanent group on the Canadian scene”42 and that the variety of occupations taken by Jews, including, of course, farmers and homesteaders, had to be centrally displayed. They further insisted that the exhibition had to clearly communicate to its audience that the main reason for Jewish immigration to Canada was a quest for political freedom, rather

39 Abe Arnold and Harry Gutkin, “Report on problems encountered in the development of Journey into our heritage”, November 10th, 1972 (JHCWC, JHC366). See also their letter to H.D. Hemphill, the Museum director, from July 11th, 1972 (JHCWC, JHC366). 40 Ibid. 41 Abe Arnold, Harry Gutkin and Nathan Arkin to Museum staff, September 29th, 1972 (JHCWC, JHC427). 42 Ibid.

222 than search for economic opportunities.43 Finding such freedom in Canada allowed Jews to full-heartedly adopt the country as their home, attain a sense of belonging and feel that they were a “spiritual and physical part of this land”. After being “for many centuries…known as wandering people”, the arrival to Canada and to a democratic society that allowed them to fully utilize and apply their capabilities towards the common good, “this [sense of not belonging] no longer applies”.44

The historical image that Arnold and the JHSWC wanted to promote was, therefore, a simple one. Canadian Jews – most potently represented through the experiences of Western Canadian Jewry – were loyal, fully-integrated, citizens of their country, while at the same time continued to maintain a separate cultural identity, shaped during many years of persecutions in other lands, and which enhanced their commitment to social justice and equality. Grateful for the opportunity to take part in the Canadian project and help shape its democratic nature, Canadian-Jewish life was conducted in full partnership with fellow Canadians and were not a question of ‘dual loyalty’ but rather, of natural and healthy ability to sustain several identity frameworks at the same time.45 Arnold’s strong sense of belonging and purpose in the encounter between Jewish traditions and the Canadian experience was also reflected in the name he envisioned for the book he planned to publish on Canadian Jewish history – “Canada and the Jews: from new France to new Jerusalem”.46

43 Abe Arnold and Harry Gutkin, “Report on problems encountered in the development of Journey into our heritage”, November 10th, 1972 (JHCWC, JHC366). 44 “Notes for official opening ceremony” (AM, AA fonds, P5111); See also Arnold’s speech at the Manitoba centennial eventing, June 1970 (AM, AA fonds, P5117) and the manuscript “The negation of the diaspora is a horrendous concept” (AM, AA fonds, P5117). 45 Arnold, “The Birth and Development”, P. 2. 46 Abe Arnold, “Outline Update: Canada and the Jews: From New France to New Jerusalem” (ADCJA, MC25, 1). See also Abraham Arnold, “The New Jerusalem: Jewish Pioneers on the Prairies”, The Beaver, July 1994, Pp. 37-42.

223

7.3.2 Arnold on Canadian Multiculturalism

Arnold thus believed that “every man, and every Jew, is capable of sustaining many loyalties: to his country, his people, his religion and his family…and sooner or later they balance”.47 It is therefore easy to envision the reasons for his enthusiastic support for the initiatives to make multiculturalism into official state policy and for his active role in the public debates over the forms such policies should take. Arnold saw multiculturism as a natural stage in the development of Canadian history and culture, both of which were based on the effort to accommodate two separate cultures of origin into one functional nation. The ongoing endeavour to reach practical solutions to synergise and integrate two distinct cultures was what made Canadian society into a unique socio-historical experiment and what separated it from its neighbour to the south.48 Unlike “the United States…[which] is the melting pot par excellence, the country in which all national distinctions are blended in on common, uniform stock”, in Canada “we didn’t accept that...[we] struck by the idea of a dual culture…and made the compromises and accommodations necessary to support that”.49 Multiculturalism as a state ethos was therefore, for Arnold, a natural, necessary step in the journey of the Canadian society towards its higher purpose.

As Multiculturalism was, according to Arnold, a core element of Canadian history, the early nineteen seventies were a crucial stage – one in which the country realized its true purpose, and the time in which the course of its future would be determined. Arnold therefore perceived the contemporary crisis between the Anglo and French Canadians as an opportunity to restructure group relationships according to more justifiable principles and thus, re-align Canadian identity in a way that would fit the country’s demographical

47 Abe Arnold, “The Birth and Development”, P. 1. 48 Abe Arnold, “The game of Bi-cultural Semantics”, Notes for a CBC radio talk. October 1967 (AM, AA fonds, P5116); “A Memoir and Commentary on Multiculturalism”, October 1991 (AM, AA fonds, P5116). For a broader review of Canadian-Jewish responses to multiculturalism see Richard Menkis, “Jewish Communal Identity at the Crossroads”. 49 Abe Arnold, “Donald Creighton on Canadian History”. Viewpoints, 3, 3, (1968), P. 3.

224 realities and higher purpose. Nevertheless, policy-wise, Arnold warned from pushing the ethnic pendulum too far and publicly opposed the idea that was promoted by several contemporary ethnic leaders, of forming non-English and non-French groups in Canada as an alternative ethnic polity, or a cultural third force.50 Arnold argued that although a substantial number of Canadian citizens were indeed no longer of British or French origin, this still did not mean that they formed a legitimate political group that could advocate for cultural rights. His resentment to this idea was based on historical grounds: previous immigrant generations did not come to Canada in order to rebuild their home countries in North America. Rather, they chose to immigrate so that they could enjoy Canadian democracy and political freedom, knowing all along that the country was built upon the foundations of an English-speaking majority and a substantial French-speaking minority.51 As a result, Arnold argued, the Canadian state owed its citizens the right for political freedom – but must not encourage linguistic, social or political identification with former cultures or places of origin, as these would only serve as a backward step into a fragmented and incohesive Canadian society. It was perfectly logical, he declared, for ethnic groups to maintain voluntary associations to support fellow members, but the state, through its new multicultural policies, only needed to offer support for forward- looking synergies that could fertilize the still-in-the-making Canadian culture.52 State funding, for instance, could be offered to dance groups that combined traditional elements for the creation of new and exciting forms of artistic expression – but not to those who merely repeated old-world forms.53 Likewise, Arnold advocated governmental support for the creation of academic centres for the study of various ethnic groups and cultures, but these, he asserted, had to emphasize the Canadian experience of these

50 Abe Arnold, “Implications of the third force movement in Canada”, 1966 (AM, AA fonds, P5116); See also Jean Burnet “Taking into Account: The Other Ethnic Groups and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism”, in Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, ed. James S. Frideres, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), Pp. 9-17. 51 Abe Arnold, “Multiculturalism: Policy and Practices”, October 1973 (AM, AA fonds, P5116). 52 Abe Arnold, “Wither multiculturalism?”, 1973 (AM, AA fonds, P5111). 53 Abe Arnold, “A Commentary on the recommendations of the B&B Report Vol. IV dealing with other Ethnic Groups”, September 1970 (ADCJA, MC25, 1).

225 ethnic groups and their ongoing processes of adaption and integration, rather than focus on their pre-Canadian past.54

An integral part within Arnold’s vision of Canadian multiculturalism was reserved for Canadian Jewish history. He believed that “the story of Jews in Canada [is also] the history of Canadian treatment of the first minority religious and ethnic group of non-English and non-French origin to seek equal rights”.55 Thus, attitudes towards, and treatment of, Jews across Canada reflected the growing maturity of Canadian society and illuminated the historical course of the Canadian multicultural endeavour. Even if Jews were not the only non-English, non-French immigrant group to settle in Canada, they were probably the only group to arrive in Canada with a clear and acknowledged goal of integration without assimilation, a goal that only now became a priority for most other Canadian ethnic groups.56 Furthermore, both the Anglo and French groups carried deeply rooted religious and cultural belief systems – mostly negative – towards Jews and Judaism. According to Arnold, uncovering the various ways through which Jews and non-Jews in Canada handled these older traditions meant that Canadian Jewish history played an integral role within the multicultural theme of Canadian history. As Canadian Jewish history was able to offer a real-life example and a model for both the need and the promise of multicultural policies, it had to be made known to an audience that was far wider than the ranks of community members.57 If multiculturalism was destined to become the “new testament” of Canadian society and signalled “the dawn of a new era which will fulfill the promise of this land where many tribes have gathered”, Canadian Jewish history offered a clear example, according to Arnold, to the potential that was inherent in such a testament.58 Noticeably, Arnold’s rhetoric, despite his declared secularism, continued to be influenced by traditional Jewish vocabulary and metaphors.

54 Ibid. 55 Abe Arnold, 1969 Draft for “The writing of Canadian Jewish history” (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 56 Abe Arnold, “How far do we go with Multiculturalism?”, August 1970 (AM, AA fonds, P5116). 57 Abe Arnold, “The Canadian History of the Jews: Concept”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 58 Abe Arnold, “Multiculturalism: Policy and Practices”, October 1973 (AM, AA fonds, P5116).

226

7.3.3 Arnold on Canadian Jewish Historiography

Arnold, a secular Jew who dedicated most of his professional career to the service of the Jewish community, was well aware that Canadian, and North American, Jewish identity was based on voluntary affiliation.59 He therefore believed that the main priority of the organized community mechanisms was to encourage active participation in community life as a way to promote and sustain a sense of affiliation, especially for those who “could not find a place in the more standard type of Jewish community activity”.60 It meant that the organized community bodies had to always take into consideration the fact that there were different approaches to Jewish life and as a result, remain flexible in their approach, provide more entry points into organized Jewish life and understand that they had to compete over people’s hearts, minds and time.61 Promotion of historical consciousness, and primarily if focusing on the local, concrete experiences of community members, played, according to Arnold, an essential part in the ability to support such feelings of affiliation.

At least from a purely rhetorical perspective, most other community leaders shared Arnold’s sense of the importance of promoting local Canadian Jewish historical consciousness. For instance, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the CJC’s president called to fight “the erosion of Jewish feeling and funding” through the “presentation of Jewish history which becomes much more important in a rootless society”62. Also Alan Rose, who replaced Saul Hayes as the CJC’s national director, declared that Canadian Jewry had to be careful not to “do violence to its past” by neglecting to develop knowledge about its origins and growth.63 The most direct comment on this issue was made by American Jewish historian

59 Abe Arnold, “How can we revitalize Jewish community life?”, 1967 (AM, AA fonds, P5105). 60 Ibid. 61 Abe Arnold to Sol Kanee, November 21st, 1972 (ADCJA, MC25, 1). 62 Taken from an untitled manuscript which seems as a draft for a report on the address (AM, AA fonds, P5103). 63 “Alan Rose’s Speech for the Plenary Assembly, May 1980” (AM, AA fonds, P5103).

227

Jakob Radar Marcus, who, on a 1974 visit to Winnipeg, told JHSWC members that the goal of all those interested in Jewish history was “to train Jews to identify - and if we don’t, there aren’t going to be any Jews to identify by the next generation”.64 These views were wholeheartedly adopted by Arnold who declared that the proper interpretation of Canadian Jewish history was “an emergency…crucial to Jewish cultural survival”65 and by Gutkin who added that the JHSWC work was a matter of “self-preservation” and “the very weapon to help slow the process of assimilation and continued diminishing interest of our children and grandchildren”.66

Historical knowledge was, therefore, according to Arnold, one of the essential venues through which the organized community bodies could promote members identification with the group, and especially so when dealing with secular Jews who wanted to incorporate an attachment to their land through a shared, local past rather than a religious-mythical one. Already in 1955, while he still resided in Vancouver, Arnold approached Saul Hayes and requested his support to establish a local archival repository.67 This desire to advance historical-related projects continued to be part of Arnold’s agenda throughout his life and was further fueled by his aspiration to write the still-unauthored authoritative textbook of Canadian Jewish history. Arnold envisioned a book that would interpret the topic according to the historiographical principles that he developed and that would fit “senior high school and university students…while also have sufficient popular appeal for the general reader”.68 As a CJC officer, he appealed several times to the organization’s decision-makers in requests for research-leaves and monetary support for publishing such a book, but none of these approaches resulted in any concrete action.69 Furthermore, although Arnold won a couple of governmental multicultural

64 Jacob Marcus Luncheon, November 1st, 1974 (AM, AA fonds, P5111). 65 Abe Arnold, 1969 draft for the Writing of Canadian Jewish history (AM, AA fonds, P5100); Draft report for the plenary assembly by Dr. Wolch, June 1974 (JHCWC Archives, JHC502). 66 Harry Gutkin to Victor Sefton, November 2nd, 1976 (AM, AA fonds, P5110). 67 Abe Arnold to Saul Hayes, August 15th, 1955 (ADCJA, DA11 A, 1). 68 Arnold, “The Canadian History of the Jews: Concept”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 69 For example: Abe Arnold to Saul Hayes, April 25th, 1963 (ADCJA, MC25, 1); Abe Arnold to Saul Hayes, March 11th, 1968 (ADCJA, MC25, 1); Abe Arnold to Saul Hayes, April 1970 (AM, AA fonds, P5099); Abe Arnold

228 research grants that helped him collect archival materials from across the country, his lack of academic credentials meant that his request to author the Jewish volume of the ethnic groups series was declined. Thus, although he produced a corpus of writings on Canadian Jewish history, Arnold’s life-long ambition to author the textbook edition on the history of Canadian Jews remained unfulfilled.

Overall, Arnold’s proposed to distinguish between two approaches towards the writing of Canadian Jewish history, and towards ethnic history in general. He named the first approach as the contribution approach and the second - the integrated approach. Unfortunately, as Arnold argued, to date, most ethnic histories still tended to follow the contribution approach, a tendency that resulted, for the most part, in less rigorous scholarship.70 Within the field of Canadian Jewish history, Arnold pointed to the work of Benjamin Sack as an example for the contribution approach and to Abraham Rhinewine’s work for the integrated one.71 Sack’s historiographical perspective, Arnold claimed, was simply too apologetic. Sack’s focus on Jewish achievements and his goal of informing readers what Jews have contributed to Canada had, even if subconsciously, portrayed them as an external entity to Canadian society.72 Such an approach, Arnold wrote, led to a non-critical portrayal of Canadian-Jewish history, as it only brought to light internal developments within the community, and prevented Sack from referring to the external elements that had a lasting and profound effect on the community’s growth and character. Rhinewine’s approach, on the other hand, tried to integrate Jewish history into

to Monroe Abbey, October 21st, 1970 (AM, AA fonds, P5103); Abe Arnold to Milton Harris, June 17th, 1975 (JHCWC, JHC420). 70 Abe Arnold, “The Sources of Canadian Jewish History”, (AM, AA fonds, P5100), Pp. 28-30. This was a longer draft for the published paper. See: Abraham Arnold, “The sources of Canadian Jewish History”, Viewpoints, 5, 3, (1970), Pp. 16-23. 71 Benjamin Sack, a journalist, published the English edition of History of Canadian Jews in 1945. The book dealt with the history of Canadian Jewry until 1890 and its story ended before the immigration wave which transformed the demographic and sociological structures of the community. Rhinewine, also a journalist, published two Yiddish books during the 1920’s – one on the history of Canada and the other on Jewish history in the land. An English version combining the two books was published in 1932. Arnold noted that both authors were the first to dedicate attention to archival resources and to offer a thesis on Canadian Jewish history. Arnold also noted that Sack’s work received support from the CJC while Rhinewine’s did not. 72 Abe Arnold, 1969 Draft, The Writing of Jewish History (AM, AA fonds, P5100).

229 the broader Canadian political, economic, and social structures. Arnold claimed that this kind of research was much less absorbed in its own narrow perspective and thus, resulted in a much more beneficial historiographical product. Rhinewine understood that “the history of Jews in British North America is closely tied to Canadians’ general history and is like a link in that chain, joined together and included in Canada’s general development”73 and that “writing about the history of Canadian Jews [should be] about the period, about portraying the era”.74 Arnold declared himself as a follower of Rhinewine’s approach and claimed that even if Sack’s book was a natural product of the earlier days of Canadian Jewish settlement – it was high time for “the writing of the history of Jews in this country to be done on the assumption that Jews have an established place in Canadian history”.75 Overall, Arnold claimed, “the participation of Jews in the development of Canada must be reviewed not only through internal, secluded descriptions of their life” but also, “in consideration of the appearance of Jews in the eyes of their non-Jewish neighbours”.76

The two keys, according to Arnold, for producing a meticulous, high calibre ethnic historiography, were therefore to adopt the integrative approach and secondly, to be able to employ as many primary archival sources as possible. This meant that historians did not have to be professional, academic scholars as long as they possessed the sensitivity and commitment towards their topic, wrote in an engaging manner, maintained objectivity and truthfulness and were familiar with all the relevant sources.77 This last point was a crucial one. Arnold declared that his work as a journalist taught him that “historical events recounted on the basis of secondary sources alone could turn out to require serious reinterpretation in the light of primary source information”.78 Knowing how stereotypical thinking and lack of attention to details distorted the relations between

73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Abe Arnold, Draft of The sources of Canadian Jewish History”, P. 21 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 76 Abe Arnold, “Draft of A Canadian History of the Jews”, P. 32 (ADCJA, MC25, box 1). 77 Abe Arnold, “Who may write History”, n.d. (AM, AA fonds, P7263). 78 Abe Arnold, 1969 draft of The Writing of Canadian Jewish history, P. 5 (AM, AA fonds, P5100).

230 what happened in reality and what ended up to be the report on what happened, Arnold believed that archival materials represented information closest to its purest form. This meant that the more materials preserved, the more options one would have to recognize and establish the historical truth. For ethnic historians, who so far had to rely mostly on other kinds of resources: oral testimonies, newspaper articles, and personal memoirs, primary records that could support their work was a matter of supreme importance. Without such contemporary, raw, unmediated sources – no proper historical knowledge could be accomplished.

The backbone for writing rigorous ethno-cultural histories was, therefore, a commitment to scholarly “interpretation which is not defensive or apologetic but rather, candid and objective” and based on primary archival resources.79 The same sense of responsibility that guided the decision to research the history of their own communities, Arnold argued, obliged ethnic historians to overcome the temptations of nostalgia and apologetic presentation of the past. As an example, he offered a comparison of how Sack and Rhinewine dealt with a late 1890’s event in which several Canadian Jewish leaders requested from Wilfried Laurier, the Canadian Prime Minister, to secure a stretch of land in Manitoba for a semi-autonomous Jewish settlement. Arnold showed that Rhinewine, by engaging with the official archival records, proved the request was never taken seriously and so, did not treat it as a meaningful historical topic. Sack, on the other hand, who worked only with the Jewish sources, “took the story at face value”, repeated it in his book without searching for the primary, archival sources and so, mistakenly, “developed the story into an accusation against the leadership of the Jewish community about a historical opportunity fortified”.80 Arnold’s work is filled with similar critiques about apologetic tendencies and lack of objectivity in the work of other historians of Canadian Jewry. For example, he blamed David Rome for offering crude generalizations, based on personal bias, of entire populations and argued that some of Arthur Chiel’s

79 Abe Arnold, 1969 Draft, The Writing of Jewish History (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 80 Ibid.

231 studies on the Jews of Manitoba were “not based on proper research” but rather, “amounted to a series of fairy tales with Jewish heroes”. Arnold even criticized what he perceived as filiopietistic elements in the work of professional historians such as Tulchinsky and Abella.81

Arnold therefore believed that Canadian Jewish history could be appropriately interpreted only through a deep understanding of the Canadian political and civic infrastructures and their reciprocal relations with the community. He claimed that he wanted to “not merely discuss Jews in Canadian history; [but]…discuss Canadian history in which Jews have been involved”, and so, make his proposed book into “more than just a record for Jewish people, but a book that will be an addition to the total body of Canadian historical writing”.82 This effort to incorporate the broader socio-political context into the story of Canadian Jewry manifested itself in many of Arnold’s other publications. For instance, he claimed that essential elements in the history of western Canadian Jewish history, such as the Jewish turn to small-scale manufacturing initiatives, could only be explained if understanding the status of the Canadian west as “a colony of a colony” – destined, through federal policies, to remain an agricultural hinterland for many years.83 Also Quebecois anti-Semitism, he asserted, had to be contextualized as part of the general xenophobia that was a result of specific contemporary economic and social elements.84 This meant, of course, that anti-Semitism was not a constant, perpetual element of Jewish life but rather, a treatable social disease that was time and place sensitive. Arnold displayed the same approach also in his ongoing interest in the ‘Hart affair’ which he interpreted as a part of the contemporary parliamentary struggles over

81 See Arnold’s comments on David Rome’s article “Commentary on the political consequences of the Jewish school children” (ADCJA, MC25, 1); Abe Arnold to Sol Kanne Re Arthur Chiel Stories (AM, AA fonds, P5104); Arnold on the historical accuracy in an article by Victor Sefton published in the April 1979 CJHS journal (AM, AA fonds, P5111). On Tulchinsky see the manuscript titled “Canadian Jewish historiography critique – additional notes”, 1990, P.5 (ADCJA, MC25, 1). On Abella see “Book review by Abraham Arnold, A Coat of Many Colors”, June 1990 (AM, AA fonds, P5754). 82 Abe Arnold, “The Canadian history of the Jews: Concept”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 83 Abe Arnold, “The Contribution of the Jews to the Opening and Development of the West”, MHS Transactions, 3, 25, (1968-69), P.7. 84 Abe Arnold, “Jew or Juif? Review”, 1988 (ADCJA, MC25, 1).

232 political power, rather than as a mere issue of Anti-Jewish sentiment.85 The book he was so eager to write was therefore not meant to be “a who’s who compendium”. Rather, “people, and the community instruments they created, will enter the pages of this book only as their part in the social, political and economic development of each period”.86 As shown in the following section, these worldviews found their expression in the archival landscape that Arnold helped create for Winnipeg’s, and the western Canadian, Jewish community.

7.4.1 Arnold’s Archival Mentality: The Canadian Jewish Community and the Official State Archives

On his 1974 visit to Winnipeg, American-Jewish historian Jakob Radar Marcus shared with JHSWC members some of the insights he gained from his many years of experience administrating the American-Jewish Archives in Cincinnati. One of Marcus’s key messages was that the agreement that allowed the safekeeping of the community’s records at the Archives of Manitoba was a genuinely unique and laudable achievement. Apart from allowing the community to enjoy the service of the provincial archive without incurring any costs, the mere fact that the province displayed interest in Jewish materials and was willing to invest public funds in their preservation was, according to Marcus, an impressive indication of respect and appreciation towards the local Jewish community.87 The fact that non-Jews decided that these records were worth preserving, Marcus cynically added, would surely help to convince community members that this was indeed an important endeavour.88 Marcus’ endorsement of what was already regarded by Arnold

85 See Abe Arnold, “Canada’s Jewish Magna Carta”, in Jewish Life and Times: A Collection of Essays, Pp. 69 – 78; Abe Arnold, “What really happened: Ezekiel Hart’s oath difficulties in the Quebec assembly”, 1973 (AM, AA fonds, P5105); Abe Arnold, “Ezekiel Hart and the Oath Problem in the Assembly of Lower Canada”, Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 3, 1, (1979), Pp. 10-26; and pages 21-24 in the draft for “Writing of Canadian Jewish history” (ADCJA, MC25, 1). 86 Abe Arnold, “The Canadian history of the Jews: Concept”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). 87 Jacob Marcus Luncheon, Nov. 1, 1974 (AM, AA fonds, P5111). 88 Ibid.

233 and other JHSWC members as one of their most significant accomplishments helped their decision to send - despite objections from the CJC Montreal office – a large portion of their collection to PAC for copying, microfilming and indexing. What were the reasons that Arnold and the other JHSWC members – in stark contrast to their colleagues in the east – were so enthusiastic in their pursuit of establishing working relationships with the formal governmental archives?

The first, and most obvious, reason was the ability to apply the professional capabilities of the state archives for the service of the community’s own interests. Serving also as the director of the CJC Western branch, Arnold recognized that it was impossible to maintain a proper independent archival repository if it had to depend solely on community funds. However, money was not the only, nor even the most important, reason for this desire to cooperate with the formal archival agencies. Arnold insisted that building proper working relationships with the formal archives was also the best way through which to systematically identify any Jewish-related materials that were part of their holdings and that could help illuminate hidden elements in the course of Canadian-Jewish history. This belief grew from Arnold’s experience and his realization that serious research into Canadian Jewish history had to begin, “as with almost any Canadian history project, [with] the basic, central source…the Public Archives of Canada and the various provincial archives”.89

The dependence on PAC’s records was therefore a result of Arnold’s historiographical approach as well as his interest in multiculturalism as the cornerstone of Canadian history. However, Arnold was not only looking for governmental administrative records concerning formal decisions that affected community members as Canadian citizens. Rather, he looked for records that could reveal attitudes of leading Canadian personalities

89 Abe Arnold, 1969 draft of Writing of Canadian Jewish History, P. 5; Pp. 18-19 (AM, AA fonds, P5100). In 1963 Sheldon Godfrey was commissioned by the CJC to prepare a bibliographic list as a preliminary stage to the writing of a new text on Canadian Jewish history. Arnold used this list for his own work and commanded Godfrey for the achievement – even if he acknowledged that much more work remained to be done.

234 and decision-makers towards Jews and Judaism. Such records, produced and preserved outside of community control, were never explored or indexed from a Jewish context or perspective, and their identification, Arnold believed, could significantly support the ability to provide a fuller understanding of deeper patterns that affected the course of Canadian Jewish history. The recognition of these patterns would also enable him to write the textbook that he dreamed of producing on the place of Canadian Jewish history in the promotion of the Canadian multicultural ethos. This made the creation of an index for Jewish-related materials from across Canada into one of Arnold’s top priorities and a decisive factor in his consistent efforts to promote a positive working relationship with the formal archives.

Another reason for Arnold’s effort to build a productive working relationship with the official archives was his desire to add to and strengthen Jewish presence within their holdings. Arnold came to realize this goal following a research trip he made to PAC, where he happened upon an exhibition dedicated to the settlement of the Canadian prairies that was on display at the building’s lobby. Arnold was dismayed not to find any mention of the Jewish agricultural settlements – the topic to which he dedicated most of his energy to - and enquired the reasons for this absence.90 In response, he was told that PAC did not possess a sufficient number of materials on the topic. Reporting on the incident to Saul Hayes, Arnold wrote that although this might be correct, he suspected that the answer he received did not contain the entire truth. Another reason for this absence, Arnold argued, was that many references to Jews within the contemporary governmental sources were of derogatory and hostile nature and so, unsuitable for public display.91 Arnold suspected that many more government materials existed that contained negative references towards Jews, and as a result, PAC was not eager to publicly display these materials. He concluded that obtaining access to these records should be supplemented

90 Abe Arnold to R.S. Gordon, head of manuscript department, PAC, November 23rd, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099); R.S. Gordon to Abe Arnold, December 8th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). 91 Abe Arnold, “Partial report re writing of Canadian Jewish history”, March 29th, 1972 (AM, AA fonds, P5104).

235 by a corrective effort, led by the organized community, to offer community records to the governmental archives in order to promote a more balanced and rounded representation of Canadian Jewry within PAC. Interestingly, PAC acknowledged this issue as well and even presented it as one of the reasons for establishing the National Ethnic Archives program (NEA). Walter Neutel, the NEA’s director, admitted that most government records relating to ethnic communities were “problem-oriented” and so, could not offer a truthful representation of these communities. Even R.S. Gordon, head of PAC’s manuscript division, privately wrote to Arnold and asked him for materials that would “enable us to represent the Jewish fact more forcefully”.92

Arnold’s conclusion was therefore that “it should not be automatically assumed that the national Jewish archives must house all original source materials of Jewish interest”93. Instead, following the JHSWC’s footsteps, Canadian Jewry had to pursue, as a matter of policy, proper cooperative arrangements with the formal archives. The creation of the ethnic archives programs across Canada provided positive evidence for a new willingness to accept Jews as equal members of Canadian society, and so, due to the under- developed state of Canadian Jewish historiography, the organized community had the responsibility to take full advantage of the new situation. Even if an internal community archival infrastructure had to be maintained as not all materials could make their way into the official archives, also these internal repositories could not be perceived as isolated endeavours but needed to become part of a cooperative, wholesome system that would be built in consideration and cooperation with the state. What Canadian Jewry really needed, Arnold argued, was not empty statements about an independent national Jewish archive but rather, and as proven by the favorable responses of many Jews to the governmental archival endeavour, a unified catalogue of Jewish holdings from across Canada and an information centre - rather than an archival repository – as a place of

92 R.S. Gordon to Abe Arnold, December 8th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099); See also Arnold’s article “Public Archives seeks ‘balanced’ Jewish Collection” (AM, AA fonds, P5099). 93 Abe Arnold, “Working paper on archives and research activities and the development of Jewish historical societies”, February 1971 (JHCWC, JHC366).

236 reference, advice and coordination. Such a centre had to be built on the premise that “the main resource of the Jewish archives of Canada need not be its holdings of original documents but rather its central catalogue of archival holdings to be found in recognized archival depositories” across the land.94

In 1967, when Arnold began to pursue his archival endeavours, the field of Canadian Jewish historiography was not just in its early stages of development, but also seemed to be stuck. Hardly any new historiographical works were published during the nineteen sixties and no University level course was yet offered on the topic.95 Arnold blamed this situation on the lack of a proper archival infrastructure and moaned that “whoever undertakes to write Canadian Jewish history must first become a digger for source materials”.96 Canadian Jewish history, he believed, could only be produced once there was an ability to know what sources existed and where were they located. Without such an infrastructure, the field of Canadian Jewish history could not attract serious historians and would remain marginalized and trivial. Arnold’s operative conclusion was that the organized community had to commit itself to create such an infrastructure. However, this commitment could not be fulfilled only through independent archives but also had to include “easier access to source materials in the public archives and in the various provincial archives and to extend PAC holding indexing procedures to include Jewish headings as part of their program”.97 Canadian Jewish historiography therefore required a functional archival infrastructure based on a central index of Jewish holdings across Canada - a necessary road map to guide those who were interested in the topic – whether

94 “Draft memo to Monty Berger re the development of the national Jewish archives and the establishment of a Canadian Jewish historical association”, November 29th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). 95 “Draft memo to Monty Berger re the development of the national Jewish archives and the establishment of a Canadian Jewish historical association”, November 29th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). The only works published since the 1959 bicentenary were: Joseph Kage, With Faith and Thanksgiving: The Story of Two Hundred Years of Jewish Immigration and Immigrant aid in Canada, 1760-1960 (Montreal: Eagle Publishing., 1962) and Simon Belkin, Through Narrow Gates: A Review of Jewish Immigration, Colonization and Immigrant Aid Work in Canada, 1840-1940, (Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Colonization Association, 1966). Neither of these authors was a professional historian. 96 Arnold, “The Sources of Canadian Jewish History”, P. 17. 97 “Working paper on archives and research activities and the development of Jewish historical societies”, February 1971 (JHCWC, JHC366).

237 they were amateur or professional. The development of such an index, for Arnold, was just as crucial to the field as any publication of a new historical thesis – as the quality of the latter could not be adequately assessed without the former. In other words, instead of engaging in futile discussions over independence, protection and direct ownership of community records, the responsibility of the community’s leadership was, Arnold argued, to encourage the creation of a unified bibliographical list of all sources relevant to the Jewish historical experience.98

Arnold’s preference for a shared index over direct ownership was another result of his belief that the integration of Jewish-themed headings into PAC’s indexing system would serve as a stamp of recognition for the importance of the ethnic context in Canadian history and as a crucial step in the development of a new, multicultural, stage in Canadian historiography. The contemporary political climate, he believed, was conducive for the fulfillment of this task but it was only attainable if other CJC decision-makers endorsed it and stopped bickering with PAC over archival programs that were no longer relevant to the long-term needs of the community. If the JHSWC’s did not lead the way and initiated its cooperation with the official archives, its materials would still remain in the same sorry state as the Montreal records – closed in boxes, useless, a “needle in a haystack” for any interested historians.99 There was still much work ahead before proper Canadian Jewish historiography could be produced: ordering and cataloguing Jewish community records, collecting other records and making sure they do not disappear and, at the same time, discovering the still untapped sources of Canadian Jewish history that were held in various archival repositories across Canada. The only way to advance such an enormous task was to find ways to cooperate with the formal archives and to recruit their support.

98 See Arnold’s “Proposals for a national Jewish historical society”, April 1976 (LAC, Plaut fonds, MG31, F13, 10) and his “Draft memo to Monty Berger re the development of the national Jewish archives and the establishment of a Canadian Jewish historical association”, November 29th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). 99 Abe Arnold to M. Globerman, July 11th, 1977 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). See also Harry Gutkin to Victor Sefton, November 2nd, 1976 (AM, AA fonds, P5110); Harry Gutkin to Sol Kanne, February 27th, 1980 (AM, AA fonds, P5111); Harry Gutkin’s speech on the event celebrating the JHSWC’s “decade of service to our community” (LAC, Gunther Plaut fonds, MG31, F13, 10).

238

In 1979, just after PAC published its bibliography of Sources for Jewish history Arnold declared that “the most important result, for the Jewish community, of the federal government policy of multiculturalism is probably the establishment…of the national ethnic archives section of the public archives of Canada”.100 Although clearly exaggerated, this claim points to the significance that Arnold assigned to the promotion of historical knowledge. After all, the publication signified that his goal had been achieved – archival collections, clearly marked as Jewish, were now part of the Canadian national archives and from now on, would help guide future historians who would arrive at PAC in order to develop their interpretations of the Canadian Jewish experience.

7.4.2 Arnold On Archival Work and Community Politics

Trying to initiate a public discussion on his views, Arnold published an op-ed in the Canadian Jewish News in which he declared that the struggles with the official archives were futile, especially given that many community members decided to donate their records outside of the community simply because of the CJA’s lamentable state. The article suggested that only through the establishment of proper, cooperative working relations with the formal archives and among the different regions, could the joint cause of producing mature and rigorous historical scholarship on Canadian Jewry be accomplished.101 In response to his article, Arnold received a letter from Reuben Slonim, a Toronto Rabbi who was known for his critical views on Israeli politics. Slonim told Arnold that upon enquiring with the OJA the possibility of donating his records to the repository, he was made to feel by Speisman that his papers were of no interest to the archive. As a result, Slonim wrote, he had no other choice but to send his personal collection to PAC.102 Slonim attributed the incident to his dissident views and shared with Arnold his

100 Abe Arnold, “Where should our archival material go?”, Canadian Jewish News, April 24th, 1980. 101 Ibid. 102 Reuben Slonim to Abe Arnold, April 24th, 1980 (AM, AA fonds, P5099).

239 disappointment that political bias affected the policies of the community’s archive. Slonim concluded his letter by stating that although he too considered the preservation of Jewish materials by and within the community as “a sacred duty” (even though Arnold never used this term), paradoxically, what the organized community currently offered its members could not be considered as a Jewish archive if it refused to represent all members of the community. Instead, Slonim declared, this archive was part of “the Jewish establishment” and used as a tool to replicate contemporary political preferences.103

However, although Arnold shared Slonim’s critique of the community’s governance structures, his criticism of the community’s archival program grew from a different source. Arnold believed that “the future of any national umbrella organization…depends on strong local bodies” and that the archival program was not different from other programs in that respect.104 Thus, besides his dissatisfaction with Rome’s and Speisman’s responses regarding the relationship with PAC, Arnold did not approve of the fact that the CJA, although presented as the national archive of Canadian Jewry, was, in fact, controlled solely by David Rome and governed without much consideration of the opinions of people from other regions. He therefore demanded that the regions receive a more significant role in determining the CJA’s priorities and policies, as well as advocated for increased regional independence and a more even allocation of the budgets that were dedicated to the community’s archival programs. The CJA’s acquisition policies and publishing schedules were never discussed in open forums and were decided solely by Rome and Hayes whom, Arnold believed, were not able to fully understand the needs and priorities of the other regions. This frustration was also one of the main reasons why Arnold pushed for the creation of the national Jewish historical society, an organization that, he believed, could help mend the situation by supporting grassroots community memory initiatives and push for more justified budgetary allocations to the

103 Ibid. 104 Position paper prepared by Abe Arnold on CJC & the western region, October 17th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5103).

240 different programs.105 The fact that Rome was given a free pass to publish whatever he wanted to do, and to do so without offering an index or proper references to support other historiographical endeavours, was therefore one of the main reason for Arnold’s ongoing frustration.106

Overall, the debate over the archival question became into a venue through which Arnold vented his frustrations with what he believed to be the misguided understanding within the Canadian-Jewish polity regarding the real priorities and needs of the community during this time of change. He used the CJA’s dysfunctional state as an example for the more general estrangement of Montreal’s CJC leadership from its community members base and as a reflection of the broader, more structural problem of the CJC’s inability to adjust itself to the community’s new social requirements.107 Decisions whether materials had to remain in community possession, sent to PAC or deposited within the provincial archives, should all be, according to Arnold, decisions that depended on the local context and rational decision-making, rather than presented as matters of principle. Living in a democratic and open country meant that Jews could be confident enough not to need to possess direct physical ownership over their records.

Although he perceived cooperation with the formal archives as a necessity, and although he even favoured the deposit of community collections within the official state archives, Arnold was convinced that the Jewish context of these collections had to remain as a clear, identifiable marker of their provenance. Furthermore, even as materials would

105 “Memo to Sol Kanee, National president, Canadian Jewish Congress, from the officers of the Jewish historical society”, October 4th, 1973 (ADCJA, MC25, 1); Abe Arnold, “Outline for Proposed Program for National Jewish Historical Society”, June 5th, 1974 (ADCJA, MC25, 1); Harry Gutkin to Stan Urman, May 30th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 106 Abe Arnold to M. Globerman, July 11th, 1977 (AM, AA fonds, P5099); Abe Arnold “What happens to the [CJC] resolutions” (AM, AA fonds, P5103); Abe Arnold, “Plenary Comment: Delegates Voice their Criticism”, May 5th, 1980 (AM, AA fonds, P5103). 107 Abe Arnold, “Working paper on archives and research activities and the development of Jewish historical societies”, February 1971 (JHCWC, JHC366); Abe Arnold, “Draft paper for joint session of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Jewish Historical Society, Tuesday, June 8, 1993, Preserving the History of a Jewish Community: the case of the Canadian Jewish Community, bringing History to life since 1893”, P. 11 (AM, AA fonds, P7263).

241 make their way to PAC and other provincial archives, it was community representatives who needed to conduct and guide the collection effort, as well as the decisions of which collection would be deposited where. It was clear to Arnold, that given the fact that Jewish history was, in essence, social history, not all gathered materials could make their way to the formal repositories and that the archival landscape had to be supplemented by small local archives containing the records that were not of interest to the state. Establishing such an infrastructure meant that a pragmatic context could be negotiated, dependent on local and even flexible circumstances, as to which records could or should remain within the community and which would benefit from being sent to the formal archives.

Arnold thus made a distinction between the act of collecting materials and the question of where to deposit them. Whatever the best deposit solution might be, the only persons who knew what records were out there, whether they contained any historical value, and what repository would offer the most fitting home for them, were the local activists in each of the Jewish communities across Canada. “Archivists”, Arnold claimed, “don’t always know where to look for materials and have to be guided by those who do know”.108 Such an ongoing project of collecting materials of historical value would be, he declared, a sign of community confidence and maturity and had to be carried out, continuously, “no matter how important the immediate order of priorities in Jewish life may be”.109 Also for Arnold than, the archival endeavour was not just about support for future works of historiography, but also contained an act that served as a symbolic confirmation of community members commitment to their Jewish identity. The engagement with personal and family records allowed community members to assign value to their personal experiences and by choosing to donate them, they made a commitment to providing a Jewish context to their past. In a time of diminishing affiliation with the Jewish organized bodies, such deeds were, as Arnold argued, “important for the stimulation of

108 Abe Arnold, “Draft Memorandum on the roles of a national JHS” (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 109 Arnold, 1969 draft of The Writing of Canadian Jewish History, P.2 (AM, AA fonds, P5100).

242

Jewish creativity”.110 Arnold arrived at this realization already during the collection campaign that preceded the first JHSWC exhibition, a time in which, he claimed, “apathy was overcome and collecting Jewish history became a labour of love…and the effectiveness of a popular community approach to history was demonstrated”.111 Working through such grassroots and accommodating approach was also why, he believed, “Winnipeg made reality what the larger centres of Toronto and Montreal have talked about but not yet accomplished”.112

7.5 Conclusion

The chapter focused on the early, formative years of the archival work conducted by Winnipeg’s Jewish community and contemplated the motivations, ideas, and sense of purpose that directed these acts. The dominant person behind the shaping of Jewish Winnipeg’s archival landscape was Abe Arnold, an amateur historian and the JHSWC’s first executive director. Arnold perceived Canadian-Jewish history as an integral part of the broader Canadian story, and advocated the production of professional, objective and unapologetic scholarship to replace what he understood as the still prevailing inward-looking perspective that dominated the community’s historiography. Throughout his life Arnold aspired to author a book on Canadian Jewish history and believed that the story of Canadian Jews, once adequately presented, could provide a marker for the ability of the Canadian multicultural ethos to achieve positive synergy

110 Arnold, “Continuation of working paper on archives and research”, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). See also Abe Arnold to Milton Harris, chairman of the central region of CJC, October 5th, 1970 (JHCWC, JHC365). 111 Abe Arnold, “Draft paper for joint session of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Jewish Historical Society, Tuesday, June 8, 1993, Preserving the History of a Jewish Community: the case of the Canadian Jewish Community, bringing History to life since 1893”, P. 7 (AM, AA fonds, P7263). 112 Abe Arnold, “Position paper on Canadian Jewish Congress and the Western Region”, October 71 (AM, AA fonds, P5103); Minutes of the general meeting of the JHSWC, December 1972 (JHCWC, JHC366). This impression was also shared by others. In his 1974 plenary address Sol Kanee, the CJC president, spoke about the archival work done in Winnipeg and stated that “we should be grateful for the fact that in an area in which Congress has been derelict for years, the initiative has been taken in the western region” (JHCWC Archives, JHC502).

243 between ethnic identity, active community life, and engagement with broader Canadian society, thus advancing it towards its higher purpose. He further believed that those Jews who settled at the Canadian Jewish west deserved a special place within the story of Canadian Jewry, as they extended the borders of the Canadian Jewish experience and made the overall story of Jews in Canada – and even in North America - much more wholesome.

What place did archival records, and archival repositories, occupy in this scheme? Arnold argued that “the collection of materials is not and can not be done as a mechanical action. It has to involve the preparation of appropriate papers on Jewish history in western Canada”. The collection of historical materials was thus not a goal in itself but rather, “part of the total scheme of Canadian Jewish history development”.113 Simply put, Arnold knew that without a professional and functioning archival infrastructure, no proper historiography could be produced. Only once all the steps of the archival process were in place, the collection, sorting, and indexing of historical materials, could the broader goal of promotion of historical knowledge be achieved. The best way to create such an infrastructure was, Arnold believed, based on his experience and familiarity with the community’s capabilities, to form a mutually beneficial working relationship with the official archives. It was the community’s duty to fight for representation in and between the shelves of official state archives instead of insisting on building its own independent repositories. For that reason, the JHSWC’s took the decision to cooperate with the Archives of Manitoba and with PAC, instead of struggling to establish and sustain an independent and separate Jewish archival repository.

Apart from his unfulfilled desire to author a definitive historical account on Canadian Jewry, there were two other archival-related goals that Arnold set for himself to promote. These were the application of Jewish headings into PAC’s classification system and the

113 Minutes of the History and Archives Committee, December 17th, 1967 (JHCWC, JHC365); Abe Arnold, “Draft memo to Monty Berger re the development of the national Jewish archives and the establishment of a Canadian Jewish historical association”, November 29th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099).

244 creation of a joint, unified catalogue of Canadian-Jewish holdings across Canada. As PAC and the provincial archives were, according to Arnold, the places where the collective memories of future Canadians were shaped, integration of Jewish headings into their indexing systems would be a practical and symbolic acknowledgment of the importance of the ethnic context in Canadian history. Furthermore, this was also a suitable method through which to assure the ability to search the holdings of these repositories for still hidden Jewish-related materials and to supplement their current holdings with community-generated materials – all crucial steps through which to advance the writing of Canadian Jewish history.

The archival question also played a part in Arnold’s criticism of the contemporary governance structures of the Canadian Jewish community. He believed that the ongoing process of opening-up and secularization of Canadian society required the Jewish community to re-adjust its internal organizational structures so that it could be ready to accommodate both the younger generations of Canadian Jews and those who drifted away from the mainstream of Jewish life. It was his view that the CJC was losing its ability to find solutions to these challenges, and he used the debate over the community’s archival programs as a venue for this broader criticism. Arnold thus declared that the top- down approach towards archival work as adopted by CJC officers in Montreal signified an outdated and misguided understanding of Jewish communal identity. The lack of ability of community leaders in Eastern Canada to understand the new multicultural motivations on behalf of the state, as manifested in the archival domain, was yet another sign of their failure to comprehend the changing nature of the community itself. Overall then, Arnold’s integrative approach towards Canadian Jewish history was clearly reflected in his integrative approach towards the archival program. Just as “Jewish history in Canada is to be seen as part of Canadian history”, also “Jewish archives”, he argued “should be seen as Canadian archives”.114 The future of Canadian Jewry – as reflected in its decisions on how to govern and administer its past – required the strengthening the local, regional

114 Abe Arnold, 1969 draft of the writing of Canadian Jewish History (AM, AA fonds, P5100).

245 forces and in finding ways to positively cooperate with the many agents that helped shape the new, multi-layered identity frameworks that were being formed during this period in which Canadian society advanced into its multicultural stage.

Chapter 8: Comparative Perspectives

This chapter offers additional, comparative analysis of the processes of creation and development of the archival-related organizational mechanisms by and for the Canadian Jewish community. The discussion is structured according to the research questions that guided this study. The first question was concerned with the elements that motivated the creation of, and informed the differences between, the mandates and organizational priorities of the three main Canadian Jewry’s archival-related institutional mechanisms. Although identification with, and knowledge of, Jewish history was always considered as a fundamental aspect of Jewish identity, the maintenance of a functional archival repository was not part of the comprehensive organizational service infrastructures these communities offered their members before the period covered by this dissertation. While previous chapters focused on the differences between the archival landscapes in each city, a result of the varying needs of local communities and the individual characters of those who led these endeavours, this chapter turns to review the broader socio-cultural factors that were at play during this formative period of the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour.

The second research question looked at the relationship between the decisions that shaped the community’s archival landscape and the broader historiographical and ideological worldviews of the individuals who directed these initiatives. The concept of ‘archival mentality’ was offered as a framework through which to explain this relationship, and it was discussed at length in the preceding chapters. In this chapter the discussion turns to a comparative review of two unique assumptions that were shared by those individuals, assumptions that were a result of the fact that the core commitment that guided the community’s archival endeavour was the desire to promote historiographical explorations of their community. The discussion aims to position these two assumptions as part of the broader paradigm shift that was beginning to take shape within the archival profession during those years. The chapter ends with a discussion of the unique characteristics of the concept of Jewish archives within the broader framework of community

246 247 and ethnic archives and whether the term could be integrated into future research endeavours as an identifiable and coherent scholarly concept.

8.1. The Motivational Forces behind the Canadian Jewish Community’s Archival Endeavours

Overall, this research identified three intersecting, time-bound stimulatory forces behind the creation of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival landscape. These were the initiatives of the formal, governmental archives to collect ethnic archival materials; the growing interest in questions of identity and Jewish continuation that was palpable across the different locations of Canadian Jewry; and thirdly, the ways in which the individuals who led these archival programs managed to navigate their ideological motivations and professional capabilities with the local circumstances and constraints that they encountered.

In order to properly situate the growth of the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour, one needs to begin with the broader Canadian archival landscape, which, during the period covered by this dissertation, was experiencing the same transitions that affected so many other elements of Canadian society. As already discussed, this was a period in which many Canadian-born citizens shared increasing levels of interest in their ethno-cultural origins and traditions and felt confident and proud enough to display this interest in the public domain. This process was encouraged by, and manifested in, events such as the 1967 Centennial celebrations for the Canadian confederation and the Expo 67 exhibition, as well as in the emergence of many contemporary publications, activities and academic and grassroots associations, all dedicated to ethnic roots and cultures. These publicly displayed sentiments were all closely related to the most politicly significant of these ethnic awakenings - that of Quebecois nationalism – and within a few years ethnic identities became a legitimate, and politicly recognized, force in the Canadian society. These developments, naturally, did not go unnoticed by the country’s political forces and in 1971, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,

248 federal multicultural policies, later adopted also on the provincial level, were introduced. With the notion of multiculturalism turning from a social reality into an actively promoted, nationwide, ethos, general interest in heritage was now able to find concrete venues of monetary support. As multicultural policies were adopted across several governmental agencies, some of them chose to allocate the newly available funds through support to projects that were initiated and conducted within the ethnic communities, while others preferred projects that were administered directly in-house, either with or without the blessing of the communities representative agencies. Within the Canadian archival domain multicultural policies had a lasting and profound effect – mainly through the work of PAC’s NEA program and the MHSO, two initiatives that helped promote the visibility of the ethnic and immigrant experiences within Canadian historiography, as well as contributed to the profound shift in the intellectual paradigms that guided the archival profession, in Canada as well as globally.

There was therefore a clear, positive relationship between the growing interest by the state in Jewish archival materials and the creation of independent, or semi-independent, archival mechanisms within the community. Whether choosing to cooperate with the governmental programs or to counter these efforts to acquire records associated with the community by portraying them as rude external interventions with internal community affairs, all of the archival programs initiated by and within Canadian Jewish communities were motivated by the need to respond to these governmental initiatives. The state’s interest in Jewish materials and the pressure this interest had created meant that, unlike previous years, when other priorities were always placed higher on the community’s agenda, postponement of decisions concerning the community’s archival programs now carried clear consequences – if Canadian Jews do not collect and care for their records – others would do so. In the two sizeable centres of Canadian Jewry, Montreal and Toronto, where state intervention was the most strongly felt, local activists were able, by cultivating the conflict with the governmental agencies, to promote a sense of urgency regarding the need to support a functioning and independent archival program – until this idea was finally accepted by the community’s decisionmakers. In Winnipeg, a smaller and more remote centre of Jewish habitat, local activists recognized the limits of the resources at their

249 disposal and the benefits that cooperation with formal agencies could offer and as a result, decided on a different course of action, one that was better fitted to the local circumstances and spirit. Thus, taking advantage of the new federal multicultural budgetary allocations, meant that in a relatively short period of time, JHSWC members were able to offer a professionally sorted and catalogued, government-funded, public access to their main collections.

Still, it took more than an external intervention to stimulate the creation of the community’s archival infrastructure. Canada was home to many other ethnic communities, and while many of them took advantage of the newly available multicultural grants, the vast majority did not pursue independent archival programs, nor were they, in comparison to Canadian Jewry, engaged with so many debates around the need for such programs. Clearly then, certain unique elements within the Jewish group have guided, at least in Montreal and Toronto, this desire, and ability, to establish and sustain an independent archival program. The most fundamental of these seems to be the ability to fuse the archival debate into the inherent fear of assimilation and loss of Jewish continuity. Anxiety over how to preserve a separate identity framework was always an essential motivational force for Jewish community life and became an even more paramount issue during this period of multicultural policies and generational transitions within the community leadership. The Constant portrayal of the archive as a symbolic marker of guardianship over history and identity helped Rome, Hayes, and Speisman to present the archival endeavour as a vital counter tool against mounting threats to Jewish identity. The positioning of the question of archival governance on emotional terms and the pointing to non-Jewish archival agencies as foes that had to be resisted helped to associate the efforts of the formal archives to acquire Jewish materials with the specters of assimilation and declining commitments to Jewish life. Situating the community’s archival endeavour within such a context assisted in capturing the attention of both community members and decision-makers, and through these, eventually, to secure a commitment for funding an independent community archival infrastructure.

Of course, the fear that Rome, Hayes and Speisman responded to was not utterly ungrounded. During the period covered by this study, Canadian Jewry experienced significant shifts within its

250 established organizational and demographical frameworks. Members of the immigrant generation, the ones who shaped the community’s institutional mechanisms and its public image, were now reaching the end of their careers and the community’s leadership and priority-setting were gradually turning over to the younger, Canadian-born generation.1 Coupled with the decline of overt, publicly-displayed antisemitism and the inevitable loss of Yiddish language and culture as a key socialization agent, attention, and fears, turned to questions of the ability to sustain Jewish identity in an increasingly open and inclusive Canadian society. Prioritization of Jewish education, campaigns on behalf of other world Jewries and a growing interest in history, either European (and mostly the Holocaust) or local, were all responses to these changes and efforts to sustain venues for Jewish identification and community participation. Archival work needs to be understood as one of these responses – with the turn towards documentation, collection and preservation of historical resources being a natural response to a time of crisis and threat.2 The desire to preserve traces of the past was a quest for stability and reassurance, a venue through which one could deal with an uncertain present. The same urge to collect, preserve and own archival materials was evident in other periods of crisis and stress across the Jewish world, be it in Eastern Europe during the years the preceded the First World War; in Germany during the mid- nineteen century and then again after the rise of Nazism; and even in Canada, with the 1934 establishment of the CJA as a response to the growing threats to Jewish life at both home and abroad.

Nevertheless, and corresponding with the generational distinctions noticed above, this general sentiment to perform archival work manifested itself differently in each of the three cities. In Montreal, which was until the nineteen-seventies the undisputable centre of Canadian Jewish life, the two individuals who directed the archival endeavour were members of the older generation. Hayes and Rome’s involvement with the CJA began during a later stage of their public careers and was a result of their mounting concern to the continuation of meaningful Jewish life and its governance mechanisms in both Quebec and Canada in general. The roots of the initiative

1 Elazar and Waller, Maintaining Consensus, Pp. 12-20. 2 See the conceptual chapter, P. 60.

251 to rejuvenate the CJA was part of the plan to mark Samuel Bronfman’s, and the CJC’s, legacy of community service and their roles in the transformation of Canadian Jewry into a confident and dignified community – in other words, to document, summarize and mark a socio-historical process that was perceived as already reaching its climax. Besides practical tax-related reasons, this was the main reason why the CJA was conceived both as a museum and as an archive and why it was meant to occupy such a central space within the new CJC headquarters. The archival program in Montreal was therefore motivated and directed by both the worry for the future place of Jews in the new Quebec society that was being shaped at that time, as well as by a sense of duty to document and summarize an era by assembling relevant historical materials as a way to honor the past and to properly contextualize, package and communicate it to future generations.

In Toronto and Winnipeg, on the other hand, the archival endeavour was a product of initiatives that were directed by members of the younger generation. In Toronto, Speisman conceptualized the establishment of the OJA as an indication of the maturity and self-esteem of his local Toronto community and as part of the preparation of Toronto’s Jewry to take on a leadership role as the new demographical centre of Canadian Jews. For Arnold in Winnipeg, the collection of sources and dissemination of historical knowledge as evidence to the unique character of Jews from the Canadian West was part of a desire to assist the process of shaping a more multicultural and accommodating Canadian society. In both Toronto and Winnipeg, then, the notion that conducting archival work was “in itself an historical occurrence”3 meant that the general framework of initiation of archival activities as a response to a crisis and to changing social paradigms, could still be differently performed, depending on the ways in which individuals perceived and interpreted the future results of the social changes that they noticed around them.

Another unique element that characterized the Jewish group and played a decisive role in its ability to create an independent archival infrastructure was the existence of the CJC as an

3 JHSWC inaugural meeting, agenda and notes, May 8th, 1968 (JHCWC, JHC365); “Introduction” by Stephen Speisman, Conference on Archives by the archives committee of the CJCCR. Toronto, March 17th, 1974 (OJA, Sous-fonds, 1, 1).

252 organizational platform that was able to support, through its nationwide, pseudo-governmental mandate, the practical concerns behind the more general desire to establish and sustain independent archival initiatives. Most other ethnic communities did not possess such a robust centralizing mechanism, and even if they did enjoy the services of a national representative body, these usually concentrated their efforts on advocacy, and less on broader aspects of cultural retention. The CJC’s unique organizational ethos meant that it could easily envision community- wide archives to be part of its mandate, and thus, was able to offer a venue through which Jewish archival endeavours, and other public memory initiatives, could be formed and coordinated. Tight interpersonal and institutional ties therefore existed between the archival programs and the local CJC offices in each city: both the CJA and the OJA were established as internal units within their respective CJC Montreal and Toronto offices while in Winnipeg the JHSWC, although an independent organization, began its operations as the CJC’s western division archives committee and continued to present itself as its operational arm for years to come. Moreover, most other, smaller, Canadian Jewish communities - not covered by this dissertation – enjoyed the CJC’s support if and when they initiated their own archival, or any other public memory, endeavours. As a ready-made organizational infrastructure with a proactive organizational ethos and a mandate to advance Canadian Jewish culture, the CJC was able to consolidate the more general desire to conduct archival work into a concrete set of programs.

However, once the initial stage had passed, the relationship between the CJC and the archival programs began to play a more complicated role in determining the growth of each of the three archival programs. In both Toronto and Winnipeg, the archival programs grew as part of the consolidation of grassroots endeavours that involved a relatively large number of community members. Local CJC decision makers were either active participants or highly sympathetic to these efforts and, backed by the organizational ethos of commitment to the promotion of Canadian Jewish culture, found a way to accommodate them into the CJC’s roster of activities. As in both cities the archival programs operated under local - either provincial or regional – mandates, they were also better positioned to receive the support of the local welfare federation once the CJC began to suffer from financial difficulties during the later part of the nineteen

253 seventies. In Winnipeg, the local CJC division was not able, from the start, to offer space or proper budget. The JHSWC therefore became a separate organization very soon after commencing its activities, making it easier to apply and receive federal multicultural funding. In 1974, after the merger between the local welfare federation with the Western CJC office, the JHSWC was able to receive steady support from the new community governing mechanism and was even declared as one of its constituent agencies. In Toronto, the OJA experienced the same process after it became, in 1976, a unit within the newly formed Toronto Jewish Congress. This adjustment helped the repository to become more financially stable, to offer Speisman a full-time position and overall, to be more confidently positioned for utilizing the clashes with the MHSO to support its own growth and expansion.

In Montreal, on the other hand, apart from the archival activities of the JPL, the sources did not indicate any other Jewish grassroots archival-related endeavours during the period. This surprising lack of initiative seems to be the result of the CJA’s designation as a national archive, as well as its long standing reputation, even if more so in theory than in practice, as part of the existing CJC organizational structure. This meant that through the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies, the enthusiasm and energy that helped nurture the archival endeavours in the Toronto and Winnipeg, were not cultivated in Montreal. The top-down approach that was taken by the CJC and the difficulties to cooperate with the local welfare federation due to the CJA’s national designation resulted in a ‘lost decade’ in which potential grassroots archival initiatives did not find a proper venue in the city that was home to the largest and oldest Canadian Jewish community.

It can therefore be argued that during those early, formative years, the organizational platform offered by the CJC was more conducive as a space for discussion and consolidation of grassroots initiatives, than as a long-term operative mechanism through which to administer a professional archival program. The CJC’s lean organizational structure, absence of independent fund-raising capabilities, and what was perceived by some observers as “head-office mentality”,4 meant that

4 Evelyn Miller to Abe Arnold, September 11th, 1976 (AM, AA Fonds, P5111).

254 the more general trend of regionalism in the Canadian Jewish polity was inevitable also in the growth of the archival programs. Moreover, several broader, external pressures played a role as well. The CJA’s national archives model, or at least the way in which this model was conceived before a professional archivist was hired, was already out of sync with the community’s contemporary archival needs. When the CJA was initially established, in 1934, it was conceived as a tool through which to protect Jewish records from neglect and loss and as an agent in the effort to strengthen a sense of a proud, politicly able collective national Jewish identity. However, by the nineteen seventies, it was the Jewish aspect of the Canadian-Jewish identity framework that needed strengthening, rather than the Canadian one. The community archives had to answer newer, emerging needs of community members who, while fearing the loss of cultural distinction, already maintained a sense of local pride and belonging. Pressure for more professional archival solutions was also applied by members of a new generation of Canadian- born Jews who assumed academic positions that enabled them to dedicate time and energy to the community’s history and who were ready to replace the earlier generation of journalists as the chroniclers of the community. Furthermore, if the community archives were not able to answer these needs, others, in the shape of formal archival agencies, were now willing to step in and offer proper cataloguing and indexing which became the new, necessary benchmark for the community archival program. The older model, of a centralized archival program, directed by CJC’s Montreal head office, amateur in both scope and vision, and perceiving the archive as a safehouse more than as a tool for access and research, was simply not relevant anymore and needed to be adjusted to accommodate the community’s new needs and expectations.

Overall, this decade-long process of growth and consolidation of the community’s archival endeavours can, from a social history perspective, be understood as both a response to, and as a part of, the inevitable process of the acculturation of Canadian Jewry and transformation from a framework of Jews living in Canada to that of Canadian Jews. In 1967 the Canadian Jewry community maintained just one, for the most part unfunctional, repository that was shaped as a product of traditional, Eastern European Jewish community structures. By the end of the nineteen seventies, the community enjoyed an archival program that was spread across several

255 centres of Jewish habitat and was, overall, much more attuned to the community’s new regional and historiographical needs. This complex process of professionalization and negotiation of new working models within the archival domain reflected the generational changes and the broader transformations in Canadian Jewish life and so, serves to exemplify just how embedded were the community’s archival programs within the social realities that surrounded them, and how future orientated they were. The overarching goal of any archival repository, to document and represent the society around it, was therefore clearly manifested also in the archives own processes of creation, growth, and professionalization.

8.2 Archival Mentalities and Jewish Archives

The previous chapters emphasised the differences between the archival landscapes that were developed by the Canadian Jewish communities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. In Montreal, the CJA was presented as a national Jewish archival repository, even if it did not manage to mature into a professional, service-oriented repository until more than a decade after its relocation to the Bronfman House. In Toronto, the OJA operated under a province-wide mandate, and although it was characterised by Speisman’s deep distrust and refusal to cooperate with any external, non-Jewish archival agencies, the repository enjoyed constant and steady growth and recognition of its status within the community. In Winnipeg, the archival endeavour was conducted through a historical society, the JHSWC, that operated under a regional, western- wide, mandate. The JHSWC chose to independently carry out the task of collecting materials while depositing them within the Provincial Archives of Manitoba. The JHSWC also managed to take advantage of the newly designated multicultural budgets and initiatives and sent its core collections to PAC in order to be copied, microfilmed and offered to all interested researchers. As noted earlier, these variations in the archival landscapes were related to local circumstances such as the size of the local Jewish community and the available resources it had at its disposal, as well as dependent on the diverse personal worldviews of those individuals who initiated and administered these programs.

256

Still, and despite these differences, all three enterprises shared one fundamental trait. They were all established as a result of the core belief that archival work was a necessary tool within the broader effort to provide sound historiographical products that would advance and deepen the historical consciousness of community members. As a result, and regardless of their different mandates and organizational structures, these archival mechanisms shared many similarities. For instance, both the CJA and the OJA, although designated as archives, operated under a mandate that included much more than just the collection and preservation of archival records. Throughout the nineteen seventies, David Rome, as the CJA’s acting archivist, applied more energy towards a publication program and to an effort to establish a museum as a supplementary program, than to proper archival cataloguing or description work. In Toronto, the OJA’s mandate included duties such as the restoration of historical buildings and the promotion of historical knowledge through tours, exhibits and public lectures. The same was, naturally, also true for Winnipeg’s JHSWC which was engaged in a variety of exhibitions and publications projects. These shared commitments were also evident in the declarations of all those who were involved with the archival programs. Arnold claimed that “what we are really after is the development of a History and Archives program”5 and that “a program of serious archival work has to extend into research, study, writing and publishing”.6 In Montreal, Saul Hayes claimed that “there is no use having archives if they just stay in rooms and nothing is ever done about them” and this essential relationship between the archival and historiographical domains was also evident for Speisman and Rome, both of whom were actively engaged in utilizing the records under their care for the writing and publication of historical works.7

The Canadian Jewish archival projects were therefore openly subjected to the historiographical product they were expected to help deliver, an almost inevitable outcome of applying an identity framework as the governing principle behind the motivation to conduct archival work. The

5 Abe Arnold to Evelyn Miller, July 20th, 1971 (AM, AA fonds, P5099). 6 Abe Arnold, “Working paper on archives and research activities and the development of Jewish historical societies”, February 1971 (JHCWC, JHC366). 7 Saul Hayes to David Rome, “Archives: Inventory and Cataloging”, August 29th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1).

257 following discussion aims to identify and present two underlining principles that were a result of this effort and that signified the inevitable departure of the community archives from more traditional, mainstream archival principles. The first principle was built upon the notion that the organized community maintained an inherent ownership stake in any records that were created within a Jewish context. It was advocated mostly by Speisman and Rome, the two persons who were most committed to the principle of direct community control over its records. A second principal, this time shared by all four persons discussed in this study concerned the inherent agency of the archival repository in the future interpretation of the records, or what we could name the embedded archival agency within the historiographical product. Overall, the argument presented in this section is that the early Canadian Jewish archival endeavours helped advance, through their insistence on these principals during their encounters with the formal archival agencies and their own efforts to collect Jewish materials, the broader process of the archival profession’s paradigm shift and its growing respect towards, and legitimization of, different archival practices.8

To better contextualize the discussion, two important factors need to be revisited. Firstly, the inherent gap between the four individuals whose ideas and work this dissertation follows, and the wider community that they aimed to represent. Generally speaking, Canadian Jews were highly sympathetic and receptive to the idea of donating records to governmental agencies and so, the tension that is inherent to the idea of representation, was also evident in the gap between the community as the sum total of its members, and the notion of the community as interpreted by the cultural activists who acted as its archival gatekeepers. Secondly, the ideas presented here were held by individuals who were not – excluding Speisman – practicing archivists, and thus, were not constrained, or guided, by any strict professional convictions or obligations. Rather, it was their sense of purpose and vision for Canadian Jewry as an independent historical entity with a past, a present and a future, that directed their commitment to the community’s archival endeavour.

8 Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity, and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms”, Pp. 112-116.

258

The most insistent individual with regards to the need for direct community control over its historical records was Toronto’s Stephen Speisman. As a matter of principle, Speisman refused to negotiate any middle ground with the MHSO, nor did he care to make a distinction between the different non-Jewish repositories, and even preferred for materials not to make their way to the OJA, as long as they were not donated outside of the community. These opinions were primarily a result of his perception of the cyclical nature of Jewish history – and its rapid transitions between a sense of security and belonging and anti-Semitic tides that put community members at risk. Archives aimed at posterity, and so, future threats to the integrity and cohesiveness of the community, physical or spiritual, even if presently still unforeseen, had to be mitigated by maintaining a clear separation between the community repositories and any external archival agencies. As historical records contained essential information about the ins- and-outs and the internal structures of the community, they might, if falling into the wrong hands, be applied against Canadian Jews sometime in the future. Understanding that direct ownership of Jewish records was one of the organized community’s core responsibilities marked, according to Speisman, the commitment, on behalf of the community’s leadership, to future generations of Canadian Jews and its appreciation of just how high were the stakes associated with the question of archival ownership.

As part of his struggle for the maintenance of an independent Jewish archival infrastructure, Speisman introduced the idea that the organized community had an ownership stake in any records, organizational or individual, that were created within a Jewish context. Many of the records that were produced by Jews, Speisman argued, pertained to matters that had a potential effect on the entire community and as a result, the organized community, as the aggregate, responsible body of Jewish community members, maintained an interest in them and in their whereabouts. Because the organized community gained its legitimacy from the historical bonds between community members and from their sense of mutual responsibility, it possessed what Speisman called “a prior right” to these records and could mitigate the ability of individuals to decide on the appropriate archival solution for their records. Any decisions concerning the future home of Jewish records had to be therefore validated by community representatives - such as

259

Speisman himself - who had a broader appreciation of what was at stake. Just as the individual Jew suffered from Anti-Semitism, an ideology that perceived all Jews as sharing the same inherent qualities because of their affiliation with the group, and unrelated to their individual character, the burden of communal responsibility had to be also applied in the other direction. Ensuring that the right archival choices were made was therefore a matter of public decision, and more stakeholders had to take part in it. In other words, in order to not put future community members under any unnecessary potential risks, decisions on which might be the suitable archival repository for Jewish records was a decision that had to be shared by both the individual Jew and the organized community mechanisms.

Speisman also assigned the archival materials under his purview a value that was larger than the information that was inscribed on them, somewhat reflecting the traditional notion of the Genizah. Thus, archival records were, for Speisman, precious relics whose preservation was part of the chain of inter-generational commitment and respect. This notion helps to understand some of Speisman’s other sensitivities, such as perceiving the safeguarding of Jewish records to be just as important archival objective as that of access and scholarly research. It also points to Speisman’s notion, as also articulated in his historiographical output, of the Jewish community as an independent historical entity, accountable to Jewish history, rather than to Canadian society. Nevertheless, and despite employing such rhetoric, the Jewish records that Speisman actually cared to collect, and the ones that he regarded as the real records of Canadian Jewish life, were mostly those that confirmed his own notion of Jewish identity and his interpretation of Canadian Jewish history. Speisman was much less enthusiastic when it came to acquiring the records of Jewish organizations and individuals who opposed the mainstream, organized community or that had different ideas than his about its roles or purpose. This same principle also manifested itself in Speisman’s limited interest in collecting any non-Jewish records that pertained to Canadian Jews.

Turning to look at the notion of archival agency, we can note that Speisman never bothered to define the exact meaning of the term ‘Jewish records’. This could either be the result of the fact

260 that the term was self-explanatory for him, or, more likely, could be related to his belief that an essential part of what made these records Jewish was their inclusion in a Jewish archive. Interestingly, one of the reasons why Speisman objected to any cooperation with the formal archives was that “only Jewish archivists (my underlining A.L.) will know [to distinguish] what issues are sensitive” from the mass of in-depth, intimate information that Jewish records contained regarding the internal deliberations of the community.9 However, PAC employed a Jewish archivist – who was in overall fine relations with many other community members – a fact that leads to the interpretation of Speisman’s remark as assigning the ‘Jewishness’ of the records – and of the archivist - to the archival repository and to the community-owned space, rather than to the record’s content or original provenance. In other words, according to Speisman, despite being Jewish, PAC’s archivist was not part of the Jewish collective and so, could not be trusted for providing the proper archival context to the records under his care. It was thus the repository that offered the strongest contextual bond to the records, and in that, replaced, for Speisman, the archival fond as the broadest relational context provider to and between the records.

David Rome shared Speisman’s belief that the patterns that governed Canadian Jewish history were part of global Jewish history, as well as Speisman’s opposition to the very notion of Jewish records making their way to any of the public archives. The relationship between the community and its records was an obvious, principle one for Rome, and it did not require any explaining or justifications as, “taking [Jewish records] away [from community ownership] would be like tearing off limbs and organs from the body”.10 This belief helped Rome develop his own take on the ownership stake of the organized community in Jewish records. During the debate over where should the records of JIAS, the community’s largest immigrant settlement agency, be deposited, Rome suggested that as Jewish service organizations were performing services on behalf of the community, JIAS officers were simply “the custodians of Jewish community records – hence, it is not theirs to give away”.11 Jewish records, Rome argued, were “the sole property of

9 Stephen Speisman to Sol Edell, Sam Filer, Milton Harris, Jonathan Plaut, David Satok, Victor Sefton, Cyril Troster, Rose Wolfe. January 31st, 1980 (OJA, VS fonds, 70-7-3). 10 David Rome to Alan Rose, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10, 13). 11 Ibid.

261 their creators and collectors – the Jewish community of Canada through the CJC - and under no circumstances will they be alienated from the people”.12

However, the issue that disturbed Rome even more, as part of his ‘comprehensive approach’ towards the community’s archival endeavour, was the need to maintain the Jewish context of the records – a task that could be achieved only through the existence of an independent archival repository. Rome was certain that “there is a major Jewish aspect of records…not in the usual purview of governmental or business records keeping”13 and so, when he heard that JHSWC directors decided to deposit their collection of historical materials within the provincial archives, he admitted to being “horrified” by the idea.14 The reason was that outside of the direct control of the community’s own archival mechanisms, the content of the records was open to any kind of interpretations and judgments. In one of the CJHS board meetings, Rome explained this feeling by offering the example of a recent French language publication titled ‘letters to the Jews of Montreal’. Rome claimed that the book was an anti-Semitic work and that its arguments were based mostly on open sources held at PAC. The author of that book, Rome declared, was only able to write it because “we have placed these resources at his disposal”.15 If the author had to visit the CJA in order to conduct his research, Rome insisted, the archivists would be able to handle this case better, and the community, as a whole, would have been more prepared to deal with it and with the potential harm it might cause. An independent community archive therefore served, for Rome, as a protective mechanism that could help direct ‘proper’ interpretations of Jewish records. One can assume that this notion was also one of the reasons why Rome chose not to produce finding aids or indexes during his tenure at the CJA, as well as insisted on meeting in person and interviewing researchers who visited the archive.

12 David Rome and Judith Nefsky to Irving Abella, Jack Lightstone, Phyllis Cohos-Newman, August 13th, 1987 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 13 David Rome to Joseph Kage, May 27th, 1969 (JPL, 00103, 1960-1969). 14 David Rome to Rabbi Jonathan Plaut August 29th, 1978, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 1); David Rome to Stan Urman, July 3rd, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 15 Transcript of the June 1979 meeting of the CJHN (AM, AA fonds, P5110). Rome did not mention the name of the book’s author.

262

However, for Rome, a product of secular, Eastern-European, labour-Zionist culture, the community archive was essential also because of its intrinsic value in providing a path to navigating the riddles of Jewish historical existence. An independent Jewish archive made it possible to construct secular interpretations of Jewish history, helping to position these experiences in relation to concrete political and social circumstances, rather than as part of metaphysical, divine destiny. If history, rather than divinity, was the organizing force of the Jewish experience then the CJA, according to Rome, was the final meeting place for community members – including those non-Jews whose lives and ideas have intersected with Canadian Jewry – where all jointly awaited the judgments of Jewish historians.16 This mindset manifested itself in Rome’s ‘comprehensive archives’ approach that advocated the acquisition of documentation pertaining to Jews and Judaism in Canada, regardless of who was the record producer, or where and when such records were produced. After all, if the same records were kept in another repository – their judgments would be conducted according to different rules as it was the repository that provided the highest level of context to the records under its care, regardless of their creator, place of creation or original purpose. In other words, for Rome, there were no boundaries that could be established, or pre-determined, as to what indeed is – or could become - a Jewish record. Therefore, once the records arrived into the Jewish archive they had to be arranged “according to a scheme of Canadian Jewish studies” and thus gain their highest purpose and right context – that of “a living, functioning and central Jewish institution”.17 This notion of the archive as determining the record’s provenance helps understand why Rome believed that it was his responsibility, as an archivist, to determine not just the historical value, but also the reliability and trustworthiness of each record and that these should not be left to the interpretation of historians or any other potential users of the archive. The agency of the archival repository was therefore, according to Rome, not a trait that had to be overcome but rather, its most important and celebrated characteristic, a direct result of its profound role within the community.

16 Canadian Jewish Archives, New Series, 1, P.3. 17 David Rome to Alan Rose, January 31st, 1980 (OJA, SE Fonds, 4, 10, 13).

263

Saul Hayes shared Rome’s and Speisman’s belief that Jewish records needed to be kept under direct community ownership. He also shared Rome’s notion that Jewish welfare organizations were not the owners of their records but rather, custodians on behalf of the community. The board of JIAS, Hayes argued, did not have the mandate to decide on where to deposit inactive case files, as these records did not belong to them to begin with but were the property of the community as a whole.18 Hayes responded in a similar fashion when he heard about the JHSWC’s decision to send its records to PAC for microfilming.19 However, where Hayes differed from Rome and Speisman was that for him, ownership over the records was not a matter of principle or of a semi-metaphysical right. Rather, it arose from his insistence on the need to maintain the records community-focused archival context as a way to direct future historiographical products.

Hayes explicitly stated that the only records he deemed to be of value for the CJA, as the national archive of Canadian Jewry, were those of the organizations that were engaged in settlement, welfare and representation of community members and have done so from a national perspective. The records of synagogues, Hayes declared, were not one of the CJA’s core interests.20 The repository’s goal, according to Hayes, was to establish a clear historiographical context that would point to the CJC’s, and his own, roles in the tremendous process of consolidation and growth of Canadian Jewry into a confident and politicly-able community. Hayes thus displayed, even if doing so from a different perspective, the same belief in the inherent agency of the archive in determining the nature of future historiographical frameworks. Direct ownership and control over Jewish records was therefore a consequence of the need to maintain their context – a context that would be lost if these same records were turned over to PAC and become part of a different story, that of the relationships between the Canadian state and one of its ethnic communities.21 Also Hayes then, was guided by the belief that the repository, rather than the creator of the records, was the element that provided the highest level of context for the records. This belief also guided his insistence on the need for a national Jewish archive, rather

18 Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23). 19 Saul Hayes to Victor Sefton, December 9th, 1975 (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 20 Saul Hayes to Herbert Rosenfeld, August 14th, 1979 (LAC, JP Fonds, MG31, F13, 10, 23). 21 As specifically admitted by Dominion Archivist W. Smith in his letter to Hayes, May 24th, 1978 (ADCJA, DA3, 1).

264 than just a network of regional ones. Only a national-focused archive could provide historians and community members a broad enough context and “a constant reminder to [Canadian Jewry’s] provenance, valid existence and profound roots in this country”.22

In Winnipeg, Abe Arnold shared Hayes and Rome’s ideas regarding the importance of the archival endeavour for the promotion of secular interpretations of Canadian Jewish historical experiences. In a published review dedicated to the story of the JHSWC’s consolidation and growth, Arnold pointed to the creation of the Oneg Shabbat archive at Warsaw ghetto’s during the terrible days of World War Two, as one of the inspirations to the JHSWC’s initiative.23 But the story of the ghetto archive served, Arnold claimed, as more than just inspiration. The desire to document and preserve personal and collective experiences, he argued, marked a common, binding theme of Jewish cultures throughout history. Canadian Jews, by pursuing archival work, fulfilled a deeply entrenched cultural tradition that marked their cultural maturity and commitment, not just to their origins, but also to a present sense of self-worth and belonging, and to the faith that future Jewish generations would, and could, find value in the contemporary experiences of their ancestors.

Where Arnold differed from Rome, Hayes, and Speisman was with regards to the question of the need for direct ownership over the records. Access to, and usage of, the records were, for Arnold, on a much higher priority than direct ownership. Arnold believed that Canadian Jewry needed to develop a working model that was more attuned to the local context in which its members lived and operated and so, developed a much more pragmatic, both practical and theoretical, approach to the question of archival ownership. Arnold knew that the monetary and professional constraints of the substantially smaller Winnipeg Jewish community would not allow it to sustain – at least not during the initial period – a functional archival repository. Coupled with the fact that the creative energy of other activists in Winnipeg was turned towards other kinds of public memory initiatives, Arnold decided that to establish cooperative relationships with the formal

22 Saul Hayes to Alan Rose, November 6th, 1979 (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 23 Arnold, “The Birth and Development”, Pp. 1-2.

265 archival agencies was the best way through which to answer the archival needs of his local community.

Nevertheless, Arnold’s decision to cooperate with the formal archives was the result of more than just practical, strategic considerations. Nor was his openness to the idea of government ownership over Jewish records just the outcome of his acknowledgment of their superior professional and financial capabilities. Rather, Arnold believed that without the input of the formal archives, as well as the wide public access to the records that they were able to offer, no real knowledge about Canadian Jewish history could be promoted. Only outside of the confines of a Jewish repository could Canadian Jewish records receive the broader historiographical treatment that they deserved, one that would help make Canadian Jewish history – and its commitment to social justice and equality in Canada – an intimate part of Canadian history and hopefully inspire other, newer immigrant communities who arrive to Canada in search of peace, stability and freedom. Furthermore, the unique synergy that Arnold recognized in the encounter between Jews and the spirit of the Canadian West, could only be recognized and appreciated, he believed, if Jewish records were made available, through PAC, to researchers from across the country. That was, he believed, the best way through which to “help to correct certain stereotyped impressions about Jewish immigrants” which “for many years, influenced otherwise competent historians”.24 Rome’s and Speisman’s struggles with the governmental archival agencies and their efforts to position the CJA and the OJA as the only legitimate places for Jewish records, were, according to Arnold, both futile and counterproductive, as well as utterly out of tune with the historical reality that Jews were faced with in Canada. Such an approach, he warned, would only serve to marginalize and distort the roles that Jews played in and for Canadian society throughout history.

Also Arnold then, was a believer in the inherent agency of the archive, even if he applied this belief towards a different solution than his fellow activists. In a telling example, Arnold, when asked to define what were archival collections, answered that they were “original records and

24 Arnold, “The Birth and Development”, P. 3.

266 documents relating to the history of a community, country, or people…involve[ing] a collection of various kinds of records, their orderly process of classifying and preserving and making them available for research”.25 Although close to mainstream definitions, Arnold attributed the historical value and provenance of the archival record to the identity of the group that created them, rather than emphasized the uniqueness of the records, or their relation to a specific creator. This incidental assumption in Arnold’s definition, the same assumption that was shared by Speisman, Rome and Hayes, perceived the intervention of the archival mechanism as essential for determining the value that would be assigned to the archival record by its users. All four therefore shared the belief that the value of records as historical resources was derived from their placement within a Jewish collection, and that it was this act that assigned them with a specific context – one that made their original organizational provenance secondary for the purposes of collectors and users alike.

From a comparative perspective, we can note that although Speisman, Rome, Hayes and Arnold offered three different models through which to conduct the community’s archival endeavour, they all shared the core belief that archival work was not an isolated, self-sufficing task, but rather, a deliberate effort to encourage and direct future historiographical explorations regarding Canadian Jewry. Arnold’s declaration that “everyone who undertakes historical writing also becomes a preserver of history”, and that archivists “play a less public but vitally important role in gathering the source materials on which future historians come to rely” can summarise their shared belief regarding the relationship between the archival and historiographical domains. Of course, the lack of contemporary academic interest in Canadian Jewish history meant that the roles of historian and archivist were many times performed by the same person.26 The archival repository was therefore understood and portrayed by all four not just as a necessary basis for historiographical products, but also as a guide and a mentor for the entire historiographical

25 Abe Arnold, “Draft Memorandum on the roles of a national Jewish Historical Society”, (ADCJA, DA3, 1). 26 Abe Arnold, “The Sources of Canadian Jewish history”, P. 2, (Manuscript version, AM, AA fonds, P5100); Abe Arnold, “Preserving the history of the Jewish community, part I”, P. 5, (AM, AA fonds, P7263). Arnold directly referred to Martin Wolff, Louis Rosenberg and H.M. Caiserman. All three were members of the CJC’s archives committee as well as published monographs on Canadian Jewish history.

267 process – already a very different perception from the traditional metaphor, still dominant during those days, of the archivists role as that of “hewers of wood and drawers of water”.27

It was this integrative perception of the role of the archivist with that of the historian that gave birth to the two unique assumptions that were described above. The assumption of joint ownership grew out of the need to respond to a practical challenge – the deposit of Jewish records in public archival repositories. It was not by chance that it was developed by Rome and Speisman, both of whom maintained a strong sense of the independence and separateness of Jewish identity and community life and opposed, as a matter of principle, the notion of Jewish records making their way outside of the community. As a result, both men developed and advocated the idea that the organized Jewish community maintained an ownership stake in Jewish records, a stake that allowed it, through its representative bodies, to intervene with any decisions regarding the archival deposit or these records. This right was explained as a result of the moral commitment between community members, not just in the present, but also, given the unique nature of the archival endeavour, towards future generations of community members. It is also noteworthy that besides sharing this general distrust of all non-Jewish archives, both men arrived at this same conclusion from a different biographical and ideological starting point. Rome’s sense of community responsibility solidified within the circles of Yiddish culture and labour Zionism which helped him perceive Jewish identity as an independent national entity that required its own research and publication infrastructures as part of its accountability to the broader circles of world Jewish history. Speisman, an orthodox Jew, reached the same conclusion from a different direction – one that regarded the independence of a Jewish archival infrastructure as a mean of protection against the cycles of crisis, violence, and anti-Semitism that plagued Jewish history, as well as a weapon in the constant struggle against assimilatory powers.

Also the second assumption, that of the inherent agency and contextual power of the archival repository, was a result of the logic of conducting archival work under the guiding principle of an

27 See Cook, “The Archive(s) is a Foreign Country”, P. 609; Millar, “Discharging our Debt”, P. 106.

268 identity framework. The existence of a Jewish repository (or in Arnold’s case, collection) and the desire and motivation to expand it enabled an option to assign a pragmatic context to records, regardless of their original creator. All four shared the notion that the fact that these records arrived at a Jewish archive was what provided them with their highest level of context and determined their new provenance – just as, if one expands this notion to Rome’s and Speisman’s historiography – individual Jews gained their sense of historical purpose from their belonging to the organized Jewish community. Provenance was not determined by the creator of the record but by the institution that received it, and if the entire archival endeavour was about “organization built around context”,28 then according to these four individuals, it was the receiving repository, and not the creator of the record, that determined this context. This assumption was another fundamental departure from the traditional perspectives of archival theory and, obviously, carried with it some far-reaching implications. An individual record from another collection could be integrated into the ‘Jewish collection’ regardless of its relationship with the other records and a passing remark on Jews in an obscure personal letter in a correspondence between two non-Jews, might be considered as a Jewish record – simply because it could help shed light on Canadian Jewish experiences. Records were considered as Jewish records if they were placed, either deliberately or by chance, within a Jewish archive and the same record, if placed in another repository, would lose its context as a Jewish record which supports Jewish history.

Although these assumptions were not always developed and articulated as clear arguments, they certainly manifested themselves in the archival mentalities that guided the Canadian Jewish archival programs. The encounter between these views and the commitment displayed by Harney, Neutel and the other archival practitioners who took part in the efforts to collect ethnic materials from within the formal archives, helped surface some of the inherent differences between identity-related archival work and contemporary mainstream conceptualizations of how should archival tasks be conducted. It took a while for these ideas to be acknowledged by the many sceptics within the archival professional milieu, and the process obviously required the

28 Wurl, “Ethnicity as Provenance”, P. 69.

269 mediation and further contemplations of archival professionals in order to be better articulated and have an effect, but the challenge posed by these ideas helped to deliver the point that there were other methods, and motivations, to perform archival work. Thus, the first recommendation of the influential 1980 Wilson report on Canadian archives asked for “all public archives [to] re- evaluate their overall programs to achieve an appropriate balance between their traditional institutional programs…and leadership to a cooperative system of archives in their region”.29 Speisman victorious response to this recommendation noted that “the legitimacy and territoriality of local and non-government institutions [is now] recognized”.30 Later on, initiatives such as the 1983 ethnic archives workshop that brought together historians and archivists from both formal and non-formal, ethnic repositories, also helped to disseminate the need for open- mindedness and inclusion of other perspectives within the archival domain.31 The ways in which these assumptions made their way into archival thought and were fused together with postmodernist ideas as well as with new understandings that arose from the introduction of machine-readable, electronic, and digital records is a topic for another study, but they were most clearly echoed in the new complexities that were offered to the core archival concept of provenance. Concepts such as ‘societal provenance’ or ‘community of records’ both attested to the same inherent sense of relationship and agency that the 1970’s Canadian Jewish activists insisted on when they struggled to build their own independent archival infrastructure.32

Turning back to Cook’s chronological framework regarding the intellectual paradigm shift within the archival profession, it seems that the model could be further fine-tuned by suggesting that the effects of community archiving began to be noticeable already during the 1970’s and that early traces of this shift were found in the introduction of Canadian multicultural policies into the archival domain. These policies, by offering both concrete monetary support and legitimization

29 “The Wilson Report”, Archivaria, 11, (1981), P. 12. 30 Speisman, “Individual Responses to the Wilson Report”, P. 30. 31 “Ethnic Archives Workshop report”, (ADCJA, DA11, A, 2). 32 Jeannette Bastian, “Documenting Communities through the Lens of Collective Memory”, in Identity Palimpsests, Pp. 21-23; Tom Nesmith, “Archival Studies in English Speaking Canada and the North American Rediscovery of provenance”, in Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, ed. Tom Nesmith, Pp. 5-7, (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993).

270 of a more inclusive ethos, provided a platform for an encounter between formal archival thought and newer and different ideas and motivations regarding archival practices. Eventually, the gate was opened for other forms of archival thought and practice to be introduced into the archival profession as part of its readjustment to new social and cultural realities and its ongoing, centuries-old commitment to accurately represent the societies in which it operates.

The discussion can now turn to the concept of Jewish archives and to the ability to apply it as a discernible theoretical concept within other research venues. Overall it seems clear that the broader context of the ethnic, immigrant experience was the most dominant framework in shaping the processes behind the creation and growth of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival infrastructure. The commitment to the historiographical product and the concern for the preservation of Jewish identity frameworks were the results of the status of a cultural minority living in a democratic society and interacting within Canadian-specific circumstances and as such, could have been shared by many other ethnic groups. It can also be claimed that these experiences were the main drivers for the unique assumptions that guided the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour: the community stake in the ownership of records and the immanent effect of the archival repository on the historiographical product. Overall, the existence of an independent repository was regarded mainly as providing community members a symbolic sense of control over their shared past and so, as a reassurance for the community’s existence as a separate, discernable historical entity. It therefore seems that the most suitable framework through which to explore these repositories is as ethnic archives that gained their unique character and purpose from the encounter of Jews with the Canadian landscape and from the inevitable processes of integration and acculturation into a larger host culture.

Nevertheless, one could still recognize within the Canadian Jewish archival landscape some elements that could be regarded as uniquely Jewish, be it the hypersensitivity to issues of security or the sense of direction and purpose that grew from an attachment to broader, global frameworks of Jewish history. These two elements can also help explain the considerably deeper commitment of the Jewish group, in comparison to other ethnicities, to the project of

271 establishing independent archival repositories. However, the most distinctive trait in these archival endeavours, and the one that marks their merit within any potential comparative analytical frameworks, is found in the active debate that evolved over the preferred shape of the community’s archival landscape, a debate that also carries intrinsic value. Thus, the challenge of pointing to any clearly identifiable element as an ongoing marker through which to define Jewish identity can also be applied to the concept of Jewish archive. The many conflicting ideas and sensitivities over Jewish continuity, belonging, and shared purpose that powered the debates over Jewish archives - were all reflections of broader deliberations that continuously occupied modern Jewish public discourse. The Jewish archival landscape, through its ability to stimulate and attract more general debates concerning Jewish identity and memory, therefore offers an excellent starting point through which to offer comparative studies into modern intellectual and social Jewish histories.

Chapter 9: Conclusion

The desire, and obligation, to preserve documentary evidence of social transactions is shared by members of every literate society. Nevertheless, such acts can still be driven by different intentions: as a tool through which to enhance and supplement personal memory; as evidence in support of legal accountability or ownership rights; or as necessary building blocks for the understanding and interpreting of past events in support of historiographical enquires. When conducted predominantly in the service of history and memory, several, both practical and intellectual, dilemmas concerning the best ways in which to perform the archival task present themselves, a result of the need to represent the present, once it becomes the past, for the still unforeseen requirements of the future. Therefore, besides serving a practical necessity, archival endeavours tend to encompass a deep sense of cultural responsibility and symbolic significance.

As modern archival practices grew hand in hand with the development of history as a scientific endeavour, the history of modern archives can be explored as an effort to rise to the challenge of total objectivity. Apart from the need to adhere to the specific legal requirements posed by the environments in which they operated, archivists attention was turned to finding principles and methods through which to reduce to a minimum the intervention with the records that were entrusted to them before they could be presented to historians.1 Fulfilling this goal of fighting their own, unavoidable, agency thus became a core professional ethos for archivists. Nevertheless, if records are evidence of social transactions, and if archival repositories are the places in which these records are meant to be maintained, then it is impossible to completely separate the two. Archival repositories are created by people, aim to serve other people, and so, are an integral part of any society in which they operate. During the last few decades, these general observations concerning the reciprocal relationship between archives and the broader social realities around them have been accommodated into archival theory and made their way into its mainstream. One of the outcomes of this trend was increased scholarly focus on instances

1 Cook, Kasper Eskildsen, “Inventing the Archive: Testimony and Virtue in Modern Historiography”, History of the Human Sciences. 26, 4, (2013), Pp. 10-14.

272 273 in which archival work is conducted within a voluntary, non-formal setting, where this relationship is most straightforwardly displayed. Within such an environment, debates and decisions on what to collect and how to arrange and describe archival materials are usually supplemented by even more fundamental questions such as if and why to establish a repository and what should be the limits of its mandate and aspirations. Such issues take an even more central stage during the formative periods in the lives of such archives, when their inherent proactiveness, together with the personal preferences and cultural differences between those who engage in these endeavours, are much more discernible.

Based on these assumptions, this study explored a specific case study of how an ethno-cultural minority group, operating within a liberal-democratic social and political environment during a particular period – Jews in Canada during the nineteen seventies - formed its own independent archival mechanisms and how these programs both reflected and were affected by the surrounding environment. The dissertation analysed both the motivations behind these endeavours, as well as the reasons why they took different shapes across the various centres of Canadian Jewish habitat. The research pointed to the ways in which the inherent institutional agencies of these archival repositories were expressed, demonstrated how deeply entrenched was the idea of ownership of archival materials as a marker of the group’s historical presence, and how closely correlated it was perceived to be with the historiographical output that it aimed to encourage.

Making connections between broad ideological worldviews and the decisions that shaped a community’s archival infrastructure was not always an easy or straightforward task. Funding constraints, short-term convenience, availability of storage space, personal relationships and sometimes mere chance could also be instrumental in determining the outcomes of archival efforts – just as similar elements need to be considered when exploring any other field of social activity. Still, engaging with the primary sources and familiarising oneself with the individuals who led these endeavours, it became clear that their different approaches and understandings of the essence of Jewish identity and history had a profound effect on the eventual structure of the

274 community’s archival landscape. This insight led to the decision to divide the analysis in accordance with the three main centres of Canadian Jewry and to inspect each centre as a separate unit. As noted, the encounter between broader contemporary intellectual currents, public policies, inner-community demographical, generational, and organisational circumstances, and the different worldviews and belief systems of the individuals who took upon themselves to lead the community’s archival programs shaped the unique archival landscape in each city.

Overall, looking at the process of growth and consolidation of the Canadian Jewish community’s archival infrastructure as a historical process reveals that just as Canadian Jewry was shaped as a result of processes of immigration, settlement, acculturation, and encounter with local elements, so was its archival infrastructure. It took a while for deeply embedded sensitivities concerning security and Jewish distinctiveness to be adjusted to the new Canadian realities, but once they did – the road to the growth and professionalization of the community’s archival programs, was finally opened. Nevertheless, the older, deeply entrenched ideas were never entirely abandoned, and furthermore, they even served to affect, in the long-term, professional approaches towards archival work and their sensitivities to the legitimacy of independent, non- formal community archiving efforts. Thus, two of the main assumptions that guided the Canadian Jewish archival endeavour during the period, both a direct result of the desire to conduct archival work based on the notion of identity, helped stimulate the profound change that was taking place within the archival profession and assisted archivists to better understand and appreciate some of the core, perhaps unsolvable, complexities of their profession.

9.2 Possible Directions for Future Research

The insights offered by this dissertation could prove to be a valuable starting point for some future directions of scholarly research. Firstly, the dissertation provides some worthy methodological insights that could be used by any future works that would aim to explore the

275 histories of archival endeavors – or other memory institutions - as part of social histories: the need to focus on the early days and formative periods of archival programs; the need to identify and familiarize oneself with the biographies and ideological commitments of the individuals who were the driving forces behind these endeavours; and the need of the researcher to turn their gaze also outside of the repository’s walls in order to appreciate the input of non-archivists stakeholders and decision-makers in the meta-decisions and debates that play a fundamental part in shaping archival histories.

Such potential researches could be performed either as explorations of stand-alone case studies or by employing a comparative framework. Comparisons could be conducted between ethnic communities across Canada, North America or any other immigration-admitting society, while of course accounting for both the host country’s legal and socio-political circumstances and the unique immigration and settlement patterns of the community in question. Positioning the efforts to create archival repositories as a response to the gradual waning of distinct ethno- cultural characteristics and reduced levels of potential members identification with the group, could serve to understand better the dialectical nature of the efforts to sustain a diasporic identity framework, as well as provide insights on inter-generational differences within immigrant communities. The archival endeavour thus marks an essential stage in the processes of adjustment of ethnic groups into host societies and on the negotiations between memory and politics. The Canadian Jewish case study could serve as a benchmark within such a comparative framework, both because of Canadian multicultural policies that accelerated the above- mentioned processes, as well as because Canada was home to several other significant communities and at least some of them, such as the Ukrainian or the Finn communities, were clearly invested in similar archival debates.2

2 For example: memo by R.S. Gordon re “Meeting of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Winnipeg, October 1971”, October 21st, 1971 (LAC, Ethnic Archives, 1970-1977, RG37-B, 487, 9-0-6). The document includes also a report titled “Supplementary report – the Icelandic Community”. See also W. Neutel to W. Smith and H. Taylor, “Meeting with delegation from the Ukrainian Canadian Committee”, March 2th, 1972 (LAC, Ethnic Archives – Establishment, 1971- 1972, RG37-B, 455).

276

Another source of comparisons could be made between Canadian Jewry and other Jewish communities across the world. As noted in the conceptual background chapter, scholarly attention had indeed turned into that direction, and several efforts had been made to explore archival-related topics within the context of modern Jewish communities, even if tending to focus on Eastern European communities during the pre-war and Holocaust periods. Nevertheless, comparing the findings of this dissertation with a recent exploration of the archival landscape that was developed by American Jewry provides some worthy insights.3 The different roles played by the governmental archival agencies in Canada and the US; the CJC’s position as an agent of centralization and consolidation – a role that did not exist in American Jewry; and the different roles – and time of awakening - of academia and scholarly interest as stimulatory agents within the archival domain, were all markers of some of the broader differences between these two Jewries.

As archival endeavours can also be explored as symbolic acts, research into the archival domain can also be contextualized as part of the much more extensive literature on modern Jewish collective memory forms. Efforts to analyse collective memory and its manifestations in Jewish cultures tended to focus on Jewish historiographical output and on traditional liturgical and religious practices. But, as shown in this study, the archival endeavour marks a concrete and distinguishable memory-related act that clearly cuts through two underlying themes in modern Jewish history. Firstly, the tension between a sense of belonging to a specific, local geographic, linguistic, and cultural environment and the inherent sense of Jewish independence and separate destiny. Secondly, the archival endeavour points to the effort to offer a secular, concrete, explanation to the Jewish experience in history. Comparing Jewish archival landscapes across different places and times could therefore broaden the intellectual history of modern Jewish culture, reintroduce several behind-the-scenes figures that helped shape modern Jewish identity and point to the inherent relations between history and memory through the framework of a particular activity. Such studies would also help strengthen the core assumption of this

3 Lustig, “Building a Home”.

277 dissertation concerning the worth of archives not just as sources for historical analysis but also as valuable objects for such enquiries.

Today, academic courses on Canadian Jewish history are offered by several Universities across Canada and the Canadian Jewish history bookshelf features an impressive, and growing, number of publications. There seems to be no doubt that these developments are indebted to the archival initiatives that were described by this study, and that began to take form during the previous generation. As governmental interest, and supporting budgets, in the preservation of ethnic archival materials significantly dwindled as years went by, it seems clear that Hayes, Rome, Speisman, and Arnold’s drive and insistence on maintaining an independent archival infrastructure proved to be a worthwhile cause. However, when one turns from the realm of Canadian Jewish historiography towards broader questions of Jewish identity, the archival role is, of course, much harder to pinpoint and analyze. After all, it seems safe to claim that the foundations of Canadian Jewish culture and the sense of distinct identity grow from identification and care towards the State of Israel, the European Holocaust, and lately, from increased worry of new forms of anti-Semitism, more than they own to knowledge of local community history. Nevertheless, and as another lesson from the findings provided by this study, any judgments of worth and value of archives, as already noted back in the nineteen-seventies, could never be final - archives aim at posterity and as such, their value, and roles, will keep on changing with each new generation to come.

List of Abbreviations:

ADCJA – Alex Dworkin Canadian Jewish Archives AJA – American Jewish Archives AJHS – American Jewish Historical Society AM – Archives of Manitoba ANQ - Archives nationales du Quebec CJA – Canadian Jewish Archives CJHS – Canadian Jewish Historical Society CJC – Canadian Jewish Congress CJCCR – Canadian Jewish Congress Central Region IOI – Intra Office Information JCA - Jewish Colonialization Association JHCWC - Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada JHSWC – Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada JIAS - Jewish Immigrant Aid Service JPL – Jewish Public Library (of Montreal) LAC – Library Archives Canada MHSO – Multicultural History Society of Ontario NEA - National Ethnic Archives program OJA – Ontario Jewish Archives OTJA – Ottawa Jewish Archives PAC – Public Archives Canada TJC – Toronto Jewish Congress TJHS – Toronto Jewish Historical Society UJWF – United Jewish Welfare Fund

278 279

Bibliography:

bibliography and citations are based on the Chicago Notes and Bibliography system.

Primary resources:

ADCJA: DA series (CJC National Office records); IOI collection; Abraham Arnold personal collection; ZA series (chronologically filed general CJC materials); ZB series (general documentation and personalia).

AM: Abraham Arnold Fonds.

JHCWC: Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada collection (JHSWC); Nathan Arkin collection (NA).

JPL: Jewish Public Library Historical Collection, Archives Committee files, Fonds 1000A

LAC: Gunther Plaut Fonds (GP); Jonathan Plaut Fonds (JP); Louis Rosenberg Fonds (LR); Stephen Barber Fonds; JHSWC collection (microfilm).

MHSO: Multicultural History Society of Ontario Organizational Files; researchers – Corinne Nan Eiger folder; Suzanne Hunter folder.

OJA: Sol Edell fonds (SE); Victor Sefton fonds (VS); Ben Kayfetz fonds; OJA Sous-fonds.

OTJA: Ottawa Jewish Historical Society collection.

Secondary Sources:

Abella, Irving. “Canadian Jewish Congress”. In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 2nd edition, Volume 4, Pp. 421-423. Detroit: Reference USA, Keter Publishing House, 2007.

“An Interview with Saul Hayes”. Viewpoints, 9, 4, (1976), Pp. 5-25.

Appudray, Arjun. “Archive and Aspiration”. In Information is Alive, Art and Theory on Archiving and Retrieving Data, edited by Joke Brouwer and Arjen Mulder, Pp. 14-25. Rotterdam: V2_Publishing/NAI Publishers, 2003.

Appel, John, J. Immigrant historical societies in the United States, 1880-1950. New York: Arno Press, 1980.

280

Arnold, Abraham. “The New Jerusalem: Jewish Pioneers on the Prairies”. The Beaver, July 1994, Pp. 37-42.

Arnold, Abraham. “Canada’s Jewish Magna Carta”. In Jewish Life and Times: A Collection of Essays and Photographs in Celebration of JHSWC 20th Anniversary Year, Pp. 69-78. Winnipeg: Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, 1988.

Arnold, Abraham. “The Mystique of Western Judaism”. In The Canadian Jewish Mosaic, edited by Morton Weinfeld, Irwin Cotler and William Shaffir, Pp. 259-272. Rexdale, ON: J. Wiley & Sons Canada, 1981.

Arnold, Abraham. “Ezekiel Hart and the Oath Problem in the Assembly of Lower Canada”. Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 3, 1, (1979), Pp. 10-26.

Arnold, Abraham. “The Birth and Development of a Western Jewish Archives Program”. The Canadian Archivist, 2, 3, (1972), Pp. 1-6.

Arnold, Abraham. “The sources of Canadian Jewish history”. Viewpoints, 5, 3, (1970), Pp. 16-23.

Arnold, Abraham. “The Contribution of the Jews to the Opening and Development of the West”. MHS Transactions, 3, 25, (1968-69), Pp. 1 – 14.

Arnold, Abraham. “Donald Creighton on Canadian History”. Viewpoints, 3, 3, (1968), Pp. 3-12.

Avery, Donald. “The Jews of Toronto by Stephen A. Speisman (Review)”. The Canadian Historical Review, 62, 2, (1981), Pp. 213-214.

Barriault, Marcel. "Archiving the Queer and Queering the Archives: A Case Study of the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (CLGA)". In Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, edited by Jeannette Bastian and Alexander Ben, Pp. 97-108. London: Facet, 2010.

Bastian, Jeannette. “Documenting Communities through the Lens of Collective Memory”. In Identity Palimpsests: Archiving Ethnicity in the US and Canada, edited by Dominique Daniel and Amalia S. Levi, Pp. 13-31. Sacramento, CA: Litwin Books, 2014.

Bastian, Jeannette, and Alexander, Ben, eds. Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory. London: Facet, 2009.

Bastian, Jeannette. Owning Memory: How a Caribbean Community Lost Its Archives and Found Its History. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2003.

Bein, Alexander. “Archives”. In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, Pp. 402-418. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, Keter Publishing House, 2007.

Belkin Simon. Through narrow Gates: A Review of Jewish Immigration, Colonization and Immigrant aid work in Canada, 1840-1940. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Colonization Association, 1966.

281

Berger, Pearl. “Jewish Libraries and Archives in America”. Judaica Librarianship, 12, (2006), Pp. 17-30.

Beyea, Marion. “Review of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario, Annual Report, 1976/77”. Arcihvaria, 5, (1977-78), Pp. 218-219.

Bialystok, Frank. Delayed Impact: The Holocaust and the Canadian Jewish Community. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

Bialystok, Frank. “Post-War Canadian Jewry”. In Canada’s Jews In Time, Space and Spirit, edited by Ira Robinson, Pp. 93-119. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013.

Black, Alistair. A New History of the English Public Library: Social and Intellectual Contexts, 1850- 1914. London, New York: Leicester University Press, 1996.

Blair, Ann, and Milligan, Jenifer. “Introduction”. Archival Science, 7,4, (2007), Pp. 289-296.

Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. Translated by Peter Putnam. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992.

Brown, John and Duguid, Paul. The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.

Brown, Michael. “From Bi-Nationalism to Multiculturalism to the Open Society, The Impact on Canadian Jews”. In The Jewish Diaspora as a Paradigm: Politics, Religion and Belonging, edited by Nergis Canefe, Pp. 300-320. Istanbul: Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık Ticaret, 2014.

Brown, Michael. “Canadian Jews and Multiculturalism: Myths and Realities”. Jewish Political Studies Review, 19, 3-4, (2007), Pp. 57-75.

Burke, Peter. “Commentary”. Archival Science, 7, 4, (2007), Pp. 391-397.

Burke, Peter. A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge, Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000.

Burnet, Jean. “Taking into Account: The Other Ethnic Groups and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism”. In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, edited by James S. Frideres, Pp. 9-17. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

Canadian Archives: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives. Ottawa: The Council, 1980.

Canadian Jewish Archives, The First Jewish Congregation in Canada. 1, 1. Montreal: National Archive and Library and Bureau of Social and Economic Research, Canadian Jewish Congress, August 1955.

282

Canadian Jewish Archives, Early Documents on the Canadian Jewish Congress 1914-1921. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Saul Hayes. New Series, 1. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress. 1974.

Canadian Jewish Archives, Inventory of Documents on the Jewish School Question 1903-1932. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Saul Hayes. New Series, 2. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1975.

Canadian Jewish Archives, On the Jewish School Question 1903-1932. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Saul Hayes. New Series, 3. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1975.

Canadian Jewish Archives, Canadian Jews – Early in the Century. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Saul Hayes. New Series, 4. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1975.

Canadian Jewish Archives, Our Archival Record of 1933, Hitler’s Year. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Victor Sefton. New Series, 5. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1976.

Canadian Jewish Archives, The Congress Archival Record of 1934. Listed by David Rome with a Forward by Victor Sefton. New Series, 6. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1976.

Canadian Jewish Archives, Jewish Archival Record of 1935. Listed by David Rome with Preface by Victor Sefton. New Series, 7. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1976.

Canadian Jewish Archives, On Our Forerunners – At Work. Complied by David Rome, Introduction by Saul Hayes. New Series, 9. Montreal: National Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1978.

“Canadian Jewish Heritage Material Repositories / Liste de référence de tous les dépôts du patrimoine juif du Canada”. Canadian Jewish Studies, 26, (2018), Pp. 228-229.

Careless, J.M.S. “The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937, Stephen A. Speisman (Review)”. Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 4, 1, (1980), Pp. 95-98.

Caswell, Michelle. “Toward a Survivor-Centered Approach to Records Documenting Human Rights Abuse: Lessons from Community Archives”. Archival Science, 14, 3-4, (2014), Pp. 307-322.

Caya, Marcel, Beyea Marion, and Hanson, Stan. Canadian archives in 1992. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Archives, 1992.

Chiel, Arthur. The Jews in Manitoba: A Social History. Toronto: University of Toronto press. 1961.

Chiel, Arthur. Jewish Experiences in Early Manitoba. Winnipeg: Manitoba Jewish Publications, 1955.

283

Commemorative Report on the National Bicentenary of Canadian Jewry. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress. 1960.

“Conversation with Cyril E. Leonoff and Irene Dodek”. The Scribe, 31, (2011), Pp. 129 – 148.

Cook, Terry. “The Archive(s) is a Foreign Country: Historians, Archivists, and the Changing Archival Landscape”. The American Archivist, 74, 2, (2011), Pp. 600-632.

Cook, Terry. “Evidence, Memory, Identity and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms”. Archival Science, 13, 2-3, (2013), Pp. 95-120.

Copland, Andrea J. “Community Archives”. Annual Review of Cultural Heritage Informatics, edited by Samantha Hastings, (2014), Pp. 85-97.

Cortada, James. “Shaping Information History as an Intellectual Discipline”. Information & Culture: A Journal of History, 47, 2, (2012), Pp. 119-144.

Cox, Richard. “On the Value of Archival History in the United States”. Libraries & Culture, 23, 2, (1988), Pp. 135-151.

Cox, Richard. “The Failure or Future of American Archival History: A Somewhat Unorthodox View”. Libraries & Culture, 35, 1, (2000), Pp. 141-154.

Cox, Richard. “Making the Records Speak: Archival Appraisal, Memory, Preservation, and Collecting”. The American Archivist, 64, 2, (2001), Pp. 394-404.

Craven, Louise. “From the Archivist’s Cardigan to the Very Dead Sheep: What are Archives? What are Archivists? What do They Do?”. In What are Archives? Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives: A reader, edited by Louise Craven, Pp. 7-30. London: Routledge, 2008.

Cunningham, Adrian. “Archival Institutions”, In Archives: Recordkeeping in Society, Edited by Sue McKemmish, Michael Piggott, Barbara Reed and Frank Upward, Pp. 21-50. Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, 2005.

Daniel, Dominique. “Shaping Immigrant and Ethnic Heritage in North America: Ethnic Organizations and the Documentary Heritage”. IdeAs, 6, (2015), https://journals.openedition.org/ideas/1089.

Daniel, Dominique. “Archival Representations of Immigration and Ethnicity in North American History: From the Ethnicization of Archives to the Archivization of Ethnicity”. Archival Science, 14, 2, (2014), Pp. 169-203.

Daniel, Dominique, and Levi, Amalia S. “From Containing to Shaping to Performing Ethnicity in Archives”. In Identity Palimpsests: Archiving Ethnicity in the US and Canada, edited by Dominique Daniel and Amalia S. Levi, Pp. 1-11. Sacramento, CA: Litwin Books, 2014.

Daniel, Dominique. ”The Politics of Ethnic Heritage Preservation in Canada: The Case of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”. Information & Culture, 47,2, (2012), Pp. 206-232.

284

Daniel, Dominque. “Documenting the Immigrant and Ethnic Experience in America”. The American Archivist, 73, 1, (2010), Pp. 82-104.

Dari, Yaacov. The Canadian Jewish Yearbook, 5720-1960. Montreal: The Zionist-Revisionist Organization of Canada, 1960.

Davies, Moshe. “Jewish Centres in the American Continent: Similarities and Differences”. In Israel’s House in America, Pp. 241-275. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1970. [In Hebrew].

Delsalle, Paul. A History of Archival Practice. Translated and revised by Margaret Procter. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2017.

Derrida, Jacques. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Translated by Eric Prenowitz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Diner, Hasia, “American Jewish History”. In The Oxford handbook of Jewish Studies, edited by Martin Goodman. Oxford University Press, Print Publication Date: December 2004; Online Publication Date: September 2009. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199280322.013.0019.

Diner, Hasia. “The Study of American Jewish History: In the Academy, in the Community”. Polish American Studies, 65, 1, (2008), Pp. 41-55.

Durnati, Luciana. “The Odyssey of Record Managers”. In Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, edited by Tom Nesmith, Pp. 29-60. Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993.

Elazar, Daniel, and Waller, Harold. Maintaining Consensus: The Canadian Jewish Polity in the Postwar World. Lanham, MD: The Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs & University Press of America, 1990.

Erde, John. “Constructing Archives of the Occupy Movement”. Archives and Records: The Journal of the Archives and Records Association, 35, 2, (2014), Pp. 77 – 92.

Eskildsen, Kasper, R. “Inventing the Archive: Testimony and Virtue in Modern Historiography”. History of the Human Sciences. 26, 4, (2013), Pp. 8 – 26.

Flinn, Andrew. “The Impact of Independent and Community Archives on Professional Archival Thinking and Practice”. In The Future of Archives and Record-keeping: A reader, edited by Jennie Hill, Pp. 145-169. London: Facet, 2011.

Flinn, Andrew, Stevens ,Mary, and Shepherd, Elizabeth. “Whose Memories, Whose Archives? Independent Community Archives, Autonomy and the Mainstream”. Archival Science, 9, 1, (2009), Pp. 71 – 86.

Flinn, Andrew. “Community Histories, Community Archives: Some Opportunities and Challenges”. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 28, 2, (2007), Pp. 151 – 176.

285

Flinn, Andrew, and Stevens, Mary. “It is noh mistri, we mekin histri': Telling Our Own Story: Independent and Community Archives in the UK, Challenging and Subverting the Mainstream”. In Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, Edited by Jeannette Bastian and Alexander Ben, Pp. 3-27. London: Facet, 2010.

Forte, Nic, and Scardellato, Gabriele. Guide to the Collections of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1992.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. Translated by. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972.

Friedrich, Markus. The Birth of the Archive: A History of Knowledge. Translated by John Noël Dillon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018.

Friedrich, Markus. “The Rise of Archival Consciousness in Provincial France: French Feudal records and Eighteenth Century Seigneurial Society”. Past and Present, supplement 11, (2016), Pp. 49-70.

Funkenstein, Amos. “Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness”. History and Memory, 1, 1, (1989), Pp. 5-26.

Gibbs, Rabia. “The Heart of the Matter: The Developmental History of African American Archives”. The American Archivist, 75, 1, (2012), Pp. 195-204.

Gilliand, Anne, and Flinn, Andrew. “Community Archives: What are we Really Talking About”, Keynote lecture: CIRN Prato 2013 community informatics conference. https://www.monash.edu/data/assets/pdf file/0007/920626/gilliland_flinn_keynote.pdf.

Gorman, Lyn. “Historical Investigation in Information Organizations”. In Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook, edited by G.E. Gorman, Peter Clayton with contributions from Sydney J. Shep and Adela Clayton, Pp. 162-173. London: Facet, 2005.

Gottesman Itzik Nakhman. Defining the Yiddish Nation: The Jewish Folklorists of Poland. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2003.

Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy, Hoogewoud, F.J., and Ketelaar, Eric. Returned from Russia: Nazi Archival Plunder in Western Europe and Recent Restitution Issues. Builth Wells, Great Britain: Institute of Art and Law, 2007.

Gubbay Helfer, Sharon. “Rome Among the Bishops: A Reflection on David Rome and his Contribution to Dialogue”, Concordia University Working Papers in Canadian Jewish Studies. Working Paper Number 1. December 13, 2012. https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/jewish-studies/docs/workingpapers/Workingpapers1GubbayHelfer.pdf.

Gurock, Jeffrey S. “Introduction”. American Jewish History, 81, 2, (1993/1994), Pp. 155-164.

286

Gutkin, Harry. “The Jewish Historical Society, 1968-1988: Twenty Years in Review”. Jewish Life and Times: A Collection of Essays and Photographs, Pp. 1-4. Winnipeg: Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, 1988.

Habermann, Abraham Meir. “Genizah”. In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 2nd Edition, Volume 7, P. 460. Detroit: Reference USA, Keter Publishing House, 2007.

Halilovich, Hariz. “Reclaiming Erased Lives: Archives, Records and Memories in Post-war Bosnia and the Bosnian Diaspora”. Archival Science, 14, 3, (2014), Pp. 231 – 247.

Hall, Stuart. “Constituting an Archive”. Third Text, 15, 54, (2001). Pp. 89-92.

Harney, Robert. “A History of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario”. Polyphony, 9, 1, (1987), Pp. 1-16.

Harney, Robert. "Ethnic Archival and Library Material in Canada: Problems of Bibliographic Control and Preservation". Ethnic Forum, 2,2, (1982), Pp. 3-30.

Harney, Robert. “Entwined Fortunes: Multiculturalism and Ethnic Studies in Canada”. Siirtolaisuus Migration, 3, (1984), Pp. 68-94.

Hayes, Saul. “The Canadian Jewish Congress”, In Canadian Jewish Anthology, edited by Chaim Spilberg and Yaacov Zipper, Pp. 15-24. Montreal: National Committee on Yiddish, Canadian Jewish Congress. 1982.

Hayes, Saul. “Multiculturalism as a state policy”. In Canadian Jewish Anthology, edited by Chaim Spilberg and Yaacov Zipper, Pp. 48-58. Montreal: National Committee on Yiddish, Canadian Jewish Congress. 1982.

Hayes, Saul. “Canadian Jewish Culture: Some Observations”. Queen’s Quarterly, 84, 1, (1977), Pp. 80-88.

Hayes, Saul. “Are Jews of Quebec an Endangered Species?”. Jewish Historical Society of Canada Journal, 1, 1, (1977), Pp. 24-34.

Hayes, Saul. “Jewish priorities and organizational structures”. Viewpoints, 8, 4, (1974), Pp. 23 – 28.

Hayes, Saul. Canadian Jewry in 1974, An Overview of an Active Jewish Community. Keynote address delivered at the 17th Plenary Assembly of the CJC. Toronto, June 16th, 1974. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress. 1974.

Hayes, Saul. “Bill 22 – Some Myths and Some Realities”, Congress Bulletin, December 1974, Pp. 1- 2.

Hayes, Saul. “The Jewish Community in a Changing Quebec”. Congress Bulletin, June 1973, Pp. 12- 13.

287

Hayes, Saul. “A View on Canadian Jewish History”. Viewpoints, 7, 3, (1973), Pp. 6-8.

Hayes, Saul. “The Changing Nature of the Jewish Community”. Viewpoints, 5, 3, (1970), Pp. 24-28.

Hayes, Saul. “Some Differences between Canadian and US Jewry”, Viewpoints, 1, 2, (1966), Pp. 3- 10.

Headrick, Daniel. When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700-1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Heon, Gilles. “The Archives Nationales du Quebec: Memory of a Nation”. Archivaria, 59, (2005), Pp. 69-81.

Highlights of Toronto's Jewish History. Toronto: Joint Committee on Centennial Celebration, Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Region, United Jewish Welfare Fund of Toronto, 1957.

Hoffman, Adina, and Cole, Peter. Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza. New York: Nextboot, Schocken, 2011.

Horowitz, Brian. “Building a Fragile Edifice: A History of Russian-Jewish Historical Institutions, 1860-1914”. In The Russian-Jewish Tradition: Intellectuals, Historians, Revolutionaries, Pp. 20-37. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2017.

Horsman, Peter, and Ketelaar, Eric. “Archival History”. In Encyclopedia of Archival Science, edited by Luciana Duranti and Patricia C. Franks, Pp. 53-58. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Jockush, Laura. Collect and Record: Jewish Holocaust Documentation in Early Postwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Jones, Faith. “Between Suspicion and Censure: Attitudes towards the Jewish Left in Postwar Vancouver”. Canadian Jewish Studies, 6, 1998, Pp. 1-25.

Kaplan, Elisabeth. “We are What we Collect, We Collect What we are: Archives and the Construction of Identity”. The American Archivist, 63, 1, (2000), Pp. 126-151.

Kayfetz, Ben. Toronto Jewry: An Historical Sketch. Toronto: Centennial Research Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Region, United Jewish Welfare Fund of Toronto, 1957.

Ketelaar, Eric. “A Living Archive, Shared by a Communities of Records”. In Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory, edited by Jeanette Bastian and Ben Alexander, Pp. 109-132. London: Facet, 2009.

King, Michelle. “Working with/ In the Archives”. In Research Methods for History, edited by Simon Gunn Lucy Faire, Pp. 13-29. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.

Kunitz, Cecile Esther. YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

288

Laine, Edward. “Archival resources Relating to Finnish Canadians”, Archivaria, 7, (1978), Pp. 110- 116.

Leff, Lisa. “Zosa Szajkowski, Historian and Thief of French Jewish Archives”. Archives Juives, 49, 1, (2016), Pp. 54 – 80.

Levine, Allan. Coming of Age: A History of the Jewish People of Manitoba. Winnipeg: Heartland Associates, 2009.

Lipinsky, Jack. Imposing Their Will: An Organizational History of Jewish Toronto, 1933-1948. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, Kingston, 2011.

Lustig, Jason. “Building a Home for the Past: Archives and the Geography of American Jewish History”. American Jewish History, 102, 3, (2018), Pp. 375 – 399.

Lustig, Jason. “Who are to be the Successors of European Jewry? The Restitution of German Jewish Communal and Cultural Property”. Journal of Contemporary History, 52, 3, (2017), Pp. 519- 545.

Macknight, Elizabeth. “Archives, Heritage and Communities”. Historical Reflections, 37, 2, (2011), Pp. 105 – 122.

MacNeil, Heather. Trusting Records: Legal, Historical and Diplomatic Perspectives. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer, 2000.

Jacob Rader Marcus, “The Program of the American Jewish Archives”. In The Dynamics of American Jewish History: Jacob Rader Marcus’s Essays on American Jewry, edited by Gary Phillip Zola, Pp. 108-115. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, Brandeis University Press, 2004.

Margolis, Rebecca. Jewish Roots, Canadian Soil: Yiddish Culture in Montreal, 1905-1945. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011.

Marrus, Michael. Mr. Sam: The Life and Times of Samuel Bronfman. Toronto: Viking. 1991.

Mayorek, Yoram. “The Fate of Jewish Archives During and after the Holocaust”, In Preserving Jewish Archives as Part of the Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the Conference on Judaica Archives in Europe, Potsdam, 1999, 11-13 July, edited by Jean-Claude Kuperminc and Rafaële Arditti, Pp. 33-38. Paris: Nadir de l'alliance israélite universelle, 2001.

McDowell, W, H. Historical Research: A Guide. London, New York: Longman, 2002.

Menkis, Richard. “Identities, Communities and the Infrastructures of History: Creating Canadian Jewish Archives in the 1930s and 1970s”. In History, Memory and Jewish Identities, edited by Ira Robinson, Naftali S. Cohn and Lorenzo DiTommaso, Pp. 233-256. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2015.

289

Menkis, Richard. “Jewish Communal Identity at the Crossroads: Early Jewish Responses to Canadian Multiculturalism, 1963-1965”. Studies in Religion, 40, 3, (2011), Pp. 283-292.

Menkis, Richard. “Negotiating Ethnicity, Regionalism and Historiography: Arthur A Chiel and the Jews of Manitoba: A Social History”. Canadian Jewish Studies, 10, (2002), Pp. 1 – 28.

Millar, Laura. “Discharging our Debt: The Evolution of the Total Archives Concept in English Canada”. Archivaria, 46, (1998), Pp. 103-146.

Millar, Laura. Archives: Principles and Practices. New York: Neal-Schuman, 2010.

Miller, Evelyn. “The History of the Montreal Jewish Public Library and Archives”. The Canadian Archivist, 2, 1, (1970), Pp. 49-55.

Momryk, Myron. “National Significance: The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies in the Manuscript Division, National Archives of Canada”. Archivaria, 52, (2001), Pp. 151-174.

Montgomery, Bruce. “Rescue or Return: The Fate of the Iraqi Jewish Archive”. International Journal of Cultural Property, 20, 2, (2013), Pp. 175 – 200.

Moore, Shaunna, and Pell, Susan. “Autonomous Archives”. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16, 4-5, (2010), Pp. 255 – 268.

Nesmith Tom. “Archival Studies in English Speaking Canada and the North American Rediscovery of provenance”, in Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, edited by Tom Nesmith, Pp. 1-28. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993.

Nesmith, Tom. “Archives from the Bottom Up: Social History and Archival Scholarship”. Archivaria. 14, (1982), Pp. 5-26.

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism in the American Humanities: Jewish Learning and the New Humanities. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.

Neutel, Walter. “Geschichte Wie Es Eigentlich Gewesen or The Necessity of Having Ethnic Archives Programmes”. Archivaria, 7, (1978), Pp. 104-109.

Nissimi, Hilda. “Heritage centres in Israel: Depositories of a lost identity?”. Jewish Culture and History, 15, 1-2, (2014), Pp. 55-75.

Official Opening, Samuel Bronfman House; Commemorating Fifty Years of Service by the Canadian Jewish Congress, Montreal, May 24, 1970. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress. 1970.

Ormond-Parker, Lyndon, and Sloggett, Robyn. “Local Archives and Community Collecting in the Digital Age”. Archival Science, 12, 2, (2012), Pp. 191 – 212.

Pathways to the present: Canadian Jewry and Canadian Jewish Congress. Toronto: Canadian Jewish Congress. 1986.

290

Perin, Roberto. “Clio as an Ethnic: The Third Force in Canadian Historiography”. The Canadian Historical Review, 64, 4, (1983), Pp. 441-467.

Pickard, Alison Jane. Research Methods in Information. Chicago: Neal-Schuman. 2013.

Posner, Ernst. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Uni. Press, 1972.

Public Archives of Canada, Annual Report 1972-73, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. 1974.

Rein, Dennis. “The Holdings of the Former Jewish Communities in Germany in the Central Archives for the Jewish People in Jerusalem, Review of the Various Communal Archives”. Arkhiyyon, 12, (2003), Pp. 58–78. [In Hebrew].

Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book I: The Official Languages. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1967.

Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1970.

Rhinewine, Abraham. Looking Back a Century on the Centennial of Jewish Political Equality in Canada. Toronto: Kraft Press, 1932.

Robinson, Ira. “The Invention of American Jewish History”. In Translating a Tradition, Studies in American Jewish History, Pp. 1-15. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008.

Robinson, Ira. “David Rome as an Historian of Canadian Jewry”. Canadian Jewish Studies, 3, (1995), Pp. 1-10.

Robson, Karen. “The Anglo-Jewish Community and its Archives”. Jewish Culture and History, 12, 1- 2, (2010), Pp. 337 – 344.

Roemer Nils. Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth Century Germany: Between History and Faith. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2005.

Rome, David. “Review of Michael, G. Brown Jew of Juif? Jews, French Canadians and Anglo- Canadians, 1759-1919”. American Jewish Archives, 41, 1, (1989), Pp. 100-108.

Rome, David. The Early Jewish Presence in Canada. Montreal: Bronfman Collection of Jewish Canadiana, 1971.

Rome, David. “Quebec – L’Actualite: The Cultural Aspect”. Viewpoints, 4, 3, (1969), Pp. 42-51.

Rome, David. Jews in Canadian Literature, a Bibliography. Montreal: Montreal Canadian Jewish Congress and Jewish Public Library, 1964.

Rome, David. “Canada’s Jews on Canvas of World Jewry”. Congress Bulletin, October 7th, 1948. Pp. 16-17.

291

Rome, David. Canadian Jewish Archives, An Address by David Rome, September 24th, 1940. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress. 1940.

Rome, David. The David A. Ansell Collection of the Archives of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Montreal: Archives Committee, Canadian Jewish Congress. 1940.

Rosen, Janice. “David Rome, The Omnivore of Jewish Canadiana”. Unpublished manuscript, ACJS Annual Conference, June 2nd 2008.

Rosenberg, Louis. Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada, 1760-1960. Montreal: Canadian Jewish Congress, Bureau of Social and Economic Research, 1961.

Rosenberg, Louis. Chronology of Canadian Jewish History. Montreal: National Bicentenary Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 1959.

Rosenberg, Michael, and Jedwab, Jack. “Institutional Completeness, Ethnic Organizational Style and the Role of the State: The Jewish, Italian and Greek Communities of Montreal”. Canadian Review of Sociology, 29, 3, (1992), Pp. 266-287.

Rosenberg, Stuart. “Canada: The Jewish Community”. In American Jewish Yearbook, 73, Pp. 393- 407. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1972.

Rosenberg, Stuart. “French Separatism: its Implications for Canadian Jewry”. In American Jewish Yearbook, 73, Pp. 407-427. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1972.

Rosenberg, Stuart. The Jewish Community in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1970.

Roskies, David, G. The Jewish Search for a Useful Past. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Rosman, Moshe. How Jewish is Jewish History?. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2010. [In Hebrew].

Sack, Benjamin G. History of the Jews in Canada. Montréal: Canadian Jewish Congress, 1945.

Sage, W. N. “Review of The First Two Years: A Record of the Jewish Pioneers on Canada’s Pacific Coast by David Rome”. The Canadian Historical Review, 24, 1, (March 1943), Pp. 73-74.

Sarna, Jonathan. “The Value of Canadian Jewish History to the American Jewish Historian and Vice-Versa”. Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 5, 1, (1981), Pp. 17-22.

Schenkolewski-Kroll, Silvia. “Jewish Archives and Archival Documents: Israel and the Diaspora”. Archival Science, 16, 3, (2016), Pp. 309-326.

Schonfeld, Stuart. “Jewish Identity in a Multicultural Canada: The Implications for Assimilation and Intermarriage”. In Canadian Jewry Today: Who’s Who in Canadian Jewry, edited by Edmond Y. Lipsitz, Pp. 92-98. Toronto: J.E.S.L Educational Products, 1989.

292

Sheffield, Rebecka. “Community Archives”. In Currents of Archival Thinking, edited by Heather MacNeil and Terry Eastwood, 2nd edition, Pp. 351-376. Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 2017.

Shepherd, Elizabeth. Archives and Archivists in 20th Century England. Farnham, Surrey, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009.

Singer, Lisa. “The Value of Community-Based Ethnic Archives: A Resource in Development”, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Manitoba, 1997.

Smith, Wilfred, I. “Total Archives: The Canadian Experience”. In Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, edited by Tom Nesmith, Pp. 133-150. Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow press, 1993.

Speisman, Stephen. “Antisemitism in Ontario: The Twentieth Century”, In Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation, edited by Alan Davies, Pp. 113-133. Waterloo, ON: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1992.

Speisman, Stephen. “The Keeping of Jewish Record in Ontario: Toronto Jewish Congress / Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region Archives”. Archivaria, 30, (1990), Pp. 160-162.

Speisman, Stephen. “Individual Responses to the Wilson Report”. Archivaria, 11, (1981), P. 30.

Speisman, Stephen. “Harry Gutkin: Journey into our heritage, A review”. Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal, 4, 2, (1980), Pp. 133-135.

Speisman, Stephen. The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979.

Speisman, Stephen. “Sack, B.G. Canadian Jews - Early in This Century. Reviewed by Stephen Speisman”. Jewish Historical Society of Canada Journal, 1, 1, (1977), Pp. 48-50.

Stein, Sarah Abrevaya. “Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Buried Troves: Decolonization and the Multi-Sited Archives of Algerian Jewish History”. The American Historical Review, 120, 3, (2015), Pp. 900-919.

Stoler, Laura Ann. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Swift, Michael. “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970s: Current Developments and Trends”. Archivaria, 15, (1982-1983), Pp. 47-57.

Swords, Pauline. “Politics, Heritage and Identity: Northern Ireland's Community Archives”. In Archives and Archivists 2, Current Trends and Voices, edited by Alisa Holland and Elizabeth Mullins, Pp. 98-113. Dublin, Portland, OR: Four courts, 2013.

293

Tapper, Lawrence. A Guide to Sources for the Study of Canadian Jewry - Guide des sources d'archives sur les juifs canadiens. Ottawa: National Ethnic Archives, Public Archives Canada, 1978.

Taylor, Hugh. “Canadian Archives: Patterns from a Federal Perspective”. Archivaria, 1, 2, (1976), Pp. 3-19.

The Jewish Museum of Western Canada Presents Journey into our Heritage; Sponsored by the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature and the Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada in Alloway Hall from October 1972 to March 1973. (Winnipeg: Jewish Museum of Western Canada. 1972).

Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010.

Troper, Harold. “The Canadian Jewish Polity and the Limits of Political Action: The Campaigns on Behalf of Soviet and Syrian Jews”. In Ethnicity, Politics, and Public Policy: Case Studies in Canadian Diversity, edited by Harold Troper and Morton Weinfeld, Pp. 224-252. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Troper, Harold and Morton Weinfeld. “Canadian Jews and Canadian Multiculturalism”, In Multiculturalism, Jews, and Identities in Canada, edited by Howard Adelman and John S. Simpson, Pp. 11-36. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1996.

Troper, Harold. “The Canadian Jewish Diaspora: A tale of Two Cities”, Canadian Issues, 2005, Pp. 17-19.

Troper, Harold. The Defining Decade: Identity, Politics and the Canadian Jewish Community in the 1960’s. Toronto: University Of Toronto Press, 2010.

Tulchinsky, Gerald. ”The Third Solitude: A.M. Klein’s Jewish Montreal, 1910-1950”. Journal of Canadian Studies, 19, 2, (1984), Pp. 96-112.

Tulchinsky, Gerald. Taking Root: The Origins of the Canadian Jewish Community. Toronto: Lester Publishing, 1992.

Tulchinsky, Gerald. “The Contours of Canadian Jewish History”. In The Jews in Canada, edited by Robert J. Brym, William Shaffir and Morton Weinfeld, Pp. 5-21. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Tulchinsky, Gerald. “The Jewish Experience in Ontario to 1960”. In Patterns of the Past: Interpreting Ontario’s History, edited by William Westfall, Laurel MacDowell and Roger Hall, Pp. 301-327. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1996.

Tulchinsky, Gerald. Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community. Toronto: Stoddart, 1998.

Veidlinger, Jeffrey. Jewish Public Culture in the Late Russian Empire. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009).

294

Vigod, Bernard. The Jews in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1984.

Wakimoto, Diana, Bruce, Christine, and Partridge, Helen. “Archivist as Activist: Lessons from Three Queer Community Archives in California”. Archival Science, 13, 4, (2013), Pp. 293-316.

Wegner, Beth. History Lessons, The Creation of American Jewish Heritage, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Weinfeld, Morton.” Introduction”. In Louis Rosenberg Canada’s Jews: A Social and Economic Study of Jews in Canada in the 1930, edited by Morton Weinfeld, Pp. xi-xxiii. Montreal, Buffalo: McGill- Queen's University Press. 1993.

Weinfeld, Morton. Like Everyone Else but Different: The Paradoxical Success of Canadian Jews. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2001.

Weld, Kirsten. Paper Cadavers: The Archives of Dictatorship in Guatemala. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.

Weller, Toni. The Victorians and Information: A Social and Cultural History. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2009.

Weller, Toni. Information History – An Introduction: Exploring an Emerging Field. Oxford: Chandos: 2008.

Williams, Caroline. “Records and Archives: Concepts, Roles and Definitions”, In Archives and Recordkeeping: Theory into Practice, edited by Caroline Brown, Pp. 1-30. London: Facet, 2014.

Wilson, Ian. “A Noble Dream: The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada”, In Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance, edited by Tom Nesmith, Pp. 61-84. Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993.

Wurl, Joel. “Ethnicity as Provenance: In Search of Values and Principles for Documenting the Immigrant Experience”. Archival Issues, 29, 1, (2005), Pp. 65-76.

Yale, Elizabeth. “The History of Archives: The State of the Discipline”. Book History, 18, (2015), Pp. 332-359.

Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982.

Zeff, David. “Archives”. American Jewish Yearbook, Volume 61, (1960), Pp. 151-154.